[_ Old Earth _] Did Chimpanzees need Chiropodists?

[lordkalvan]

Um, which ones?

Those Barbarian has pointed out. Not to mention the seemingly countless points, arguments, corrections and questions that you have failed to respond to on other threads.

In this particular case, there are 2 'gaping holes'.

a. The psychological gulf between man and chimp

Why do you regard this as significant? After all, you seem to think evolutionary theory supposes that Homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees.

b. The metatarsal ligament in man and the chimp.

And this is a problem how, other than in your own imagination, that is?

You've seen Barbarian being silly (in his last post). Have a word with him, willya?

Well, you've quoted a journalist quoting de Waals already. Go read his work on the behavioural traits that humans, chimps and bonobos have in common and then offer your account of how these similar behavioural traits can best be explained supernaturally. Did you know that there isn't a brainlobe that we have and chimps and bonobos don't, nor is there any part of the nervous system that chimps, bonobos and humans don't share? Was God rummaging around in the same box of bits at the supposedly separate moments he 'specially created' humans, chimps and bonobos? Why did he use a different box for gorillas and orangutans?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

If you read my relevant post, then you've got to be kidding.

Even if you haven't, you've still got to be kidding.

You are kidding, aren't you? Or bluffing?

No one else can find one, either. I looked at your list, BTW, and if that's the requirement, then most humans aren't human. I repeat, what mental process, found in humans, is not found in apes?

If you don't know what a "mental process" is, you can look it up, or you can ask me.

Barbarian asks:
I don't see a problem. Why does the differential growth of the metatarsal ligament in utero mean anything?

You don't see a problem?

No, I don't. Why do you think premature closure of the ligament is a problem? There are much, much greater anatomical variations within humans than that.

Then you aren't looking too hard. Will you have a look at the relevant post, or shall I put it up again?

It would be worthwhile for you to explain why you think it's too great a difference to have come from a common ancestor.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian asks:
What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

No one else can find one, either. I looked at your list, BTW, and if that's the requirement, then most humans aren't human. I repeat, what mental process, found in humans, is not found in apes?

If you don't know what a "mental process" is, you can look it up, or you can ask me.

Just to remind you and the 'no one else-s'.

Please notice the 'only-creature-with-the-ability' phrases.

[FONT=&quot]Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a religion
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a moral sense
Man is the only creature with the ability to appreciate beauty
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language
Man is the only creature with the ability to bury its dead
Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly
Man is the only creature with the ability to manufacture tools and weapons
Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment
Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire
Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap
Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance
Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

I call upon the common descent advocates to account for the origin and implantation of the instincts in the common ancestor which manifest themselves in the characteristics above.

If there ever was such a thing as a 'common ancestor'.
[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

No, I don't. Why do you think premature closure of the ligament is a problem? There are much, much greater anatomical variations within humans than that.

What nonsense.

'Premature closure'? Far from it. These are adult feet, and the non-enclosure of the great toe in the chimp is designed to permit grasping of branches in arboreal travel.

Since we don't often travel arboreally, (apart from those of us whose arguments perpetually demonstrate that we are up a gum tree), the great toe is enclosed as shown in the diagram,
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38504
and cannot grasp any such thing as a branch.

Now your problem is to account for the state of the ligament in the 'common ancestor' and how it 'diverged' into two such different arrangements.

Was the CA five-toed, with all five enclosed? Then how did it 'evolve' into the 4+1 arrangement?

Or was it five-toed, with only 4 enclosed? And if so, how did it come about that all five became enclosed?

Or it could have been 3-toed and 'evolved' into the 4+1 arrangements, or the 5+0 arrangements?

Or it could have been 6-toed, and 'devolved' into the two arrangements shown above.

Which do you support, and why?

Isn't the simplest thing to do, is say that the two creatures were created that way?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

No one else can find one, either. I looked at your list, BTW, and if that's the requirement, then most humans aren't human. I repeat, what mental process, found in humans, is not found in apes?

If you don't know what a "mental process" is, you can look it up, or you can ask me.

Please notice the 'only-creature-with-the-ability' phrases.
Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively

Other animals can count. So it's merely a difference of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a religion

A religion is not a mental process. Try again.

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a moral sense

Turns out, both chimps and dogs have been shown to have a sense of fairness. Would you like to learn about it? So matter of degree, again.

