Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
How Are Humans Unique?
by NY Times
Thanks to Catalin for the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
How Are Humans Unique?
By MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Human beings do not like to think of themselves as animals. It is thus with decidedly mixed feelings that we regard the frequent reports that activities once thought to be uniquely human are also performed by other species: chimpanzees who make and use tools, parrots who use language, ants who teach. Is there anything left?
You might think that human beings at least enjoy the advantage of being more generally intelligent. To test this idea, my colleagues and I recently administered an array of cognitive tests — the equivalent of nonverbal I.Q. tests — to adult chimpanzees and orangutans (two of our closest primate relatives) and to 2-year-old human children. As it turned out, the children were not more skillful overall. They performed about the same as the apes on the tests that measured how well they understood the physical world of space, quantities and causality. The children performed better only on tests that measured social skills: social learning, communicating and reading the intentions of others.
But such social gifts make all the difference. Imagine a child born alone on a desert island and somehow magically kept alive. What would this child's cognitive skills look like as an adult — with no one to teach her, no one to imitate, no pre-existing tools, no spoken or written language? She would certainly possess basic skills for dealing with the physical world, but they would not be particularly impressive. She would not invent for herself English, or Arabic numerals, or metal knives, or money. These are the products of collective cognition; they were created by human beings, in effect, putting their heads together.
When you look at apes and children in situations requiring them to put their heads together, a subtle but significant difference emerges. We have observed that children, but not chimpanzees, expect and even demand that others who have committed themselves to a joint activity stay involved and not shirk their duties. When children want to opt out of an activity, they recognize the existence of an obligation to help the group — they know that they must, in their own way, "take leave" to make amends. Humans structure their collaborative actions with joint goals and shared commitments.
Another subtle but crucial difference can be seen in communication. The great apes — chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans — communicate almost exclusively for the purpose of getting others to do what they want. Human infants, in addition, gesture and talk in order to share information with others — they want to be helpful. They also share their emotions and attitudes freely — as when an infant points to a passing bird for its mother and squeals with glee. This unprompted sharing of information and attitudes can be seen as a forerunner of adult gossip, which ensures that members of a group can pool their knowledge and know who is or is not behaving cooperatively. The free sharing of information also creates the possibility of pedagogy — in which adults impart information by telling and showing, and children trust and use this information with confidence. Our nearest primate relatives do not teach and learn in this manner.
Finally, human infants, but not chimpanzees, put their heads together in pretense. This seemingly useless play activity is in fact a first baby step toward the creation of distinctively human social institutions. In social institutions, participants typically endow someone or something with special powers and obligations; they create roles like president or teacher or wife. Presidents and teachers and wives operate with special powers and obligations because, and only because, we all believe and act as if they fill these roles and have these powers. Two young children pretending together that a stick is a horse have thus taken their first step on the road not just to Oz but also toward inhabiting human institutional reality.
Human beings have evolved to coordinate complex activities, to gossip and to playact together. It is because they are adapted for such cultural activities — and not because of their cleverness as individuals — that human beings are able to do so many exceptionally complex and impressive things.
Of course, humans beings are not cooperating angels; they also put their heads together to do all kinds of heinous deeds. But such deeds are not usually done to those inside "the group." Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that "they" threaten "us." The remarkable human capacity for cooperation thus seems to have evolved mainly for interactions within the group. Such group-mindedness is a major cause of strife and suffering in the world today. The solution — more easily said than done — is to find new ways to define the group.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
How Are Humans Unique?
By MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Human beings do not like to think of themselves as animals. It is thus with decidedly mixed feelings that we regard the frequent reports that activities once thought to be uniquely human are also performed by other species: chimpanzees who make and use tools, parrots who use language, ants who teach. Is there anything left?
You might think that human beings at least enjoy the advantage of being more generally intelligent. To test this idea, my colleagues and I recently administered an array of cognitive tests — the equivalent of nonverbal I.Q. tests — to adult chimpanzees and orangutans (two of our closest primate relatives) and to 2-year-old human children. As it turned out, the children were not more skillful overall. They performed about the same as the apes on the tests that measured how well they understood the physical world of space, quantities and causality. The children performed better only on tests that measured social skills: social learning, communicating and reading the intentions of others.
But such social gifts make all the difference. Imagine a child born alone on a desert island and somehow magically kept alive. What would this child's cognitive skills look like as an adult — with no one to teach her, no one to imitate, no pre-existing tools, no spoken or written language? She would certainly possess basic skills for dealing with the physical world, but they would not be particularly impressive. She would not invent for herself English, or Arabic numerals, or metal knives, or money. These are the products of collective cognition; they were created by human beings, in effect, putting their heads together.
When you look at apes and children in situations requiring them to put their heads together, a subtle but significant difference emerges. We have observed that children, but not chimpanzees, expect and even demand that others who have committed themselves to a joint activity stay involved and not shirk their duties. When children want to opt out of an activity, they recognize the existence of an obligation to help the group — they know that they must, in their own way, "take leave" to make amends. Humans structure their collaborative actions with joint goals and shared commitments.
