[_ Old Earth _] Primates, sweating, marriage etc

[Terry Thone]

My first post and if I break any forum rules I apologize for any offense and only ask for the correct way to go about posting this correctly!

I am a Creationist in that I believe that all that is became because of the creator. I am an evolutionist in that I believe things change/evolve. Simply stated for a purpose!

My following question is not to insult or for sarcasm. I have a lot of questions that place doubt on the bible and evolution and are for another post.

From what I've read thus far we(humans) are the only primates that have no fur and sweat over most of our skin. Why are we the only ones that have no fur? Shouldn't there be numerous other primates with out fur?

When did the first hairless primates develop ethics past that of other primates with fur?

I'm assuming that the vast majority of primates have an alpha male. Let me know if this assumption is incorrect. If so how did ethics come to be? Who were the first primates to quit beating each other for the women and agree to marriage?

I know the questions are rudimentary but I don't have the time, patience or mental abilities to pose them any better.

 

[Barbarian]

Normal humans have as many hairs on their body as chimps. They are just so fine that you don't see them unless you look really close.

 

[Milk-Drops]

From what I've read thus far we(humans) are the only primates that have no fur and sweat over most of our skin. Why are we the only ones that have no fur? Shouldn't there be numerous other primates with out fur?

We as humans do have fur, its out hair, its just not as thick. Most humans have hair all over their body, but its really fine and thin. There is really no empirical "why" for no other primates that resemble us today. The closest the research has shown is that relatives of ours genetically such as Neanderthal and a few Asian variants could not compete territoriality with us, so they went extinct.

When did the first hairless primates develop ethics past that of other primates with fur?

Questions about culture are very hard to pin down since only fragments of culture is preserved. When you say ethics, what are you referring to? Most Primates and social mammals have higher archies and systems.

I'm assuming that the vast majority of primates have an alpha male. Let me know if this assumption is incorrect. If so how did ethics come to be? Who were the first primates to quit beating each other for the women and agree to marriage?

marriage is more of a societal concept, and less of an ethical concept. Ethics is a system of rules and their structures. Ethics arose with the dawn of social organisms able to contemplate their surroundings. So ethics in themselves predate even mammals.

I know the questions are rudimentary but I don't have the time, patience or mental abilities to pose them any better.

Its all good. Take your time and we'll have a good discussion.

 

[Terry Thone]

I needed to start at the rudimentary I think to get responses to narrow down my questions. By fur I mean that there a few of us humans that resemble apes in the hairy back syndrome but that does not qualify as fur. Do primates IE apes sweat over their whole body? I assume they do not.

In regards to morals, mores, ethics and societal concepts I'm asking a pseudo rhetorical question. From a viewpoint of survival of the fittest: it doesn't make sense that manners etc would win out. 2 camps of primates have battled for their harems for millenia. One of the camps through whatever process decides that maybe the other males should have access to their harem. This monogamy is baffling to me in relation to natural selection.

Cleaning fish and great whites is another conundrum for me. Did cleaning fish just go against their innate nature and keep trying with the great whites until one great white decided to go against his/her innate nature? Once this happened how did the cleaning fish pass this trait onto his and her offspring while staying in contact with the family of great whites that past that trait onto his and her offspring. Both species had to develop the same trait at the same time and the offspring had to stay in close proximity to each species offspring.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I needed to start at the rudimentary I think to get responses to narrow down my questions. By fur I mean that there a few of us humans that resemble apes in the hairy back syndrome but that does not qualify as fur. Do primates IE apes sweat over their whole body? I assume they do not.

Fur is just hair. The long answer is that humans, chimps, and guerrillas all sweat over their entire bodies, with Humans having the most advanced form. I'm not sure why its the case, there might be a study that looks into human genetics.

In regards to morals, mores, ethics and societal concepts I'm asking a pseudo rhetorical question. From a viewpoint of survival of the fittest: it doesn't make sense that manners etc would win out. 2 camps of primates have battled for their harems for millenia. One of the camps through whatever process decides that maybe the other males should have access to their harem. This monogamy is baffling to me in relation to natural selection.

Survival of the fittest is contextually based on the environment. When you bring up morals and manners it has more to do with the stability of societies. Large harems make more sense in harsh living conditions with a lower chance of infant survival, but in agricultural or industrial societies the need for large harems that are more common in hunter gathering systems is no longer favorable. Some of the stuff you mentioned are bye byproducts of civilization and didn't exist until well into human existence.