Man is the only creature with the ability to appreciate beauty

Sounds interesting. Show us that one. Since Jane Goodall has recorded the attraction of chimps to beautiful sunsets, you're down again.

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language

Apes can communicate in sign language, and apparently, have a rudimentary languages differing among different groups. Again, a difference of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to bury its dead

Some humans don't. By your measure, some people aren't human.

Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly

Chimps have been shows to have the ability to infer mental states in others, and to act effectively on them. Again, only a difference of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to manufacture tools and weapons

Chimps manufacture tools to exploit termite nests, and make sharp sticks to hunt pottos in tree holes.

Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment

Not a mental state. And chimps primp before mirrors. Again, a difference of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire

By this measure, the Tasmanians were not human. Nor is that a mental state.

Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap

By that measure some people are not human. Not a mental state.

Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance

See above.

Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

Chimps can pick locks and make tools. Not a mental state, and only a difference of degree.

I call upon the common descent advocates to account for the origin and implantation of the instincts in the common ancestor which manifest themselves in the characteristics above.

For example, the grasp instinct in human babies is the basic grasping instinct in all primates. Those with better grasping instinct tended to survive.

As usual, you've got a sorry mess of misconceptions and a few frauds here, which were no trouble to remove for you.

 

[Barbarian]

'Premature closure'? Far from it.

If you think so, you have no idea how digits form in utero. The growth plate hooks across the front of the limb, and digits arise as the plate crosses over. When it finishes, it stops making digits. If it is speeded up, the ligament forms over four of them, not five.

Now your problem is to account for the state of the ligament in the 'common ancestor' and how it 'diverged' into two such different arrangements.

See above.

Edit: I'm wondering if, from your rather inaccurate drawing, you think the ligament is an enclosed band, somehow unable to allow the freedom of the hallus, under the normal developmental process. It does rather easily, and if the development is slowed (as it is in humans) the ligament continues to grow and attaches to the hallus.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian asks:
What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

No one else can find one, either. I looked at your list, BTW, and if that's the requirement, then most humans aren't human. I repeat, what mental process, found in humans, is not found in apes?

If you don't know what a "mental process" is, you can look it up, or you can ask me.

Hold it right there pal.

You've produced some weird definition of 'mental process' which you 're going to milk for all it's worth.

Let's not play that game. Let's get serious, shall we? Because some of the following responses are little short of a joke.

Other animals can count. So it's merely a difference of degree.

Pure nonsense, and you know it. Maybe your degree could have been obtained by a chimp - is that what you're saying?

A religion is not a mental process. Try again.

Oh no you don't. It is something pretty major that man has, and that no chimp can have. Or have you got proof to the contrary?

Turns out, both chimps and dogs have been shown to have a sense of fairness. Would you like to learn about it? So matter of degree, again.

We were talking about a 'moral sense', remember? Do you know what that is? If not you can ask me and I'll elucidate.

Sounds interesting. Show us that one. Since Jane Goodall has recorded the attraction of chimps to beautiful sunsets, you're down again.

Has she recorded anything about paintings, music, landscapes, features, mathematical elegances and such like? Such slithering, Barbarian, tut tut.

[FONT="]Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language.[/FONT]

Apes can communicate in sign language, and apparently, have a rudimentary languages differing among different groups. Again, a difference of degree.

So an ape could write what you're writing, because it could obtain the degree you've got? Let's not be silly, Barbarian.

You did notice the word 'complex' didn't you? Here:
[FONT=&quot]
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language.
Try again.[/FONT]

Some humans don't. By your measure, some people aren't human.

Maybe, maybe..

Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly

[FONT=&quot].
[/FONT]

Chimps have been shows to have the ability to infer mental states in others, and to act effectively on them. Again, only a difference of degree.

You missed it again. Getting to be a habit now.
'Reason abstractly' is not quite the same thing, is it?
If you don't know what it means, please ask me, and I'll try to help you out.

Chimps manufacture tools to exploit termite nests, and make sharp sticks to hunt pottos in tree holes.

Oh yeah. Like hammers, chisels, tractors and microscopes too. Wonderful B, just wonderful, the amount of nonsense you have managed to produce so far. Doubtless, there's more to come. Let's see.

[FONT="]Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment[/FONT]

Not a mental state. And chimps primp before mirrors. Again, a difference of degree.

A mental state? No, we were discussing 'the ability to do...' Don't change the subject.

