You Are an Ape

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChiCowboy, Sep 9, 2021.

  1. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude, unless you want to talk about something like new software applications which I do create and innovate I have to rely on what scientist publish. I am not in the position to excavated ancient fossils or make new discoveries. I defer to the experts of the field. They devote their life's work to it. For me it is just a passing interest, for them it is their profession. I would have to be pretty conceited to think that my knowledge in their field rivals their knowledge on the subject.
     
    Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  2. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @ChiCowboy You know when I replied to this thread I thought it was going to be one of those lite, simple, non partisan threads that would disappear shortly after I posted. Since posting I have been told to go to Chicago inner city to teach evolution and am still writing replies defending why I have no knowledge about ancient aliens manipulating pre-human DNA and have nothing meaningful to add to that subject. I think I am going to stick to politics where it is less controversial. :eek:
     
    Cosmo, fmw, Hey Now and 1 other person like this.
  3. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    22,931
    Likes Received:
    14,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, my first interest in the OP was how scientifically enlightening it is, using easily understandable terms.

    Religious beliefs are difficult to penetrate. Indeed, science was punished under Church rule.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. Flynn from Az

    Flynn from Az Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No offense, but are you serious?
    You stated a far fetched theory.
    I stated a more plausible one.
    You see the difference?
    Too seriously state that some how some gene mutation that you never even described some how had more too do with our brain development than diet, and other environmental factors is complete tripe.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
  5. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those all would have been good questions. But I see, from your next post, that you would have no interest in asking them:

    Sorry to bother you with non-expert facts. I would have sworn I'd read your opinions on politics, for example, maybe even on international relations. You realize that those fields also have people who make them, "their profession," called politicians & diplomats? They also, "devote their life's work," to these things. But apparently, creating & innovating software applications does qualify you to think that your, "knowledge in their field rivals their knowledge on the subject."

    In what other areas, as well? Potential military conflicts? Supreme Court cases? Other matters of law or regulation? Economics/the U.S. job market?
    Covid?

    But your, "conceit," doesn't stretch into anthropology. OK. Noted.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
  6. Flynn from Az

    Flynn from Az Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you read the last part of the post above, one would wonder if there is a serious lack of self awareness going on.
     
  7. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    22,931
    Likes Received:
    14,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    The Y-5 molar pattern. Seen today in chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and humans.

    [​IMG]

    The taxonomy of the apes (see Figure 2.7) has finally been updated. Until recently, humans were separated from the other great apes at the “family” level. All great apes are too closely related to be separated into different families. The lesser apes, i.e. the gibbons and siamangs of Southeast Asia, are still separated into their own family, the Hylobatidae. All of the great apes are now in the family Hominidae, formerly our exclusive domain. The orangutans come out at the subfamily level, leaving the African great apes in the subfamily Homininae. The gorillas have their own tribe, Gorillini (using the genus Gorilla to form the name) and if the chimps (genus Pan) are taken out of our tribe (Hominini), they are assigned the tribe Panini! I did not make that up! Some experts suggest that chimps and humans should be included in the same genus.

    Kanzi, the super bonobo at Sue Savage Rumbaugh’s lab:

    2. Primate Classification – The History of Our Tribe: Hominini (geneseo.edu)




     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make an interesting point but I think the difference is areas like politics, international relations, and the economy for example are much more conducive for opinion. These are areas but people are regularly exposed to and have to deal with. I have political opinions but then I have the ability to exercise my opinion or voice it and create change. I feel strong in such as technology or finance BUT I will also deffer to experts when expertise is necessary. For example I have 2 decade of experience programming and accessing Databases but database are still not my area of expertise. When we were discussing the deleted election files found by Cyber Ninjas I recognized the files as SQL DB files and NOT votes as was being proposed by many BUT I also differed to another poster who I know was a DBA for their much greater knowledge about DBs because I suspect the files were deleted by the DB itself. International relations is a mixed bag. I have opinion regarding China because I have done a fair bit of research on the area but again I would defer to the many people that have far greater expertise than me. Who am I to tell a private company or another government how to deal with China? BUT can I voice my opinion about our politicians? Certainly because we have the power to elect them and thus can rally for people that agree with my views. Can I express a view on tariffs? Sure because the impact of tariffs is a known quantity. The flow of events from imposing a tariff has limited outcomes where even someone like me can understand. If you place a tariff on solar panels their are foreseeable outcomes. You may have to speculate on the exact result but we have examples to draw upon or past events to compare too. Even if we know nothing about the subject we are able to refer to experts and their opinions. When you want to speculate about aliens tampering with our DNA I have nothing. No prior knowledge, no past dealings, no experience to draw upon. I do not even know a credible source to cite in place of my lack of knowledge. For me to comment or discuss would be pure speculation because I have nothing of substance to add.