Cleaning fish and great whites is another conundrum for me. Did cleaning fish just go against their innate nature and keep trying with the great whites until one great white decided to go against his/her innate nature? Once this happened how did the cleaning fish pass this trait onto his and her offspring while staying in contact with the family of great whites that past that trait onto his and her offspring. Both species had to develop the same trait at the same time and the offspring had to stay in close proximity to each species offspring.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to ask. The part about cleaning fish, I think you are confusing skills and traits. Traits effect development, while skills are taught. If you are asking what gave humans the idea to fish, I can't answer you specifically why humans decided to fish, but I can point you in the direction of resources that could explain when fishing started to become a trade.

 

[Barbarian]

In regards to morals, mores, ethics and societal concepts I'm asking a pseudo rhetorical question. From a viewpoint of survival of the fittest: it doesn't make sense that manners etc would win out. 2 camps of primates have battled for their harems for millenia. One of the camps through whatever process decides that maybe the other males should have access to their harem. This monogamy is baffling to me in relation to natural selection.

Those who weren't jealous, didn't guard females, and thereby didn't leave as many offspring of their own. That's all that was necessary.

 

[Terry Thone]

Fur is just hair. The long answer is that humans, chimps, and guerrillas all sweat over their entire bodies, with Humans having the most advanced form. I'm not sure why its the case, there might be a study that looks into human genetics.

Survival of the fittest is contextually based on the environment. When you bring up morals and manners it has more to do with the stability of societies. Large harems make more sense in harsh living conditions with a lower chance of infant survival, but in agricultural or industrial societies the need for large harems that are more common in hunter gathering systems is no longer favorable. Some of the stuff you mentioned are bye byproducts of civilization and didn't exist until well into human existence.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to ask. The part about cleaning fish, I think you are confusing skills and traits. Traits effect development, while skills are taught. If you are asking what gave humans the idea to fish, I can't answer you specifically why humans decided to fish, but I can point you in the direction of resources that could explain when fishing started to become a trade.

The trait I'm referencing is fish that swim into the mouths of other fish and clean. The chances of the cleaning fish repeatedly swimming into the mouths of sharks that naturally eat them is contrary to survival. Which came first the shark who stopped eating cleaning fish or the cleaning fish that kept attempting to clean sharks? It to me is a conundrum in that neither species should be doing either. They exist so how were the traits developed and what are the odds that both species developed the traits at the same time and passed those traits onto their offspring and those offspring stayed in proximity of the other species offspring?

 

[Terry Thone]

Those who weren't jealous, didn't guard females, and thereby didn't leave as many offspring of their own. That's all that was necessary.

Are you proposing that humans developed from the primate species that were the least jealous and this is how we developed norms and a civilized society?

 

[Milk-Drops]

The trait I'm referencing is fish that swim into the mouths of other fish and clean. The chances of the cleaning fish repeatedly swimming into the mouths of sharks that naturally eat them is contrary to survival.

Oh, you are talking about codependency.

Which came first the shark who stopped eating cleaning fish or the cleaning fish that kept attempting to clean sharks? It to me is a conundrum in that neither species should be doing either. They exist so how were the traits developed and what are the odds that both species developed the traits at the same time and passed those traits onto their offspring and those offspring stayed in proximity of the other species offspring?

I'm not aware of the history of either species, but it would be neat to look into that. Though I can already tell you that the odds don't necessarily matter, since both organisms already exist. Chances are, if we look into the history of both species, there is bound to be a history of them being independent and a gradual shift to them slowly becoming interdependent. Neither one came first necessarily, they evolved alongside each other.

 

[Terry Thone]

Oh, you are talking about codependency. I'm not aware of the history of either species, but it would be neat to look into that. Though I can already tell you that the odds don't necessarily matter, since both organisms already exist. Chances are, if we look into the history of both species, there is bound to be a history of them being independent and a gradual shift to them slowly becoming interdependent. Neither one came first necessarily, they evolved alongside each other.

I'd call it symbiotic. The cleaning fish ceases to exist if it keeps going into the great white unless for who knows what reason it stops eating fish that swim into its mouth. That for me is a conundrum. It's kind of the definition of a free meal! How did both traits develop or come to be at the same time? How did the trait get passed to the offspring at the same time and stay in proximity? It seems more improbable than nonchalant.

 

[Terry Thone]

Normal humans have as many hairs on their body as chimps. They are just so fine that you don't see them unless you look really close.

The realm of fur versus hair that I'm referring to is the fact that no human is going to survive with the hair/fur we have in 0 degree weather. We've lost the density and quantity to battle the elements.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding jealousy in primates:
Those who weren't jealous, didn't guard females, and thereby didn't leave as many offspring of their own. That's all that was necessary.

Are you proposing that humans developed from the primate species that were the least jealous and this is how we developed norms and a civilized society?

I never thought of humans as the "least jealous" primates. Closer to "most jealous." Certainly more so than bonobos or orangs.

