PB&J Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Chimpanzee's plan to attack zoo visitors shows evidence of premeditated thought When Santino the chimpanzee started pelting zoo visitors with stones, his keepers were mystified. Not that they were surprised by his displays of aggression — the 31-year-old chimp is, after all, a dominant male. But there was no obvious source of stones in his enclosure; so where was he finding all the missiles? All became clear when they carried out a search and found his stockpiles of rocks. Santino had been fishing stones from the moat surrounding his enclosure - and, even more impressively, he had been shaping odd pieces of concrete into aerodynamic disc-shaped missiles. Then he had been stashing them away for future use. The rest of the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle5877764.ece It is interesting the more we find out about our closest living relatives how they seem to become more and more human like. Plus, this chimp seems like a hardass. Maybe the Browns should trade Quinn and Anderson and sign the ape to play quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, if you believe in Evolution, you have to figure there will be some chimps you learn how to do stuff like this. Sometime long ago the first human figured out how to find rocks and shape them to throw at prey or predators. Now the first Chimp has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, if you believe in Evolution, you have to figure there will be some chimps you learn how to do stuff like this. Sometime long ago the first human figured out how to find rocks and shape them to throw at prey or predators. Now the first Chimp has. Then again, clinging to 18th century science seems a little shaky too eh? I admit I have no idea but if I was really positive about evolution we'd have creatures from every stage or at least fossilized remains. Yet nary as much as a Piltdown man.... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Then again, clinging to 18th century science seems a little shaky too eh? I admit I have no idea but if I was really positive about evolution we'd have creatures from every stage or at least fossilized remains. Yet nary as much as a Piltdown man.... WSS We actually wouldn't have creatures from every stage and bizarre hybrid types. If there ever were such dramatic mutations that caused that kind of change, what the hell would it mate with? It simply wouldn't be able to pass on its genes, and that would be the last we ever heard of it. All of the creatures we see around us are transitional forms, and there really aren't any "stages." If there were stages that means there would be an eventual goal or destination, which is absent from evolution. It is simply accumulated mutations through generations. Fossilization is extremely rare, and takes the most perfect of conditions to create a fossil. I am pretty sure one of the best ways to have millions of fossils of everything would be to somehow flood the entire world at once, killing everything and kicking up sediment to cover their remains. Oh, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 We actually wouldn't have creatures from every stage and bizarre hybrid types. If there ever were such dramatic mutations that caused that kind of change, what the hell would it mate with? \ Are you saying that the different species we see today are different lines of creatures? Or that we slowly evolved from fish to lizard to bird to monkey to man leaving some but not all steps of the process along the way? Or is it your guess that at some point humans were suddenly born to apes (for one example) and started a new species that prospered seperately? Curious not badgering ya. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Think of it as a big branching tree. There is the common ancestor, which is the trunk, or seed. Then as mutations occur and the environment dictates what is favorable. With chimpanzees and humans there was a point where we branched out, and one line went to were we are today, one line went to where chimpanzees are today and other lines were out competed and died out. The key is that we evolved at the same time as chimpanzees, but came from a common ancestor. This is why it is difficult for anthropologists to nail down the "missing link." We have discovered all these different Australopithecines that could be on our lineage, but we aren't sure which one led to humans. A. Aferensis (Lucy), A. Africanus, A. Anamensis, A Ghari, and others. Some of these species lived at the same time as each other, but so far we cannot nail down which one of them for sure is our direct ancestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Think of it as a big branching tree. There is the common ancestor, which is the trunk, or seed. Then as mutations occur and the environment dictates what is favorable. With chimpanzees and humans there was a point where we branched out, and one line went to were we are today, one line went to where chimpanzees are today and other lines were out competed and died out. The key is that we evolved at the same time as chimpanzees, but came from a common ancestor. This is why it is difficult for anthropologists to nail down the "missing link." We have discovered all these different Australopithecines that could be on our lineage, but we aren't sure which one led to humans. A. Aferensis (Lucy), A. Africanus, A. Anamensis, A Ghari, and others. Some of these species lived at the same time as each other, but so far we cannot nail down which one of them for sure is our direct ancestor. Or, what if we came from any of the four with the help of alien DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Or, what if we came from any of the four with the help of alien DNA? Exactly! That is science, thinking up a hypothesis and testing it. Not entrusting explanations of natural phenomena to a book written thousands of years before the scientific revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 This is all horse manure. We all know G-d farted us all out and we have no relation to other species. What's a species, anyway? Sounds like more science mumbojumbo designed to ultimately take my gun away from me and allow fags to marry. Man this county is going to Hell in a handbasket under Obammy the Messiah. That reminds me...time to go plants sugarbeets... @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Exactly! That