But talk to your wife about that one, if you have one. She'll be very pleased, I'm sure. Another dismal failure.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

By this measure, the Tasmanians were not human. Nor is that a mental state.

As I said, we're not discussing a mental state - we're discussing the ability to make fire, in this instance. Are you denying that the Tasmans (who I've never heard about BTW) had the ability to make fire - or that they simply never did?

Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap

By that measure some people are not human. Not a mental state.

Shall I mention the 'not a mental state' again? And again, whoever you may be thinking about, are you denying their 'ability' - note the word - to sow and reap? And which chimp does so?

Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance

See above.

You mean, demolished above, don't you?

Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

Chimps can pick locks and make tools. Not a mental state, and only a difference of degree.

Sorry, we aren't discussing a mental state, but the ability to do these things. Perhaps you'd like a chimp to operate on your eye? Might help you see a few things.

For example, the grasp instinct in human babies is the basic grasping instinct in all primates. Those with better grasping instinct tended to survive.

Ah, you've mentioned the magic word 'instinct'. Now how did you say that instinct (or any other) evolved?

This is your poorest effort to date. I can't give less that zero out of 100, or I would.

But the effort is only so pathetic because there is no real answer to these points, is there?

And the fact that there is no answer, is absolutely disastrous for the theory of common descent.

Men's mental and spiritual capacities are so much greater, and so completely different from anything else in the whole of creation that we should be in a separate kingdom, not merely a phylum.

We are made in the image of God, :angel3 and that alone separates us from everything else.

Pity you can't agree, but insist that you are related to chimpanzees. :bounce

If you really think so, then perhaps you deserve to be...

 

[Rhea]

Async - your posts have been quite nasty and insulting. Are you sure that's who you want to be? Your choice, of course.

Barbarian has given many examples. You fluff them off and fail to address that they actually do answer your question. I'll add a few more so that you can see that it is not that hard to come up with examples - meaning it is nothing particularly unique or unusual to demonstrate that these "brain processes" belong to many animals, not just us.

For interested readers, here is an overview of many forms of cognition by other animals besides us.

Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a religion

How do you know? How would you be able to tell? Maybe millions of animals do. Maybe bees think their Queen is a Goddess. How would you be able to prove that humans are the only ones with religion?

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a moral sense

What is your measure of "moral sense" that allows you to dismiss the example provided?

Man is the only creature with the ability to appreciate beauty

How do you know? How would you be able to tell? Maybe millions of animals do.

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language

AS noted, the dolphins have a very complex language. They can understand some of our words - can you understand any of theirs?

Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly

What is your measure of this that you know no other animal is doing it? Barbarian gave an example. What criteria do you use to dismiss it? You dismissed it, but with what criteria?

Man is the only creature with the ability to manufacture tools and weapons

Corvids have been demonstrated to not only make tools out of sticks and stones, but to accomplish something as abstract as using water displacement to lift a floating food item to a reachable height in a cylinder.

Many more examples

Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment

Many creatures adorn their "self". Bower birds will create elaborate nests to show off thier wares. It is not on them, but it is clearly an accessory to their personality that they are showing off.

Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire

But not the only one to use it.

Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap

Leafcutter ants sow and harvest fungus.

Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance

Puffing up feathers does not improve the appearance?

Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

But can you fly to New Zealand without a compass?

 

[lordkalvan]

Nice points, Rhea. Interestingly, Frans de Waal - whom Asyncritus has quoted at second-hand to provide 'evidence' that evolutionary theory supposes that Homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees - is one of the world's leading authorities on behavioural studies of chimps and bonobos and the obvious parallels and similarities amongst these three primate species. A partial bibliography:

Peacemaking Among Primates
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society

Chimpanzees and other primates in the wild have been observed displaying these 'ethical' behavioural traits that have obvious connections to similar human behaviour: peacemaking, consolation, sharing food to one's own disadvantage, rescuing others at one's own risk (to the point of dying in the attempt), reciprocity, fairness, the ability to learn and follow social rules.

 

[Asyncritus]

Async - your posts have been quite nasty and insulting. Are you sure that's who you want to be? Your choice, of course.

No, it's not what I want - but when I get the condescension remarks - on which you have NOT remarked - it does get up my nose, as you've seen.

Barbarian has given many examples. You fluff them off and fail to address that they actually do answer your question. I'll add a few more so that you can see that it is not that hard to come up with examples - meaning it is nothing particularly unique or unusual to demonstrate that these "brain processes" belong to many animals, not just us.

