Evolution vs. Creation controversy

[fontaine]

of course we did, the absurd outcome is there is no way u can live in a state of mind where all the absurd things ppl can think of have to be given some kind of equal weight between belief/disbelief. nor should it be pointed out that science, or even common sense ever have a person operate this way. its only in this one lil bizarre world of theists trying to play relativistic games w/ atheists that such a silly idea is even proposed.

and I'm pretty sure god's existance is beyond mere historical context:).

That conclusion really depends on what model of the universe is accurate. If it is expanding and infinite or with parallel universes. Anyways I think we're straying from the main point.

If God's existence is beyond mere historical context then how can you classify it as an absurd assumption or outcome?

I see the argument you're trying to make here but I think it's isolated to, like you said, all the absurd things ppl can think of.

So why apply that line of thought to an age old common belief?

[yavoon]

That conclusion really depends on what model of the universe is accurate. If it is expanding and infinite or with parallel universes. Anyways I think we're straying from the main point.

If God's existence is beyond mere historical context then how can you classify it as an absurd assumption or outcome?

I see the argument you're trying to make here but I think it's isolated to, like you said, all the absurd things ppl can think of.

So why apply that line of thought to an age old common belief?

what common belief? u mean ur equating ur god to zeus atop mount olympus? or animism? or buddhists who dont even have a god?

meh, I use to love arguing this stuff. but somehow since all my religious arguments now surround raping and killing and amputating ppl's hands esoteric intellectual arguments like this are an oddity.

it reminds me of how I use to think of martyrs. when I was growing up a martyr was like jesus, or like those buddhists who lit themselves on fire in protest. now a martyr is a guy who walks into a coffee shop and tries to kill as many ppl as he can.

its just weird to go back.

[fontaine]

what common belief? u mean ur equating ur god to zeus atop mount olympus? or animism? or buddhists who dont even have a god?

meh, I use to love arguing this stuff. but somehow since all my religious arguments now surround raping and killing and amputating ppl's hands esoteric intellectual arguments like this are an oddity.


Not equating my God to zeus etc but the concept of God to rule it out as an absurd concept. By the way I don't disagree with the argument you're making here in reference to pink elephants, I just don't see how it applies to God or the concept of God since I don't classify it as an absurd one.

Maybe you do?

it reminds me of how I use to think of martyrs. when I was growing up a martyr was like jesus, or like those buddhists who lit themselves on fire in protest. now a martyr is a guy who walks into a coffee shop and tries to kill as many ppl as he can.

its just weird to go back

Makes you really wonder how we measure a civilized society. Having spent a lot of time with Buddhists when I was growing up, I can see the point behind self immolation but I hate seeing it since in a way they are helping out the Chinese government.

[CrazyCoffey]

do you donk fans hold value in shocking each other?

I didn't read all the posts but I'm getting a weird feeling......


OK, so the majority of the people voting think we evolved. I'm willing to be open minded, if you can share with me how the sunset is so beautiful and warming. Why are humans the only animal to show evolution over the last thousand years? communication between dogs haven't evolved, they barked a hundred years ago and they still bark today.

Buddhist don't have a god, that's true, but they are a variation of Hinduism, just like Christianty is a variation of Judasim. to that matter both Jews and Muslim trace their religious heritage to the same "one true god". Zeus never left greece, so I fail to see the comparision of Greed methology among the world's major religions.

But I digress. The question is about evolution. I don't see our world, the trees, the seas - the mountains or valleys - the love or hate of human actions; as all being a big coincidence. That idea seems more improbable than evolution - the theory of coincidence.

[Bronco Bob]

OK, so the majority of the people voting think we evolved. I'm willing to be open minded, if you can share with me how the sunset is so beautiful and warming. Why are humans the only animal to show evolution over the last thousand years? communication between dogs haven't evolved, they barked a hundred years ago and they still bark today.



Seriously, you need to better educate yourself.

[Bronco Bob]

Well, how you feel is not really in my control so that's not up to me. I think you are trying to overly simplify the issue of belief or lack of it. I think it's a very complex issue. Let's talk about concrete examples. 40 years ago marine biologists etc were sure that a particular species of fish was extinct because of widespread ancients fossils found of this animal. But just recently they discovered living examples of this fish (coelcanth?) and what do you know so that little bastard hadn't been extinct after all.



Actually it wasn't all that recently. The first living coelacanth was found in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.

[bdv]

Is this why you don't believe in God or an afterlife?
May I jump in and answer this question?...


First, Carl Sagan's famous quote: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

There lacks any proof, let alone extraordinary proof, for the existence of the supernatural or any of the 100,000 deities which have been believed to be real. In tern, I lack any belief in such things.