Another subtle but crucial difference can be seen in communication. The great apes — chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans — communicate almost exclusively for the purpose of getting others to do what they want. Human infants, in addition, gesture and talk in order to share information with others — they want to be helpful. They also share their emotions and attitudes freely — as when an infant points to a passing bird for its mother and squeals with glee. This unprompted sharing of information and attitudes can be seen as a forerunner of adult gossip, which ensures that members of a group can pool their knowledge and know who is or is not behaving cooperatively. The free sharing of information also creates the possibility of pedagogy — in which adults impart information by telling and showing, and children trust and use this information with confidence. Our nearest primate relatives do not teach and learn in this manner.
Finally, human infants, but not chimpanzees, put their heads together in pretense. This seemingly useless play activity is in fact a first baby step toward the creation of distinctively human social institutions. In social institutions, participants typically endow someone or something with special powers and obligations; they create roles like president or teacher or wife. Presidents and teachers and wives operate with special powers and obligations because, and only because, we all believe and act as if they fill these roles and have these powers. Two young children pretending together that a stick is a horse have thus taken their first step on the road not just to Oz but also toward inhabiting human institutional reality.
Human beings have evolved to coordinate complex activities, to gossip and to playact together. It is because they are adapted for such cultural activities — and not because of their cleverness as individuals — that human beings are able to do so many exceptionally complex and impressive things.
Of course, humans beings are not cooperating angels; they also put their heads together to do all kinds of heinous deeds. But such deeds are not usually done to those inside "the group." Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that "they" threaten "us." The remarkable human capacity for cooperation thus seems to have evolved mainly for interactions within the group. Such group-mindedness is a major cause of strife and suffering in the world today. The solution — more easily said than done — is to find new ways to define the group.
Michael Tomasello is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Comments 1 - 50 of 58 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #184441 by Mike O'Risal on May 25, 2008 at 9:08 am
Tomasello asks:It is thus with decidedly mixed feelings that we regard the frequent reports that activities once thought to be uniquely human are also performed by other species: chimpanzees who make and use tools, parrots who use language, ants who teach. Is there anything left?I can think of a few things. For instance, we're the only species we know of that sits around trying to come up with ways to feel that we're different from all the other species. As far as I know, we're also the only one that publishes.
Man: the authoring animal.
Other Comments by Mike O'Risal
3. Comment #184442 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
Human beings do not like to think of themselves as animals. It is thus with decidedly mixed feelings that we regard the frequent reports that activities once thought to be uniquely human are also performed by other species: chimpanzees who make and use tools, parrots who use language, ants who teach. Is there anything left?
Any other species use sarcasm?
EDIT: SRSLY, I think we're the only species to create something merely for the sake of creating it to exist, and not for some evolutionary purpose: mating rituals, homes, etc. You know, the whole ART thing.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
4. Comment #184445 by Synchronium on May 25, 2008 at 9:36 am
As far as I'm aware, we're the only species with tcp/ip capabilities.Other Comments by Synchronium
5. Comment #184451 by Wosret on May 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
Well reading this I felt like my intellect was being slapped across the face about every sentence. Though perhaps others don't realise this. It has always seemed obvious to me that we have only gotten anywhere because of our complex social interactions.
I once argued that you could have a specie with an intellect three or four times greater than a normal person's. They would definately solve problems faster, and probably be excellent at survival, but if they were a solitary species, without a social structure, then they would not be advancing in any technological sense. They would likely use pretty good tools that they invented themselves, but once they died that would be it. The next generations always start from scratch.
One of my favorite quotes, from Newton: "If I've been able to see further than most men, it's because I've stood on the shoulders of giants."
We are a collective, and we wield the knowledge and achievements of about a million years. Our technology, and rate of improvement has increased, exponentually correlating with our accuracy of taking records, and the growth and improvement of our societies, and our society's ability to communicate amongst itself, and with others.
We are billions of individuals capable of working intricately, and precisely as one. This is why we kick so much ass compared to every other animal.
Other Comments by Wosret
6. Comment #184452 by Chuk15 on May 25, 2008 at 10:16 am
And we can walk upright and use our hands. That's a plus, definitely.Other Comments by Chuk15
7. Comment #184453 by Christopher Davis on May 25, 2008 at 10:17 am
I agree with Mitchell, I don't see anything revolutionary about this author's ideas. In fact, I'd describe it as a clumsy attempt to shoehorn basic social and developmental psychology into an evolutionary framework. Other Comments by Christopher Davis
8. Comment #184454 by riki on May 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
Publishing is probably the animal equivalent of a dog marking it's territory. Other Comments by riki
9. Comment #184460 by moderndaythomas on May 25, 2008 at 10:35 am
The great apes; chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans; communicate almost exclusively for the purpose of getting others to do what they want.
Emphasis on almost.