 

[Barbarian]

The realm of fur versus hair that I'm referring to is the fact that no human is going to survive with the hair/fur we have in 0 degree weather. We've lost the density and quantity to battle the elements.

I'm wondering how you think chimps would do in that regard.

 

[Terry Thone]

Is your statement rhetorical? If it is not then I would reply that there aren't many chimps living in Alaska. If it is rhetorical then ignore my response.
As far as the debate goes my point is that social structure to me is contrary to atheism. My premise for the question is that religion is the precipitator of morals for humans. What we perceive as morals for apes are survival of the fittest. They don't get together and collectively agree that Silver Back will be the alpha male for the harem. We as humans do collectively agree upon what is socially acceptable. It is typical for us to anthropomorphize animals with wonder, socialization etc. They live in the moment. Tomorrow is a concept that is beyond their comprehension. They don't see God in the milky way.

 

[Barbarian]

The realm of fur versus hair that I'm referring to is the fact that no human is going to survive with the hair/fur we have in 0 degree weather. We've lost the density and quantity to battle the elements.

Barbarian muses:
I'm wondering how you think chimps would do in that regard.

Is your statement rhetorical?

Just noting that no chimp is going to survive with the hair/fur they have in 0 degree weather. They've lost the density and quantity to battle the elements.

As far as the debate goes my point is that social structure to me is contrary to atheism.

I suppose that reality is contrary to atheism.

My premise for the question is that religion is the precipitator of morals for humans.

That would require that athiests behave worse than theists, and I don't see that we can make such a statement.

What we perceive as morals for apes are survival of the fittest.

That's true for any social organism. In a society, altruism increases fitness. This is particularly true for the kind of life humans lived for most of our history, where pretty much everyone you met was somehow related to you.

They don't see God in the milky way.

Neither do I. The local galaxy is much too small and simple to contain or define God.

 

[WIP]

I'm not expert enough to talk about this but as I read through your posts, Terry, I seem to recognize some confusion between genetics, instinct, environmental, and social differences. If I'm right, maybe someone with more expertise could comment.

 

[Barbarian]

'm not expert enough to talk about this but as I read through your posts, Terry, I seem to recognize some confusion between genetics, instinct, environmental, and social differences.

It's tough, even when you have the vocabulary and the data. In the case of primates, the best evidence for males seeking exclusive access to females, is sexual dimorphism. If the males are a lot bigger than the females, that's usually the tip-off.

Gorillas and baboons are a lot more sexually dimorphic than humans and chimps.

 

[Terry Thone]

Barbarian muses:
I'm wondering how you think chimps would do in that regard.
As I stated before there aren't many chimps in Alaska.


The local galaxy is much too small and simple to contain or define God.

I'm not stating or implying that God is confined to the galaxy, a flower or the milky way. Why would you think I was remotely trying to say that? I see His majesty in the stars, our sun, a flower, and all that is. Our dogs don't look at a sunset and see the creator. They eat their own feces, run through the snow with high spirits but they don't see the Creator in a snow bank or the sunset. They live in the moment and have no concept of a creator.

 

[Terry Thone]

I'm not expert enough to talk about this but as I read through your posts, Terry, I seem to recognize some confusion between genetics, instinct, environmental, and social differences. If I'm right, maybe someone with more expertise could comment.

I'm not that well versed on any of the topics that I mentioned and they aren't that interesting to me. What I'm proposing is that morals, mores, ethics and present day social structure would not have come to fruition without religion. I don't see 1 group of neanderthals laying down their clubs hoping that the other group do the same.

I don't understand why atheists would want to get married.

My premise for the question is that religion is the precipitator of morals for humans.
Barbarian replied with "That would require that athiests behave worse than theists, and I don't see that we can make such a statement."

The statement doesn't require anything and I'm not making any such requirement. Because one is a Christian or an atheist doesn't mean that one or the other is going to aspire to be better or worse than the other.

I see so many logic holes in speciation, abiogenesis, evolution etc. Morals, mores etc are just another logic hole that I see in the widely held belief that we descended from a single cell, crawled out of the primordial ooze, crawled back in and grew legs and crawled back out to descend from apes.

I know that this is a completely over-simplified concentration of natural selection and evolution but when it gets down to the details the issues always gets lost in the details of the arguments. Those that consider themselves "scientists" always come across as the defenders of logic. Those that profess Christ always seem to quote the bible and say "boom" and lay down the mike.

I think we as brothers on this planet owe each other to start at the basics.

Those of us that come to these types of forums are looking for the same thing. The understanding of reality and are searching for truth through understanding. It's when we pick up the logic clubs and begin to beat each other with those bats that I think we've lost.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Those who weren't jealous, didn't guard females, and thereby didn't leave as many offspring of their own. That's all that was necessary.

Where is your evidence for this. Or is it an assumption?