Next, the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim. Especially when that claim is extraordinary.

But no one will prove these claims for me. The supernaturalists just make assertions with nothing at all to back it up.

"Imagine there's no heaven..."
-Tim
Sure you can jump in. I believe in God because I happened to find proof. Purely statiscal, mathematical proof.

But I fail to see how I have to supply that proof to anyone else who chooses not to believe in God. I make no claims on anyone else's faith or lack of it. That's their choice. If it's good enough for them then so be it.

What I do find interesting is how one side, say atheists, put the burden of proof on the other. Which in my opinion is a cop out.

Let me give you an example: Considering that humanity has spent all it's existence worshipping some sort of God(s), wouldn't you think that claiming God doesn't exist is a far more extraordinary claim?

Somewhat like Galileo. At a time when most of the scholars believed in a geocentric view of the Universe, with models/diagrams and visual proof to back that up, Galileo took a different stance that was revolutionary and contrary. The burden of proof rested on him to prove the majority wrong no?

Both sides are taking a stand without much proof in my opinion which is another way of saying that neither of them know for sure. Well, let me correct that, at least Christians seem to have the cohones to claim some sort of proof through the Bible, historical landmarks and Roman records etc so there's a start.

Sure you can jump in. I believe in God because I happened to find proof. Purely statiscal, mathematical proof.
For something to be a known truth it has to be testable and falsifiable. Before we continue, please tell me how I could hypothetically prove your belief to be false?

If you could really supply such proof I'd be much obliged. I'd like to collect the $1,000,000 from the Amazing Randi:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

But I fail to see how I have to supply that proof to anyone else who chooses not to believe in God. I make no claims on anyone else's faith or lack of it. That's their choice. If it's good enough for them then so be it.

Just like I personally don't have to supply you with proof of dark matter, you don't personally have to prove the supernatural. But it would be nice if you or someone could point in the right direction.

Next, it should be noted that I don't "choose" to not believe in a god. "Choosing" beliefs about reality has been the result of more errors and horrors throughout history than I could possibly count. I've said many times, if we are brave, we should never choose what to believe, we should instead discover what is most likely to be true.

What I do find interesting is how one side, say atheists, put the burden of proof on the other. Which in my opinion is a cop out.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

Let me give you an example: Considering that humanity has spent all it's existence worshipping some sort of God(s), wouldn't you think that claiming God doesn't exist is a far more extraordinary claim?
Yes. But I don't make positive claims like that. Only a small percentage of atheists would make the illogical claim to know that there is not any sort of supreme being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Also, whether "humanity has spent its existence worshipping some sort of god(s)" is an argument ad populum and an appeal to history - both logical fallacies.

Assume humans evolved: can you think of reasons why a "god part of the brain" (title of a book) may have evolved along with us? Must've been scary and confusing in prehistory; being smart enough to perceive the forces of nature, the dangers around you, your impending death. Must've been sad, too. Millions of years of evolution, the animal abhors death when confronted with it, but is not constantly aware of it the way modern humans are. It's no wonder we evolved this coping mechanism known as religion. It is not a surprise that the majority of humans are, in one way or another, theists. It's part of our ontology.

Humanity has also spent its existence believing in astrology - in one form or another. What would you say to an astrologist who said, "it's been believed in for ever, so it's your job to prove it wrong"? You might say, "you are making a positive claim regarding astrology, while I sit here absent a belief in astrology, it is up to you to prove your claim." By the way, are you an astrologist or are you an a-astrologist (i.e. non-astrologist)?

Somewhat like Galileo. At a time when most of the scholars believed in a geocentric view of the Universe, with models/diagrams and visual proof to back that up, Galileo took a different stance that was revolutionary and contrary. The burden of proof rested on him to prove the majority wrong no?
Logically, it was incumbent on Galileo to prove his assertions, not because he was going against the beliefs people "chose" to hold in his day, but because HE was making the assertion. I make no supernatural assertion. I simply wait for your supernatural assertions to be proven. For as long as the supernatural remains unproved, it should remain unbelieved - i.e. an absence of belief, not to be confused with disbelief.

Both sides are taking a stand without much proof in my opinion which is another way of saying that neither of them know for sure.
For reasons mentioned above, I am not "taking a stand" in the sense that you are speaking of. I do take the stand that the supernaturalists have failed to prove their extraordinary claim. Speaking of which, your claim that you communicate with supernatural spirit beings that don't obey the laws of nature, etc. etc. is indeed NOT an ordinary claim. It, therefore, necessitates special proof.