I have replied to every one of his points, which you have to admit, are quite silly. For instance, he says some animals can count - and so chimps can evolve into man who can do quantum mechanics and trigonometry etc.

Is it beyond your wit to see that that is just pure foolishness as an 'answer'? Because words are on a page, it doesn't invest them with wisdom, good sense and correctness, as you seem to think (provided, of course, that they are written by my opposition).

For interested readers, here is an overview of many forms of cognition by other animals besides us.

How do you know? How would you be able to tell? Maybe millions of animals do. Maybe bees think their Queen is a Goddess. How would you be able to prove that humans are the only ones with religion?

Simple. We look for evidence. Do you see ants building altars and what not?

Proof, Rhea, proof. Scientific proof, and none of this ridiculous nonsense. The burden of proof is on the proponents of this theory - so let's have some.

What is your measure of "moral sense" that allows you to dismiss the example provided?

Moral sense is defined thus: motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moral+sense

Seen a chimp with 'logic, ethics, or principles, such as mankind has? I haven't.

AS noted, the dolphins have a very complex language. They can understand some of our words - can you understand any of theirs?

So we're descended from dolphins now? Perhaps the chimps can speak Chinese or English?

What is your measure of this that you know no other animal is doing it? Barbarian gave an example. What criteria do you use to dismiss it? You dismissed it, but with what criteria?

Not sure which one you're referring to here.

Corvids have been demonstrated to not only make tools out of sticks and stones, but to accomplish something as abstract as using water displacement to lift a floating food item to a reachable height in a cylinder.

And so we're related to corvids too? Really, Rhea. That is not abstract thought. Abstract thought is something like deriving Archimedes' principle from that displacement, with the mathematics involved. That's REALLY abstract.

But you're a chemist. There's plenty of abstractions in Chemistry. Can a chimp produce any one of those? Like the Law of Mass Action for example?

Many creatures adorn their "self". Bower birds will create elaborate nests to show off thier wares. It is not on them, ...

But it is precisely the 'on them' part that we're discussing here.

But not the only one to use it.

I don't know what you're talking about. Fire? Which chimps 'use' fire?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210184330.htm

Leafcutter ants sow and harvest fungus.

Careful. You know what I'm going on to ask about this in one of my next posts, don't you?

But I hadn't heard that we are related to leaf cutter ants either. This is quite an education for me, you know.

Puffing up feathers does not improve the appearance?

That is NOT what we're discussing.

But can you fly to New Zealand without a compass?

Huh?

 

[lordkalvan]

So the essence of the argument appears to be that if Animal X can do something that Animal Y can't (or even just can't do as well), this is irrefutable evidence that evolution is false. Is this correct?

Oh, and by the way, yes, we are evolutionarily related to ants and dolphins, we just happen to be much more closely related to chimpanzees. Sorry that offends you so much, but I find it rather inspiring and, if I believed in God, I would regard it as testimony to his creative genius.

 

[lordkalvan]

Primates share a very similar genetic structure. These chromosomes are structurally the same in all primates: 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, X. These are the same amongst gorillas, chimpanzees and humans: 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20. These are the same between humans and chimps: 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, Y. The similarity between humans and chimps is of the same order as that amongst equines, which demonstrate interfertility amongst various species, such as horses and donkeys, horses and Przewalski horses, and horses and zebras. And yet, according to Asyncritus, humans and chimpanzees aren't related at all.

 

[Asyncritus]

So the essence of the argument appears to be that if Animal X can do something that Animal Y can't (or even just can't do as well), this is irrefutable evidence that evolution is false. Is this correct?

Not quite.

Between us and the chimps, there is a great gulf fixed. There is no evolutionary bridge across. That proves evolution is false.

Any given Bobo and Mozart or Einstein are not on the same planet, and will never be.

Gradualism, saltation, mutation, natural selection etc etc can't hack it.

I think I would have the greatest difficulty looking at your writing and the best a chimp can ever do, and saying that you are related.

Oh, and by the way, yes, we are evolutionarily related to ants and dolphins, we just happen to be much more closely related to chimpanzees. Sorry that offends you so much, but I find it rather inspiring and, if I believed in God, I would regard it as testimony to his creative genius.

Well, we are evolutionarily related to amoeba and paramecium too - or the like. We were all created by the same God, so if by 'evolutionarily' you mean that we have the same Creator, then I can't disagree with you.