is science, thinking up a hypothesis and testing it. Not entrusting explanations of natural phenomena to a book written thousands of years before the scientific revolution. You know what's funny is that I am very spiritual. Raised Catholic and loved studying religious study in college. Bottom line is, there is nothing concerning evolution, aliens, or really anything that diminishes my belief in God. It is perfectly logical in my opinion for aliens to have been God's catalyst for evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Just to add a quick clarification. The philosophical definition of God (in a nut shell) is: all powerful, all knowing and transcends time. In one word it would be perfect. As humans we can never know perfection. Flaw is part of our make up (the debate over this is time tested and while I would love diving into it, it deserves it's own thread). To say that A doesn't make sense or doesn't fit into perceived vision of perfection is illogical from it's start (IE, we're not perfect so how would we have the capacity to recognize TRUE perfection). Henceforth to ask "Why would God allow primates to live here, only to have to send aliens to create us...." really doesn't recognize ALL of the steps that would be necessary to create a "prefect" species (planet, climate, habitat) all of that would have had to be worked out over time to be sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Or a deist perspective that God created natural laws and set off the big bang and said "here you go, peace out!" and left it as it was, or that there is a god that does nothing in this reality. Or Spinoza's god or nature, they are the same thing that you can look at from different perspective. I just don't see the need to attribute the beginning of life to a god, a lot of ancient cultures had their stories of deities creating the world, but these were all before modern science. The traditions I am most interested in are the Chinese philosophies and religions Confucianism and Daoism. No god, no creation story, no afterlife. Just different ways to become happier through creating good relationships with people (Confucian) or become happier by returning to a more naturalistic state of mind (Dao). This tradition is just so much more commonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Why must you beat up the ignorant at every turn? Does it make you feel superior? I'm just curious, not trying to be a complete prick, but you seem to revel in slamming traditional religion at every turn. Yes, it is fun. Listen, there is a group of people that sense that there is something outside of themselves directing the course of events and their surroundings at every moment. However this group of people aren't college educated, they don't know about concepts such as transcendentalism, or eschatology. So yes, they do relate to and identify with a book written at a time with limited scientific knowledge. Does that make them bad people for rejecting science on the basis they don't understand it? And I'm not talking about not understanding it because they lack the desire, but because they lack the ability? I think if you were actually as opened minded as you claim then you would know that there are a plethora of Christians and fear nor loathe science, and actually have actually gone on to great careers in the field. Absolutely, I have no problems whatsoever with most Christians. I really only have problems with the fundamentalist, "you are going to hell!" type of Christians that are unfortunately the ones that get the most attention. Pure Christianity is really nice. It is all about love. But now it is so distorted by what has happened in its history and it is really hard to get pure Christianity any more. What really creams my corn are the anti-science, anti-everyone not christian people that try to legislate their belief system. Plus I don't like the whole idea of faith over works to get into a heaven. That just seems weird to me. It just seems strange that in this day, people still are so locked into christianity that they might question scientific advances or block social progress in society. This country has mandatory public education, you don't need to have a college degree to have a basic understanding of geology, biology, history, philosophy and other subjects. Luckily the majority of religious people aren't the radical ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Yes, it is fun. Absolutely, I have no problems whatsoever with most Christians. I really only have problems with the fundamentalist, "you are going to hell!" type of Christians that are unfortunately the ones that get the most attention. Pure Christianity is really nice. It is all about love. But now it is so distorted by what has happened in its history and it is really hard to get pure Christianity any more. What really creams my corn are the anti-science, anti-everyone not christian people that try to legislate their belief system. Plus I don't like the whole idea of faith over works to get into a heaven. That just seems weird to me. It just seems strange that in this day, people still are so locked into christianity that they might question scientific advances or block social progress in society. This country has mandatory public education, you don't need to have a college degree to have a basic understanding of geology, biology, history, philosophy and other subjects. Luckily the majority of religious people aren't the radical ones. I'm not sure when you graduated high school, but I graduated in '99 and didn't have a full course ever devoted to geology and left with a elementary understanding and philosophy wasn't even taught. I think everyone should at the very least question scientific advances. To be honest with you if the Manhattan Project would have been public knowledge nukes might have been stopped then, and arguably that would have been good for humanity. Now a days the big issue is stem cells. What worries me about stem cells is it's ultimate goal. Like I said I am cold hearted to a degree but if ALL DISEASES were to be cured or you were able to HARVEST SPARE BODY PARTS that is not good science. Like it or not death is a part of life, and more importantly allows for a constant "restock"....which if evolution was the goal, living forever (150+) would severely slow it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.