Well, let me correct that, at least Christians seem to have the cojones to claim some sort of proof through the Bible, historical landmarks and Roman records etc so there's a start.
So you really want me to try and prove that there's nothing supernatural anywhere in any universe? Now how could someone prove such a thing? That's why I say, theism has not been, and never will be disproved, though after thousands of years it does still remain unproved.

It doesn't take cojones to believe you're going to never really die, that, in fact, you're going to live in "a better place" for eternity. It takes cojones to face ones mortality.

Thus far I've been primarily speaking to the general deistic idea of the supernatural and deities, responding to the following:
humanity has spent all it's existence worshipping some sort of God
However, if you claim the bible to be inerrant, this can be disproved. For example, ...how many kills? 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) or 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11)? Look it up (http://www.biblegateway.com/)... Also, it is very easy to disprove the early chapters of Genesis.

The inerrancy of the bible and the Genesis account of creation vs. a generalized claim of the supernatural and a supreme being illustrates the difference between claims which are testable and claims which are not.

So, do you want to focus on a fundamentalist-perfect-god-inspired-inerrant-biblical version of Christianity, or the more general idea of whether or not a supernatural realm of some sort exists? Or, specifically, what?


As for the Christian bible?...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

[fontaine]

For something to be a known truth it has to be testable and falsifiable. Before we continue, please tell me how I could hypothetically prove your belief to be false?

If you could really supply such proof I'd be much obliged. I'd like to collect the $1,000,000 from the Amazing Randi:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html



Fair enough. But I'm not looking for what I believe to be true to be testable and falsifiable for the entire world. If it's not good enough that you take my word for it then why bother since I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else. That's why I said I found proof for myself and no one else.



Just like I personally don't have to supply you with proof of dark matter, you don't personally have to prove the supernatural. But it would be nice if you or someone could point in the right direction.

Yes that's true enough. What if I said that through reading the Bible and by having faith I came to a realization that I could never truely prove it to myself beyond a shadow of doubt. But I viewed the matter as black and white. Either God exists or it doesn't. No in betweens. And with that in mind I asked for some proof through prayer and statistically it was provided to me immediately.


Next, it should be noted that I don't "choose" to not believe in a god. "Choosing" beliefs about reality has been the result of more errors and horrors throughout history than I could possibly count. I've said many times, if we are brave, we should never choose what to believe, we should instead discover what is most likely to be true.

I completely agree and I didn't mean to imply that your choice was devoid of any such logic. I was merely trying to ascertain what was behind your stance. If you have come to your conclusions with a logical through process then fair enough that's what I want to know. How you arrived to said conclusion. Hence my original question.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Also, whether "humanity has spent its existence worshipping some sort of god(s)" is an argument ad populum and an appeal to history - both logical fallacies.

Assume humans evolved: can you think of reasons why a "god part of the brain" (title of a book) may have evolved along with us? Must've been scary and confusing in prehistory; being smart enough to perceive the forces of nature, the dangers around you, your impending death. Must've been sad, too. Millions of years of evolution, the animal abhors death when confronted with it, but is not constantly aware of it the way modern humans are. It's no wonder we evolved this coping mechanism known as religion. It is not a surprise that the majority of humans are, in one way or another, theists. It's part of our ontology.

Humanity has also spent its existence believing in astrology - in one form or another. What would you say to an astrologist who said, "it's been believed in for ever, so it's your job to prove it wrong"? You might say, "you are making a positive claim regarding astrology, while I sit here absent a belief in astrology, it is up to you to prove your claim." By the way, are you an astrologist or are you an a-astrologist (i.e. non-astrologist)?

You have some great points. To be honest with you I'm not on either side of this debate (where the burden of proof lies). I can understand your viewpoint that anyone making a positive claim should back it up and to a certain extent various religious bodies have tried but then that proof is questioned and so on, so on. I was just curious if there is a body of evidence for the other side in atheism.

To answer your question I never believed in astrology and think it's a bunch of crap! But I can honestly say that's more a result of personal preference.
Ha!

Logically, it was incumbent on Galileo to prove his assertions, not because he was going against the beliefs people "chose" to hold in his day, but because HE was making the assertion. I make no supernatural assertion. I simply wait for your supernatural assertions to be proven. For as long as the supernatural remains unproved, it should remain unbelieved - i.e. an absence of belief, not to be confused with disbelief.

That's one way to look at it.

For reasons mentioned above, I am not "taking a stand" in the sense that you are speaking of. I do take the stand that the supernaturalists have failed to prove their extraordinary claim. Speaking of which, your claim that you communicate with supernatural spirit beings that don't obey the laws of nature, etc. etc. is indeed NOT an ordinary claim. It, therefore, necessitates special proof.