But that is NOT what we're talking about, when we're talking about evolution, is it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Primates share a very similar genetic structure. These chromosomes are structurally the same in all primates: 6. 13. 19. 21. 22, X. These are the same amongst gorillas, chimpanzees and humans: 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20. These are the same between humans and chimps: 1, 2p. 2q, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, Y. The similarity between humans and chimps is of the same order as that amongst equines, which demonstrate interfertility amongst various species, such as horses and donkeys, horses and Przewalski horses, and horses and zebras. And yet, according to Asyncritus, humans and chimpanzees aren't related at all.

It's this silly argument again, isn't it?

Genetic similarity necessarily proves relationship or even descent. Does it?

Yes, it does, within species. Nobody can disagree with paternity tests. I have absolutely no argument with that.

But it ends in absurdity when extrapolated ad infinitum, as evolutionists are so fond of doing.

The very factors in the psyche which I have underlined previously, alone justify an entirely new kingdom, not just some new phylum. Can't you people see the evidence all around you?

Why does taxonomy end with physical characteristics? It is extremely shortsighted and foolish if that is the best it can do.

It scrabbles round desperately trying to group man within some group of primates, when man's intellect alone shows that he is unique.

They're perfectly happy to erect new phyla containing single species when dealing with the Cambrian fossils, because of some unique features or the other.

Yet the taxonomist, who is the most unique of all, is lumped into the primates, as if we are some kind of jumped up baboon or chimpanzee.

I say man is unique. Just look round at our achievements. Which other group of creatures can even begin to demonstrate such qualities? There's Barbarian trying desperately to dumb down the qualities of man, or smart up those of the chimps. For heaven's sake, wake up man! Get those blinkers off!

Doesn't the existence of the higher qualities prove categorically that a huge gulf is fixed between mankind and the rest of creation? Or don't they matter at all?

I'd like you to answer that question. Do they matter? Shouldn't they matter in any classification system? And if they don't, why don't they?

 

[lordkalvan]

Not quite.

How not quite?

Between us and the chimps, there is a great gulf fixed.

How is that 'great gulf fixed'?

There is no evolutionary bridge across.

Why is there 'no evolutionary bridge across'? You have declared it, but can you demonstrate it?

That proves evolution is false.

It 'proves' no such thing. The only thing it 'proves' is that you believe that '[t]here is no evolutionary bridge across' and that you believe this establishes that 'evolution is false'.

Any given Bobo and Mozart or Einstein are not on the same planet, and will never be.

But, demonstrably, they are 'on the same planet'. Or is this another of your sciency terms?

Gradualism, saltation, mutation, natural selection etc etc can't hack it.

Can't 'hack' what and why can't they?

I think I would have the greatest difficulty looking at your writing and the best a chimp can ever do, and saying that you are related.

Which only demonstrates the cartoon-like view of relatedness that you seem to adhere to. Do you think any animals at all are related to any others in any way, or is taxonomic science simply voodoo magic to you?

Well, we are evolutionarily related to amoeba and paramecium too - or the like.

Yep.

We were all created by the same God, so if by 'evolutionarily' you mean that we have the same Creator, then I can't disagree with you.

Is this what you mean by 'evolutionarily'? What I mean by 'evolutionarily' is descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors.

But that is NOT what we're talking about, when we're talking about evolution, is it?

What are we talking about, then? You seem to take the view that belief in God and acceptance of the overwhelming weight of evidence that stands testimony to the soundness of evolutionary theory are incompatible. Scientists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins clearly don't. Why should I prefer your back-of-a-cereal packet idea of what constitutes scientific evidence for your point of view (X is impossible to explain without direct divine intervention - essentially, the Victor Meldrew argument) over theirs, which says that X is entirely possible to explain naturalistically and offers a great deal of scientific research to support that point of view?

 

[Asyncritus]

Before I reply, could you possibly address the last questions I asked?

Doesn't the existence of the higher qualities prove categorically that a huge gulf is fixed between mankind and the rest of creation? Or don't they matter at all?

I'd like you to answer that question. Do they matter? Shouldn't they matter in any classification system? And if they don't, why don't they?

I should be interested to hear your opinion on the matter.

 

[lordkalvan]

It's this silly argument again, isn't it?

'Silly', huh?

Genetic similarity necessarily proves relationship or even descent. Does it?