    Science is a different matter. My understanding in fields like Biology, Physics, Chemistry or Archeology are so far behind and outdated that I can only hope to defer to the experts. I spent no real time reading trade journals or studying their research beyond what I read in consumer magazines or web articles. I will not even pretend to have any level of expertise in their field. In this very thread I said a number of times in reply to other posters that I have no knowledge of biology and my knowledge of human evolution is limited to the university courses I took over 25 years ago. I set the parameters of my limitations. I did not pretend to be a scientist and was even uncomfortable replying to any question biology related. If I don't feel comfortable discussing a topic like biology , (which I did take in school), how do you expect me to talk about aliens which I know absolutely nothing about other than what I have seen in science fiction movies and tv?
     
    Flynn from Az and ChiCowboy like this.
  9. Hey Now

    Hey Now Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want to know which alien race manipulated my ape azz. My soul wants to know too!
     
    Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  10. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    22,931
    Likes Received:
    14,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    University required or elective courses are all that are needed to understand natural selection, genetics and evolution. I wasn't sure if PO&B would be the best subforum, but I wanted to highlight Kitzmiller v Dover which was, to my knowledge, the final nail in the coffin for creationism being taught in public schools. It's been a settled, dead topic for 16 years. The trial took on a political tone, with the science/anti-science sides clearly defined, as they are now, which the thread indicates to a degree.

    I read Chariots of the Gods as a freshman in high school. I was fascinated by it, and it made much more sense than creationist myth, but I quickly realized it too, was myth.

    If we are the work of aliens, they've been very good at covering their tracks, and they sure made it look like we evolved.

    We don't know how the pyramids of Giza were built. Some people say aliens built them, as well. "Alien" may as well be a metaphor for God.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I AM serious. You don't believe that your brain size is determined by your genes? Why else would all humans have similarly-sized, and similarly-structured brains, if it were not encoded in our genome, seeing as human diets vary, considerably? As I'd said, diet is essential in allowing the brain to achieve its full capacity, but it is a falsehood to think that diet can supercede genetic programming, regarding the brain. I would be happy to retrieve a quote, but I wouldn't know where to quickly find such a basic-level fact. Do you think diet determines the size of your Johnson, as well?

    Maybe if we consider a person's height, as an analog. Your genes determine your maximum height. If you are under-nourished, you may not reach that height. But if that max height is, say, 5'10", it don't make a damn bit of difference how well you eat-- you're never gonna be 6'1".

    Does that clarify my point? Now one's brain is affected by how it is used. But, first of all, the material you quoted did not go into that at all. It only referenced, "environment," as far as its food supply. And, secondly, this variation between the most unthinking dullard, and the most brilliant, thought-obsessed, visionary, is relatively small, in comparison to the difference between human brains and those of other primates.

    I tried to be very clear & explicative, in my post. Yours, however, is anything but. For instance, you say that I never mention what brain mutation, "had more to do with our brain development than (did) diet." I was referring to the brain changes that I had highlighted IN YOUR POST. What are you saying, that you expect me to name the exact genes? No one could do that! But, we still know that our brain's structure, no less than our skeletal structure, is determined, foremost, by our genes. Have an insufficiency of certain nutrients, and your bones may be prone to fracture; but your arm sockets are still going to be in the same place, and your hip girdle, the same shape.

    I also had the earlier quoted material, about parts of the brain that were involved in both human religious experience, as well as allowed our species to live in larger groups, by increasing our sociability. Both of these posts were REPLIES TO YOU. In post#79, and post #84-- you can get the links for the full articles, there. But I will partially reproduce them here:
    How did Darwinian SELECTION work on the neuroanatomy of hominins to make them more social so they could generate cohesive social bonds to form primary groups?” he asked me on the phone. “That’s not a natural thing for apes.”
    <End SNIP>

    "Darwinian selection," is a reference to natural selection, which is central to the theory of evolution.
    <SNIP>

    So how did nature achieve this socialisation process? Turner says the key isn’t with what we typically think of as intelligence, but rather with the EMOTIONS, which was accompanied by some important changes to our brain structure. Although the neocortex figures prominently in many theories of the evolution of religion, Turner says the more important alterations concerned the subcortical parts of the brain, which gave hominins the capacity to experience a broader range of emotions. These enhanced emotions promoted bonding, a crucial achievement for the development of religion.