I used to believe that. But since I found proof I don't think it's made a huge difference to my beliefs which are the same as they were before.

So you really want me to try and prove that there's nothing supernatural anywhere in any universe? Now how could someone prove such a thing? That's why I say, theism has not been, and never will be disproved, though after thousands of years it does still remain unproved.

No I don't want you to prove anything or the sort, I think you've got it right in your last statement when it comes to general theology vs personal belief.

However, if you claim the bible to be inerrant, this can be disproved. For example, ...how many kills? 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) or 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11)? Look it up (http://www.biblegateway.com/)... Also, it is very easy to disprove the early chapters of Genesis.

The inerrancy of the bible and the Genesis account of creation vs. a generalized claim of the supernatural and a supreme being illustrates the difference between claims which are testable and claims which are not.

So, do you want to focus on a fundamentalist-perfect-god-inspired-inerrant-biblical version of Christianity, or the more general idea of whether or not a supernatural realm of some sort exists? Or, specifically, what?


As for the Christian bible?...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

No, I completely believe the Bible has mistakes both in translations and fundamental bias in it's authors and through the process of documenting oral history.

I do believe in Christianity though and do have faith in the Christian God but at the same time I acknowledge that categorizing God into a conformed set of ideas and rules (via a religion like Christianity) is essentially placing limitations on God and trying to understand him through a mortal/human perspective. I can't think of a greater paradox. To try and define and hence limit the limitless. That's why I try not to force my line of thinking on anyone else's beliefs. Whatever you believe is good enough for you as long as you've come to that conclusion through some sort of thought process rather than saying generic stuff like I don't believe in God because religions cause wars etc.

[bdv]

No, I completely believe the Bible has mistakes both in translations and fundamental bias in it's authors and through the process of documenting oral history.

I do believe in Christianity though and do have faith in the Christian God but at the same time I acknowledge that categorizing God into a conformed set of ideas and rules (via a religion like Christianity) is essentially placing limitations on God and trying to understand him through a mortal/human perspective. I can't think of a greater paradox. To try and define and hence limit the limitless. That's why I try not to force my line of thinking on anyone else's beliefs. Whatever you believe is good enough for you as long as you've come to that conclusion through some sort of thought process rather than saying generic stuff like I don't believe in God because religions cause wars etc.

You are no fun AT ALL! :cuss:

Seriously, your brand of theism makes more sense than any I can think of. I can think of a lot of things a god could do to prove he exists. He could rearrange the stars into a message of some sort, perform other major miracles, or, he could simply create an internal experience that I would be unable to deny.

As an atheist I worry about that last option, due to the risk that the experience may only be a normal, natural, religious hallucination (for lack of a better word). But if I truly believed it based on internal reasons, I would respond just as you did.

[fontaine]

You are no fun AT ALL! :cuss:

Seriously, your brand of theism makes more sense than any I can think of. I can think of a lot of things a god could do to prove he exists. He could rearrange the stars into a message of some sort, perform other major miracles, or, he could simply create an internal experience that I would be unable to deny.

As an atheist I worry about that last option, due to the risk that the experience may only be a normal, natural, religious hallucination (for lack of a better word). But if I truly believed it based on internal reasons, I would respond just as you did.

Yes, my experience was the last one you mentioned there. So as I said I don't feel my proof - no matter how statistically valid and legitimate it was to me because of the sheer odds involved - should be used to proof God's existence to other people who might have a skeptical view point. I view God as limitless possibility, or the infinite so while major religions like Christianity attempt to define the infinite by doing so it's only trying to put God into a box etc. For example, if you are an atheist, various Christian denominations would indicate that you are going to hell. I think that's absurd.

For all I know God could be completely happy with atheists and grant their wishes after they die (ie they cease to exist in the spiritual sense), whereas someone like me who believes otherwise would have to measure up to a whole different set of criteria for whatever lies beyond.

[Bronco Bob]

No, I completely believe the Bible has mistakes both in translations and fundamental bias in it's authors and through the process of documenting oral history.




Interestingly so did Mohammed. Which is why Islam was founded, to correct
the mistakes in the Bible that had entered into it through the centuries.


I do believe in Christianity though and do have faith in the Christian God

Maybe you should consider being a Muslim instead of a Christian if you have
doubts about the accuracy of the Christian Bible.

[bendog]

All I know is that I cannot, I simply cannot, be related to this. I may look like it, but I just can't be related to it.

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/html/chimpanzee/feeding/thumbnails/AW_Chimp05.jpg

[fontaine]

Interestingly so did Mohammed. Which is why Islam was founded, to correct
the mistakes in the Bible that had entered into it through the centuries.