Where did I say that?

Yes, it does, within species.

So how does it 'prove' this.

Nobody can disagree with paternity tests. I have absolutely no argument with that.

Why not? The methodology and assumptions are the same.

But it ends in absurdity when extrapolated ad infinitum, as evolutionists are so fond of doing.

Why? Why is inference from evidence 'absurd'?

The very factors in the psyche which I have underlined previously, alone justify an entirely new kingdom...

Why?

...not just some new phylum. Can't you people see the evidence all around you?

So you've identified some differences of degree amongst two primates? Now tell us why you are so ready to discount the similarities? Please offer reasoned argument based on the available evidence and tell us why your account is a better explanation than the evolutionary one.

Why does taxonomy end with physical characteristics?

In biology, taxonomy is engaged in classifying and determining relationships amongst organisms based on shared physical traits, which is why it 'end with physical characteristics'.

It is extremely shortsighted and foolish if that is the best it can do.

Why is that? Why don't you propose for us here and now an objective methodology whereby we can classify organisms according to non-physical characteristics? You can start by explaining how you plan on classifying the various plants and fungi under this system.

It scrabbles round desperately trying to group man within some group of primates, when man's intellect alone shows that he is unique.

And the diving ability of the sperm whale shows that it is unique, so I guess that makes it not a cetacean. That you imagine taxonomy 'scrabbles around trying to group man within some group of primates' only seems to demonstrate that you have only the vaguest of ideas about the methodology of biological taxonomy.

They're perfectly happy to erect new phyla containing single species when dealing with the Cambrian fossils, because of some unique features or the other.

Those would be unique physical characteristics, yes.

Yet the taxonomist, who is the most unique of all, is lumped into the primates...

Why do they do this? Let me guess, you imagine it is some sort of post facto attempt to validate evolutionary theory? You are aware that Carl Linnaeus grouped humans with the other primates a century before darwin's seminal work was published?

...as if we are some kind of jumped up baboon or chimpanzee.

'Jumped up'? is this another sciency term? Actually, baboons, chimpanzees and humans are all primates according to objectively determined shared physical traits, but you can console yourself with the thought that you are a different sort of primate (and maybe a wee bit smarter than some if that makes you feel better when you look at yourself in the mirror to shave your facial hair in the morning.

I say man is unique.

So are chimpanzees.

Just look round at our achievements.

You mean like our propensity to slaughter one another in large numbers because we belong to different tribes?

Which other group of creatures can even begin to demonstrate such qualities?

Chimpanzees, except they are a bit more restrained about it (though not necessarily for the want of trying).

There's Barbarian trying desperately to dumb down the qualities of man, or smart up those of the chimps.

I saw no sign of Barbarian trying to 'dumb down' anything. All I see is you getting upset because he pointed out that your ability to count and a chimpanzee's is a matter of degree only, in other words it's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one as you seem to imagine.

For heaven's sake, wake up man! Get those blinkers off!

What 'blinkers' are those, then? The ones that filter out personal incredulity as the principal methodology for explaining natural phenomena?

Doesn't the existence of the higher qualities prove categorically that a huge gulf is fixed between mankind and the rest of creation?

And why doesn't the existence of physical similarities (and behavioural similarities) provide evidence that no such imagined 'huge gulf' exists at all.

Or don't they matter at all?

Well, if they make you feel superior to a chimpanzee, I'm sure they 'matter' to you. This doesn't alter the fact that, no matter how much you don't like it, you are still a monkey's uncle, however.

I'd like you to answer that question. Do they matter? Shouldn't they matter in any classification system? And if they don't, why don't they?

They clearly matter to you, but you have yet to offer any reasoned account of why they matter at all in the sense of providing evidence that Homo sapiens is not closely related to the other primates.

 

[Barbarian]

Hold it right there pal.

You've produced some weird definition of 'mental process' which you 're going to milk for all it's worth.

I haven't given you a definition of "mental process."

Barbarian observes:
Other animals can count. So it's merely a difference of degree.

Pure nonsense, and you know it.

"What they did was closely controlled by how many were roaring from the loudspeaker, and how many of themselves there were," Karen McComb of Sussex University explained to BBC World Service's Science In Action programme.

"Their likelihood of approaching increased as their own group size increased - and also decreased as the number of intruders roaring from the loudspeaker increased.

"Their behaviour was best predicted by a variable that we called odds, which was the ratio of number of defenders to number of intruders."