    The process of subcortical enhancement Turner refers to dates to about 4.5 million years ago, when the first Australopithecine emerged. Initially, says Turner, SELECTION INCREASED THE SIZE OF THEIR BRAINS about 100 cubic centimetres (cc) beyond that of chimpanzees, to about 450 cc (in Australopithecus afarensis). For the sake of comparison, this is smaller than later hominins – Homo habilis had a cranial capacity of 775 cc, while Homo erectus was slightly larger at 800-850. Modern humans, in contrast, boast a brain size much bigger than any of these, with a cranial capacity of up to 1,400 cc.
    <End Snip>

    Again, "selection," means natural selection, which is a greater reproductive success by members of a species with certain, genetic, traits. Is this what you are calling my, "far fetched theory?" Because-- FYI-- this is the theory of evolution. Did you see all the stuff about diet causing these changes in brain size & structure? No? That's because diet does not exercise the degree of control we are talking about here, to completely transform an organism!
     
  12. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wasn't sure if I was going to comment on the beginning of your last, ridiculous post. But then I noticed this one:
    For reference, here is that last part, of my post, he's talking about (without sending me an alert):
    So what you think of as your clever comment, is a suggestion that I must be conceited. But do you see those little marks, just before & after the word, "conceit?" Those are called, "quotation marks," and they indicate, generally, that what is in-between them, is somebody else's words. That is the case, here. If you had the ability to process more than tiny bits of information at a time, as I had imagined you did, you should have realized that this was my sarcastic response to cristiansoldier's post, since he had suggested that for him to have any opinion on anthropology would be, "conceit(ed)" of him, since he was not an expert in that field. I had pointed out in the rest of my reply, leading up to my closing, that there are many other topics, on which he does offer his opinions, though those also have their experts, with whom he will even disagree, despite having no better claim to expert status, than he does on anthropology which, for both of your information, is the study of MAN (so I would think he'd have as good of a basis for comment, as on any of the other topics).

    But for you to call me conceited, just for expressing an opinion-- which I did not even claim to be definitive of the "truth"-- on a debate forum, really takes the cake, when it comes to, "a serious lack of self-awareness." FYI-- those words at the end of the last sentence (in-between those little marks, again), are your words, about me. The ironic sarcasm, in this case, is that you are also on this debate forum, offering your opinion on a host of topics, for which there are much better qualified people to opine on. Yet, apparently, you see no conceit in offering up your non-conventional beliefs on history, for example, despite not being an historian, in all likelihood. Or criticizing Supreme Court decisions, though it is doubtful you even have a degree in Constitutional Law.

    Just to be clear, I had no problem with that, as I was under the impression that this was just the sort of thing a debate forum was for; not for us to simply post, "expert," opinions, and have the rest of the membership chime in, "Oh, so true!" But for you to do something yourself, on all manner of topics, then to imply that I am conceited to do the same thing, i.e., have my own opinion, on a topic in which you personally, don't feel confident speculating, well that is known as being a HYPOCRITE. And I would rather be conceited, or almost anything, than to be one of those.

    I think I'll pass on explaining how useless the opening to your other post was-- what's the point?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
  13. Rampart

    Rampart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    why haven't wolves evolved? in 10,000 years the dog has evolved into bulldogs and beagles, yet wolves are still loping about the forest killing deer ...
     
  14. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Humans intervened and took control of breeding dogs, and that's where all the breeds came from: we forced them out.
     
  15. Flynn from Az

    Flynn from Az Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2021
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You seem to be struggling with basic level reading.
    It’s cool that you can post a bunch of long winded nonsense that rarely if ever amounts too much. Next, there’s you, and there’s evolutionary scientists that state that diet played a important role in the evolution of our brain, or your incoherent ramblings.
    This is not a hard choice, when it comes to what’s the more plausible explanation of how the human brain involved.
     
  16. joesnagg

    joesnagg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    5,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Poor apes....guess Biden will mandate that apes in zoos of a certain size must be "voluntarily" vaccinated for dread Covid, or voluntarily return to the jungle and fend for themselves.....but hey, it's all "VOLUNTARY" baby! :roll:
     
  17. Rampart

    Rampart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    do you think humans gave been breeding humans for equal time? maybe more?
     
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,132
    Likes Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The term species denotes creatures that can breed and produce viable offspring. You can put a question mark after that but biologists don't.

    Yes there are rare exceptions such as the mule which is a hybrid of a male donkey and a female horse. While donkeys and horses are of different species they could have been classified as the same species under the genus equus. Mules are almost always unable to reproduce at all so it is probably better that their parents were classified into separate species. The mule also has its own species even though breeding them is basically impossible. The African donkey and Asian horse never encountered each other in nature until humans brought them together and launched the hybrid. Classifying the hybrid is sometimes a challenge to taxonomists.