Maybe you should consider being a Muslim instead of a Christian if you have
doubts about the accuracy of the Christian Bible.

No, like I said I have faith, even with the Bible's flaws.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe the Bible is completely mistake free since it was inspired by the divine?

And if you belive so then do you practice your faith in such manner?

[Bronco Bob]

No, like I said I have faith, even with the Bible's flaws.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe the Bible is completely mistake free since it was inspired by the divine?

And if you belive so then do you practice your faith in such manner?

Which Bible, the King James version, the Catholic Bible, the Good News Bible?
The Koran?
Even in Christianity there are so many versions the only ones who think
their version of the Bible is the valid one are the one of the denomination
that use that Bible.

[Rohirrim]

All I know is that I cannot, I simply cannot, be related to this. I may look like it, but I just can't be related to it.

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/html/chimpanzee/feeding/thumbnails/AW_Chimp05.jpg

DNA don't tell no lies. ;D

[alkemical]

Creationist museum challenges evolution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6549595.stm)

Creationist museum challenges evolution
By Martin Redfern
BBC News, Kentucky, USA


For some a battle between science and religion is being fought for the soul of America. The Creationists argue God created the world in six days and want their beliefs given equal status to evolutionary science.


Petersburg, Kentucky, is in the middle of North America. It is supposedly within a day's drive of two-thirds of the US population.
For the rest, it is just 10 minutes from Cincinnati International Airport. That is why it was picked as the site for a new museum, due to open in a couple of months.

We enter the landscaped grounds through gates flanked by wrought iron stegosaurs.

The lobby is modelled on a cliff in the Grand Canyon. But this is no ordinary museum of science and geology.

It is the dream of Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that promotes the idea that the Biblical book of Genesis should be taken literally in describing the creation of the world, life and humans as carried out by God over a six-day period a few thousand years ago.

We get as far as the museum bookshop - already well-stocked with creationist titles - but no further.

Officials tell us that state regulations forbid it. It is still under construction and closed to visitors.


In the card game of creationism, the Bible trumps science every time
Eugenie Scott

Is this, I wonder, because I am accompanied by Eugenie Scott, director of the National Centre for Science Education and a polite but determined campaigner against attempts to teach creationism alongside evolution in American school science classes.
Sharp teeth

So, it is round the back to the offices, to receive Ken Ham's crushingly sincere handshake.

He came to the US from Australia 20 years ago, founded Answers in Genesis and never left.

He lectures or broadcasts almost daily and clearly has the charisma to raise $27m (£14m) for this ambitious museum.

He is also not afraid to show us what is inside, and turns on the animatronic dinosaurs.


On a rocky ledge, there is a pair of small theropods - young T. rex individuals, we're told. And near to them ("hold onto your hat", says Ken, anticipating our disbelief) there are two human children playing by a stream.
Most geologists would say humans and dinosaurs were separated by more than 60 million years. And those dinosaurs have very sharp teeth!

"So do bears", says Ken, "but they eat nuts and berries! Remember, before the sin of Adam, the world was perfect. All creatures were vegetarian." One of the dinosaurs lets out a rather contradictory roar.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but what annoys Eugenie Scott is the way in which the received wisdom of Genesis is given equal or higher status to scientific evidence; and the way in which the latter is used selectively.

"In the card game of creationism, the Bible trumps science every time," she says.

But in her game, science is dealt a hand that is purely materialistic. Ideas of a supernatural being belong in a different game, be it philosophy or theology.


As we prepare to leave, Eugenie Scott quietly slips a panda glove puppet from her handbag and photographs it among the dinosaurs.
It is introduced to me as Professor Steve Steve. Creationists are fond of lists of "scientists who doubt Darwin".

Many thousands more support evolution, but rather than play the same game, Eugenie has parodied the lists by concentrating on scientists named Steve (Stephanies are also eligible).

So far, more than 700 have signed up. Their mascot is a panda because of a notorious creationist text entitled "Of Pandas and People".

Steve was picked in honour of the late evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould. Steve Steve because - well, all pandas have double names.

Noah's Ark

Much of the Creation Museum in Kentucky is still under construction and we were not able to go on to see the section through Noah's Ark or the model of the Grand Canyon.

Instead, we visited the real thing - the Canyon, not the Ark!


For the creationists, Noah's flood IS science


Grand Canyon park guides will tell you that the canyon took more than a million years to form and cuts through rocks that span more than a billion years.
Not so, say "Young Earth" creationists. All those rocks were deposited by flood waters at the time of Noah.

Though the Bible does not mention them directly, Ken Ham thinks there is no reason to suppose that dinosaurs were not still around at the time of the flood.