In other words, the lions were making decisions by working out the numbers they potentially faced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3119456.stm

A farmer in England found that every day he went in his blind in the field, the crows would stay away. But once he had left, they would fly into the fields and feed. He brought a friend with him one day to follow him into the blind, thinking the crows would spot one of them leaving and then come down to eat at the crops, thinking that no one was watching.

But the crows knew that a second man was still in the blind. The next day they tried it with another man, then another. The crows counted and subtracted. They knew that someone was still waiting for them in the blind. It was only after they reached 16 men that the crows lost count.

Read more: http://cappers.grit.com/Reader-Stories/Crows-can-count---at-least-to-16.aspx#ixzz1Z3jAJIvw

There's a survival value in this, so it's not surprising they can.

Barbarian observes:
A religion is not a mental process. Try again.

It is something pretty major that man has, and that no chimp can have. Or have you got proof to the contrary?

As I said, it's not a mental process, it's a gift from God. And it's up to you to prove your assertions.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, both chimps and dogs have been shown to have a sense of fairness. Would you like to learn about it? So matter of degree, again.

We were talking about a 'moral sense', remember? Do you know what that is?

Yep. Fairness is part of a moral sense.

Barbarian, regarding an attraction to beauty:
Sounds interesting. Show us that one. Since Jane Goodall has recorded the attraction of chimps to beautiful sunsets, you're down again.

Has she recorded anything about paintings, music, landscapes, features, mathematical elegances and such like?

Difference of degree again. And by your measure, many people are not human.

Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language.

Barbarian chuckles:
Apes can communicate in sign language, and apparently, have a rudimentary languages differing among different groups. Again, a difference of degree.

So an ape could write what you're writing

One chimpanzee could type meaningful sentences on a special keyboard. And of course, many can sign, using American Sign Language. Again a matter of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly

Barbarian observes:
Chimps have been shows to have the ability to infer mental states in others, and to act effectively on them. Again, only a difference of degree.

Reason abstractly' is not quite the same thing, is it?

Yes, that does require abstract reasoning.

(Assertion that no animal builds tools)

Barbarian observes:
Chimps manufacture tools to exploit termite nests, and make sharp sticks to hunt pottos in tree holes.

Oh yeah. Like hammers, chisels, tractors and microscopes too.

Difference of degree, again.

Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment

Barbarian observes:
Not a mental state. And chimps primp before mirrors. Again, a difference of degree.

Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire

Barbarian chuckles:
By this measure, the Tasmanians were not human. Nor is that a mental state.

As I said, we're not discussing a mental state - we're discussing the ability to make fire, in this instance. Are you denying that the Tasmans (who I've never heard about BTW) had the ability to make fire - or that they simply never did?

Couldn't, because they didn't know how. Are you claiming you can't teach an ape to make fire? Since it's been shown that you can teach them to drive cars, making fire isn't really that hard.

Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap

Barbarian observes:
By that measure some people are not human. Not a mental state. And I note Rhea (I think) showed you an example of animals soing and reaping.

Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

Barbarian observes:
Chimps can pick locks and make tools. Not a mental state, and only a difference of degree.[/QUOTE]

Barbarian observes:
For example, the grasp instinct in human babies is the basic grasping instinct in all primates. Those with better grasping instinct tended to survive.

Ah, you've mentioned the magic word 'instinct'.

No magic. It's just a word people use when they don't know why it happens. In the case of this one, it's just that it makes it easier and safer for primates to move infants about. Because it produced a slightly better chance of survival than just the mother holding the infant, infants that happened to grasp were favored in survival.

 

[Rhea]

And so we're related to corvids too? Really, Rhea. That is not abstract thought. Abstract thought is something like deriving Archimedes' principle from that displacement, with the mathematics involved. That's REALLY abstract.

[...]
But I hadn't heard that we are related to leaf cutter ants either. This is quite an education for me, you know.


That is NOT what we're discussing.

By golly, *YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!* That is not what we were discussing!

We were discussing your claim that "humans are..." well, let me just quote you so you can recall that this is YOUR claim:

Just to remind you and the 'no one else-s'.

Please notice the 'only-creature-with-the-ability' phrases.

Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a religion
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a moral sense
Man is the only creature with the ability to appreciate beauty
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language
Man is the only creature with the ability to bury its dead
Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly
Man is the only creature with the ability to manufacture tools and weapons
Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment
Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire
Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap
Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance
Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

There you go - were were discussing whether "Man is the only creature with the ability to..." do things.