    What you brought up is an anomaly, not of nature, but of the human classification of organisms.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look, you've lived on this planet, haven't you? Are you then, aware of Nature's amazing ability to find a balance, among all the organisms sharing a habitat? With one HUGE exception. Do you need a biologist, to tell you what species is that exception, the one species that does not fit the narrative of any other species on the planet? Actually, it was an unfair condition, I placed on the question, to first ask if you've lived on this planet, because any intelligent visitor would be able to quickly identify the one species that exists in a unique way, on Earth, that does not fit it's own piece, into its natural niche. So for anthropologists to tell us that species developed exactly as did everything else, and nonetheless turned out completely differently, well, it shouldn't require one to be an accomplished chef, to be able to know when something just doesn't smell right.

    I believe we are more akin to other animals than man has long believed, and even still tends to think, is the case. But there is no denying that huge divide, either. It is as if you put your muffin tray into the oven and, when you pulled it out, all the tins bore resemblance to one another, except for one which, instead of a muffin, had a leg of mutton sticking out of it. If you really need to get the confirmation of a certified Baker, to be sure that this one tin doesn't match, with the others, that's your business.

    But what is beyond me, is your feeling that everyone else should realize that you are not going to express any opinion, other than whatever you believe the "experts," believe. This is, after all, not some academic lecture website, or networking site for specific professionals; it is a debate forum. Personally, if your intention is to not post a single, original thought, on a topic, I don't see why you are posting on that thread, to begin with (instead of just reading it). But hey, whatever floats your boat. Still, when someone, like me, notes your reluctance to engage on certain ideas, how do you not understand that what would clarify things would be your explaining, "Oh, in this subject, I only like to reiterate what I believe to be consensus, scientific opinion?" Instead, you begin so often with phrases of confusion: "I do not know..." "I do not think..."
    * That is exactly what both science does, and what one would expect to happen upon a debate thread topic. Hell, that even happens when we have hard, factual data on an event or phenomenon of the present-- an election, a vaccine, etc.-- much less something from millions of years ago, that can never be more than an educated guess.

    And note, even though there are reasons to wonder why things proceeded so differently for our species, & no good reasons to explain the disparities, science does not openly admit it is unsure of anything. And, in fact, those scientists are not unsure. But that is not a result of their having a better understanding of the facts-- again, take a quick look around, do not humans stand out as oddly out of place, in their evolution, as compared to all other animal species, even our, "closest," relatives-- it is an unwillingness to look into ideas that are very speculative, difficult to prove, and would likely be met with derision, because they would be difficult for most to accept. So it would be more accurate to say that they are more comfortable being sure that there's nothing too terribly different going on with us.

    The next time it's a topic that you don't feel competent, or "conceited," enough, if you prefer, to consider with your own mind, and weigh-in on, with your own impressions, it would make things a lot less messy if you just said so, directly, instead of trying to act like you had some knowledge, or at least an opinion, on the subject.

    I'll end with a case in point:

    I don't know where you get your info, but it absolutely IS known that Homo sapiens & Neanderthals interbred. Something like up to 4% of our DNA comes from them.


     
  20. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What?
     
  21. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    1,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's how far I got before I realized that you had nothing of any value, insight, intelligence, or probably even truth, to say, so it wasn't worth my time to continue reading. Hope you didn't work too hard on whatever load of crap followed.
     
  22. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,357
    Likes Received:
    4,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evolution is discredited from the get go. It has no legs. You can sit there and nod in agreement with the man who calls your Mother an ape....to your face. And you can ignore the fact that all of nature is bound to abide its laws, while man sees good from evil, and may choose to abide or not the commandment to do good. Which is a clear delineation between man and nature. And you can join the faithless search for God in the name of science, and pretend that it is astute, when it is in fact the abandonment of reason for the collection of self serving data. And you can then pontificate the findings for glory while your Mother yet weeps, honor sullied, and her Son drawn away into a network of strange paths. Nothing changes but the increase of darkness in the gaining of a knowledge which will never identify origin or God. Evolution begins with an insult, closes its eyes to the obvious, plies curiosity and naivete, flatters vanity, and leads faithlessness on an endless search, using bread crumbs for the whole purpose of control and vying to destroy. The theory of evolution to give foundation, purpose, and direction to mankind is a con job. For a man to call my Mother an ape, would make me an ass to believe it. Mankind is neither an evolution nor aberration of nature. We are created different with dominion over nature, just as over our own selves.
     
    Mitt Ryan likes this.
  23. Espinoza

    Espinoza Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2021
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Actually Neil deGrasse Tyson now says that everything was created by God, though he calls God a computer programmer
     
  24. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    " Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."
    - Herbert Spencer-
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  25. Espinoza

    Espinoza Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2021
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Actually the theory of evolution where DNA created itself from nothing in a sterile pond is also not supported by any facts at all. If it were then this process would still be happening and it clearly is not
     

Share This Page