Indeed, he speculates that two of each may have been taken aboard the Ark (newly hatched dinosaurs are quite small so fitting them in would not have been a problem).

And what about the animals from other continents? Did Noah sail to Australia to drop off the kangaroos?

No, the flood waters lubricated a process called runaway subduction in which the continents subsequently drifted apart at a sprint!

Challenged with this scenario, a uniformed park guide says that, while everyone is entitled to their belief, he prefers to stick to accepted science.

For the creationists, Noah's flood IS science.

For them, the Canyon is a gash in the surface of the Earth left by that flood, representing the wrath of God against the sins of mankind.

Here at least, sin and anger have turned into something surprisingly beautiful!

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 14 April, 2007 at 1130 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Three Ways to Listen From Our Own Correspondent

[alkemical]

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3222942&page=1

Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

By JOHN BERMAN
May 29, 2007 —


The Great Ape Trust in Des Moines, Iowa, is home to seven bonobos -- a close relative of the chimpanzee -- and three orangutans. But if you think Iowa might be a strange place for them to live, don't say it out loud & these apes understand English.


Really. No kidding.


Watch John Berman's interview with a bonobo tonight on "World News With Charles Gibson"



You can talk to the apes, and they know what you are saying.


The residents of the Great Ape Trust are part of groundbreaking language research where the apes are being taught to communicate with humans by pressing 350 lexigrams -- symbols that appear on a screen and represent thoughts and objects.


The superstar is 26-year-old Kanzi, whom Bill Fields has been working with for years. To communicate, Fields speaks to Kanzi, who then points to the lexigrams to respond and demonstrate a level of understanding.

"Qualitatively, there is no difference between Kanzi's language and my language," Fields said. "It's a matter of degree."


The key to ensuring they grasp the language, the researchers said, is to start teaching them when they are young, just like you would with human babies.


"Language is culturally acquired. Its not learned," said Fields. "It's acquired in the immediate postnatal antogyny of the organisms life. The only organism capable of learning language are babies."


They've been communicating with bonobos through the keyboard for almost three years, relying on a technique developed in 1971 and also used at the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University and other facilities.


At the Great Ape Trust, researchers said the apes would likely never be able to vocalize words like humans; they are limited by the range of their vocal chords among other things.


However, Fields swears he has heard Kanzi try to say "thank you."



'Surprise' From an Interview With an Ape

When they begin to work with the apes, some pick up the vocabulary quickly while others never acquire the language.


Rob Shumaker has known Azy, a majestic, huge male orangutan, for more than 20 years. He talks to Azy, just like he would speak to one of his children, or a longtime friend.


"When I'm around them we just kind of talk normally," he explained. "I use my normal vocabulary, my normal voice my normal gestures."


Sound beyond belief? During a visit to the Great Ape Trust, I sat down with Kanzi the Bonobo -- the first Ape I have ever interviewed.


I read Kanzi a series of words, and then without fail, he hit the corresponding lexigram symbol on a touch screen.


I said "Egg."


He pressed "Egg."


I said, "M and M."


He pressed "M and M."


Then Kanzi took control of the conversation and pressed the symbol for "Surprise!"


Needless to say, I was quite surprised, having never actually spoken to an ape before.


But Kanzi was pointing to a box of candy that I was sitting near. That is the surprise that he wanted.


Moments like this are proof that these conversations help scientists learn about apes, from the apes themselves.


"If we have some common means of communicating with each other," said Shumaker , " we suddenly have exponentially large number of topics that we can explore."


"It allows Kanzi to tell me if his stomach hurts, his head hurts or if he'd like to be alone or if he's afraid or scared," Fields added.



Speaking Up for Their Survival

There's another possible impact of the communication with these apes: These celebrity apes may help raise awareness of the plight of apes in the wild.


Shumaker said there is an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 bonobos left in the wild, and 50 - 55,000 orangutans in the wild, so raising awareness of just how smart these creatures are might encourage the public to take their problems more seriously.


"The research we conduct here powerfully informs people about the nature of great ape intelligence," Shumaker said. "We know that humans and great apes share far more than they differ. I think we have to recognize that. If that does not compel us to preserve great apes in the wild, I don't know what can."


The insight into ape learning might also give some insight into human development.


"It tells us about how we learn everything," said Fields, "what the antecedents are to the kind of powerful learning that could occur in humans."


Sometimes the similarities to humans are downright eerie. When I asked Kanzi if he wanted coffee, he enthusiastically shook his head up and down.


Bonobos share 98 percent of their DNA with humans -- they also apparently share a love of decaf caramel machiatos.