And we showed you that you were dead flat wrong that man was the only creature able to do these things.

You now claim that this indicates to you that we are closely related to any creature that can do these things.

Why would you make that claim? Who says we are closely related? I only said other animals could do it, therefore these characteristics do not make us unique.

RHEA REPLIES: Your claim that "any creature that can do these things is therefore closely related to any other creature that can do these things" is a wrong claim and the conclusion does not follow from the evidence. It would be more correct to say, "the presence of all these very diverse animals having the same characteristics may be evidence of a common ancestor -OR- it could mean that these characteristics have evolved more than once because they are common mutations which are advantageous when they happen.

For example it is well known that eyes evolved more than once. Therefore not all creatures with eyes necessarily got their "eyeness" from a common ancestor. Some got it on their own after a prior split.

Likewise all of your points. It is entirely possible that the commoness of these traits is not because we all share a common ancestor, it might be because these are traits that tend to show up often by mutation and when they show up tend to promote survival and hence become common in the surviving population.

But you're a chemist. There's plenty of abstractions in Chemistry. Can a chimp produce any one of those? Like the Law of Mass Action for example?

By the way - could any human alive 3000 years ago could produce the Law of Mass Action? Were they not human? Or is it just a matter of degree that back then they didn't even have the capability of producing the natural log, and now the creatures that CAN do this are the same creatures with newer capabilities?

 

[Asyncritus]

By golly, *YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!* That is not what we were discussing!

We were discussing your claim that "humans are..." well, let me just quote you so you can recall that this is YOUR claim:



There you go - were were discussing whether "Man is the only creature with the ability to..." do things.

And we showed you that you were dead flat wrong that man was the only creature able to do these things.

You now claim that this indicates to you that we are closely related to any creature that can do these things.

Oh dear dear me. Those remarks you quoted from me, were made in the context of men being descended from chimps. Remember?

You mentioned a handful of OTHER CREATURES, BESIDES CHIMPS, which, you claim can do some wonderful things.

NOT ONE OF THEM can do anything even remotely like what a human being can do - so I really don't see how your case is advanced by these points you make.

Why would you make that claim? Who says we are closely related? I only said other animals could do it, therefore these characteristics do not make us unique.

Well I'm glad to hear that you're not saying that we're closely related. You had me worried there for a moment.

But tape recorders can talk. Computers can think (after a fashion). Planes can fly. And so we could go on - and prove exactly nothing.

But here's mankind, able to do these fantastic things. NO CHIMP CAN DO THEM - therefore the evolutionary claim that we are descended from chimps or an even more primitive ancestor is simply rubbish.

RHEA REPLIES: Your claim that

"any creature that can do these things is therefore closely related to any other creature that can do these things"

This is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Where did you get that from?

is a wrong claim and the conclusion does not follow from the evidence. It would be more correct to say, "the presence of all these very diverse animals having the same characteristics may be evidence of a common ancestor -OR- it could mean that these characteristics have evolved more than once because they are common mutations which are advantageous when they happen.

-OR -- they did not evolve at all, since they are in such widely distinct groups as dolphins, parrots, crows, monkeys etc etc. Their appearance in those groups is entirely fortuitous.

For example it is well known that eyes evolved more than once. Therefore not all creatures with eyes necessarily got their "eyeness" from a common ancestor. Some got it on their own after a prior split.

Eyes evolved more than once? Did they? So did wings, on 4 entirely distinct and diverse groups.

So I've got news for you - they didn't evolve at all. They are distinct creations.

Didn't you read my post on the eyes of the trilobites? Maybe you should. It's an eye-opening exercise. Get it? No? Ah well...

Likewise all of your points. It is entirely possible that the commoness of these traits is not because we all share a common ancestor,

That's exactly what I'm saying. Similarity does not mean descent or relationship. Try telling Barbarian that and see how far you get.

it might be because these are traits that tend to show up often by mutation

Rhea, how many times do I have to tell you? Mutations DO NOT create new characteristics. They are either neutral or destructive. Muller, who got a Nobel in that field, said so. LK disagrees with him. Who do you believe?

By the way - could any human alive 3000 years ago could produce the Law of Mass Action?

Of course they could, given the necessary information and techniques. They had the ABILITY to do so, but not the data and techniques.