For more information contact the www.greatapetrust.org.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

[RkyMtnThunder]

Two cops, Henry and Phillip, are called to a house on Evidence Street. A neighbor has called and reported a break in. Arriving at the house, they find that the front door has been knocked off of it's hinges and a man wearing a ski mask and holding a bag of jewellery and a bloody knife is leaving.

"Excuse me, sir," says Henry. "A break in has been reported at this residence. We're here to investigate."

The masked man glances around. "Looks fine to me, but I've really got to get going..."

"Sorry, sir, but we've really got to investigate," says Phillip.

The two cops and the masked man walk up to the front door. It is hanging by only the bottom hinge and the deadbolt has clearly been forced out of the doorframe.

"Sir," says Henry, "Can you explain why your door appears to have been forced in if there hasn't been a break in?"

"Well," says the masked man, "When I bought this house, they explained to me that the builder was a little worried that if the house looked too new, people would be afraid to live in it, being afraid to damage it. So, he built in an appearance of age, of a history that never happened, damaging it before hand."

Meanwhile, Phillip has stepped inside. He notices what looks like signs of a struggle. He asks, "Sir, can you explain why your sofa is on it's back?"

"It was that way when we moved in, our interior decorator put it there."

"On it's back?"

"Yes. He was a great designer, the best ever."

"Why would he place it like that? Isn't it hard to sit on?"

"A little, but intelligent placement doesn't mean optimal placement. I can still sit here." He demonstrates this by sitting on the front of the couch. "See? It works."

Henry, meanwhile, had walked through the living room and into the bedrooms. From there, he called, "Hey, there appear to be two dead bodies in here." Phillip and the masked man go to see. Indeed, two dead bodies, both with obvious knife wounds.

"Well," asks Henry, "How can you explain this?"

"Well," says, the masked man, "Obviously the two bodies can't have just formed from the floor boards, right? That is obviously impossible. They are too complicated for that. They must have been created here by a magical fairy that poofed in here, created two dead bodies magically, and then vanished, leaving no trace of his presence."

Phillip and Henry walk out of the house. "Well," asks Phillip, "What did you think?"

"Hmm, well, appearance of age, a history that seems to have happened, but didn't, obviously inferior design attributed to great intelligence, refutations of a straw man argument nobody made and a false dichotomy, followed by dependence on unevidenced supernatural events to fill in any gaps, it all leads to only one conclusion."

"Quite right," says Phillip. He calls dispatch. "Nobody was here to see what happened. We're going back on patrol."

And the moral of this story is, if you commit a crime, pray you get creationist cops.

[alkemical]

Chimps pass on gadget use like humans (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19108970/)


Troops often are distinct from one another because of learned behavior
By Charles Q. Choi
LiveScience
Updated: 11:39 a.m. ET June 8, 2007
Chimpanzees readily learn and share techniques on how to fiddle with gadgets, new research shows, the best evidence yet that our closest living relatives pass on customs and culture just as humans do.

The new findings help shed light on the capabilities of last common ancestor of humans and chimps. And the research could also help develop better robots and artificial intelligences, the researchers say

In the wild, chimpanzee troops often are distinct from one another, possessing collections of up to 20 traditions or customary behaviors that altogether seem to form unique cultures. Such practices include various forms of tool use, including hammers and pestles; courtship rituals such as leaf-clipping, where leaves are clipped noisily with the teeth; social behaviors such as overhead hand-clasping during mutual grooming; and methods for eradicating parasites by either stabbing or squashing them.

While observing chimpanzees, evolutionary psychologist Antoine Spiteri at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland wanted to help settle the question of whether or not the apes learned such practices by watching others like humans do, as opposed to simply knowing how to perform such behaviors innately.

Spiteri and his colleagues investigated six groups of chimpanzees, each with eight to 11 apes, living in captivity in Bastrop, Texas. The researchers taught a lone chimpanzee from one group one technique for obtaining food from a complex gadget, such as stabbing food with a tool. They next taught one chimp from another group a different technique for extracting food from the same gadget, such as pushing it out down a ramp.

The extremely hot Texas weather made it hard for researchers to work, "and because participation by the chimpanzees in each of these studies has been completely voluntary, it sometimes means that we as experimenters have had to be extremely patient," Spiteri recalled. "Considering the insights we have gathered, it has been worth the sacrifice."

Over time, the researchers found each technique for tool use and food extraction spread within each group. In essence, these groups displayed their own unique culture and local traditions.

A number of these chimpanzee groups are next-door neighbors within eyeshot of each other, and researchers found traditions proved catching, with foraging practices spreading from one group to another, findings detailed in the June 19 issue of the journal Current Biology.



"The possibility that some primates may be able to learn from others has great implications on how we treat them and how we think about ourselves," Spiteri told LiveScience. "These results indicate to us that chimps have a capacity for cultural complexity, which was likely shared by our common ancestor going back around 5 million years ago."

This work is "particularly useful to robotic development and artificial intelligence," Spiteri added. "Understanding how the mechanisms of imitation and social learning can help us develop artificial beings that can behave and evolve in the way that we do and ultimately it may help us create other brains."

© 2007 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19108970/

[bendog]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/364258085_bf766c76e9.jpg?v=0

[alkemical]

Scientists piece together Lucy’s family tree
Jaw fossils possibly link earliest known hominid, another human species (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19815236/)


By Robin Lloyd

Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET July 17, 2007
New jaw fossils might suggest a direct line of descent between two species of early humans, including the one to which "Lucy" belongs.

The 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, the earliest known hominid, was found in Ethiopia in 1974 by U.S. paleontologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. Lucy and her kind, Australopithecus afarensis, stood upright and walked on two feet, though they might also have been agile tree-climbers.

Anthropologists have suspected an ancestor-descendant relationship between the Lucy species and a predecessor — Australopithecus anamensis — based on their similarities but lacked fossils from an intervening period.




Scientist: Human Origin Impossible to Pinpoint (http://www.livescience.com/health/070718_africa_origins.html)


Out of Africa
Manica and colleagues took multiple measurements of more than 4,500 male fossil skulls from 105 populations around the globe. They combined the results with data from studies of global genetic variations in humans, finding that both genetic and skull variability decreased with distance from Africa. So populations in southeastern Africa held the highest variability compared with populations in other countries.

[alkemical]

Fossils paint messy picture of human origins (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/)


New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom
By Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:00 p.m. ET Aug 8, 2007
WASHINGTON - Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.

In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.

It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.

They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn’t involved in the research team.

“The more we know, the more complex the story gets,” he said. Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

Leakey’s team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus.

Because the H. erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of any type of malformations or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn’t H. habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.

That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist. Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.


Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time.

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.


© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

[alkemical]

Neanderthals' Disappearance Gets More Mysterious (http://www.livescience.com/health/070912_neanderthal_demise.html)

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 12 September 2007 02:36 pm ET

Share this story
Email Stocky and well-suited for the cold, Neanderthals once dotted the plains of Europe and western Asia before vanishing from Earth more than 20,000 years ago.

The mystery of what caused their demise has baffled scientists for decades, with one theory stating our hominid cousins failed to survive a big ice age that Homo sapiens apparently endured. New research rejects that thinking.

A study published in the Sept. 13 issue of the journal Nature suggests abrupt global cooling was not the final calamity that wiped out Neanderthals. The study does not, however, offer any direct clues about what did finally kill off the Neanderthals.

"Our findings suggest that there was no single climatic event that caused the extinction of the Neanderthals," said study team member Katerina Harvati, a paleo-anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

The Neanderthals lived as far back as 230,000 years ago, disappearing from the fossil record a few thousand years after modern humans appeared on the scene. But several scientific uncertainties have made it difficult for scientists to blame climate or modern humans for the extinction.

For instance, measurements of carbon isotopes have become a standard way of dating sediments and artifacts. However, the results give scientists a so-called radiocarbon date, which is based on the amount of time it takes radiocarbon to decay once an organism dies. Converting the radiocarbon number into calendar years is tricky and imprecise, the researchers say.

So team member Chronis Tzedakis of the University of Leeds and his colleagues realized they didn't need an actual calendar date. They devised a way to correlate estimates of dates for the Neanderthal demise with past climate records.

They applied the method to three dates proposed for Neanderthal extinction gleaned from artifacts preserved in Gorham's cave in Gibraltar, Spain, a site thought to have been occupied by some of the last surviving Neanderthals.

The dates include two fairly well-accepted estimates of the timing of their demise—32,000 to 30,000 radiocarbon years ago and around 28,000 radiocarbon years ago—as well as a more contentious estimate of around 24,000 radiocarbon years ago.

The team found the first two dates did not correspond with any extreme, abrupt climate events. The youngest and more controversial, radiocarbon estimate fell onto the paleoclimate record during a period just before the expansion of ice sheets and the onset of cold conditions in northern Europe, so the timing is not quite right. And the authors say that climate event was a 1,000-year gradual transition anyway, rather than an "instant ice-age."

"We're saying there is no abrupt, cold extreme event that correlates with any of those dates," said study team member Konrad Hughen of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

[alkemical]

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0%2C2763%2C1418083%2C00.html)

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

Luke Harding in Berlin
Saturday February 19, 2005
The Guardian


It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.
This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.