This article has many anthropocentric qualities. I've always marveled at not how unique the human animal is, for there are few examples, but rather how similar we are.
humans beings are not cooperating angels; they also put their heads together to do all kinds of heinous deeds. But such deeds are not usually done to those inside "the group." Recent evolutionary models have demonstrated what politicians have long known: the best way to get people to collaborate and to think like a group is to identify an enemy and charge that "they" threaten "us."
I'm not arguing that sapiens are far more intelligent than the chimp, but are not chimps efficient at organised hunting? Do they not assault (wage war on) other primate communities?
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
10. Comment #184463 by Auraboy on May 25, 2008 at 11:10 am
Chimpanzee communities have also been seen to make social outcasts, beat and even murder individuals within a group and not for any apparent mating or power struggles. They have also been seen to forgive outcasts and even re-introduce them into the social fold despite the disadvantages to the individuals who choose to do so.
Of course I think reading in some human preference into the article is a little extreme. The author appears to be pointing out behavioural differences that have been directly observed. Observation and decree are not normally the same thing. Even in a truncated newspaper article.
Other Comments by Auraboy
11. Comment #184464 by Opisthokont on May 25, 2008 at 11:12 am
Last I checked, I was a human being, and I have absolutely no problem at all with considering myself an animal. Likewise, I have no difficulty considering myself a eukaryote, or a living thing. The problem that this author alludes to here is not with the classification but rather with the emotionally charged connotations that most people have with the word "animal". These range from an inferred lack of civility to a denigration of those features that make humans unusual to the outdated and incorrect scala naturae. None of these things are accurate. We are not humbled by belonging to the animal kingdom: we are given a place by it. We are a part of Nature; we are native inhabitants of Earth; and counting ourselves amongst its other inhabitants is merely an acknowledgement of our relationship to them -- ecological as well as evolutionary. Working to assert and to affirm those critical relationships is a far more important and necessary goal than reassuring ourselves of our imagined superiority.This is not to say that we are not in fact superior in many ways: our intelligence and our capacity for communication at least are unmatched, as far as we can tell. However, these are only some of many traits, many others of which are significantly inferior to those of other organisms. It is not a question of overall superiority that we should focus on, but rather an examination of values: we are superior in things that we care about, can make up for many of the others, and can do without the rest. Again, there is nothing humbling in this. We must merely be honest with ourselves.
Other Comments by Opisthokont
12. Comment #184465 by BJohn on May 25, 2008 at 11:29 am
Here is an article I think many people on this website would find interesting. It's about what "other atheists" are saying about Dawkins and Harris...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/books/03beliefs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Other Comments by BJohn
13. Comment #184467 by huzonfurst on May 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm
BJohn's article about the "other atheists" points out a real problem about how so many people are still terrified of being found out as unbelievers. Every one of those "other atheists" bases his entire argument on the discomfort he feels when Dawkins and Harris tell it like it is for once, without pulling any punches.Their objections are universally straw men which desperately try to equate honest atheism with fundamentalist religion. It's *tiresome* - religion is *bullshit* and we all know it!
Other Comments by huzonfurst
14. Comment #184469 by Auraboy on May 25, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I think just about anybody with even a hint of credibility or a vague faculty for critical thinking has managed to note that Terry Eagleton seems to want limelight more than anything and throws out such blithering aspersions at anyone and anything that he really shouldn't be allowed to call himself a critic. More of an amateur rotten veg thrower. His ongoing spat with Martin Amis was another dribbling argument that made anybody who thought these were part of the intelligentsia want to bang their head against the rather muck stained walls of Manchester's English department.
Have the affront to say something because it's true and worry about whether it's fitting later. Dawkins says religion is flawed, often a cause of evil and simply, fundamentally not true. Discomfort has nothing to do with that argument. Comfort is not a factor in truth. Comfort is a factor in comfort. It doesn't mean you have to ignore it, but some of these critics really are painfully guilty of some fuzzy categorisation.
Other Comments by Auraboy
15. Comment #184473 by huzonfurst on May 25, 2008 at 12:49 pm
For Bullet, Evolution 101, first introductory lecture: Evolution is a *fact*; evolutionary theory is an *explanation* of this fact. The word does not mean "educated guess" as it does in the vernacular. Now sit quietly and learn.Other Comments by huzonfurst
16. Comment #184478 by AoClay on May 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I would like to see a test done (maybe one already has been done) about how good human hands are, because I know some Ionians were fascinated by them.and bullet, many other animals have forms of morality and evolution is indeed a theory (a scientific theory). The point is, how does that make it any less of a fact? It isn't JUST a theory, it's a theory. It's a theory that is the background theory for biology, and is on par with atomic theory or heliocentric theory for being correct.
or I should put it like huzon. Evolution is a fact and the theory is the explanation that is damn well supported.
Other Comments by AoClay
17. Comment #184483 by Auraboy on May 25, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I'm not sure how we'd know an ape doesn't have a developed sense of right or wrong. But as you describe it, neither do the apes that call themselves human beings. Moral development is noticeable for the word development. Moral choice and understanding has originated and morphed across generations and civilisations. What is right and wrong are important questions but to ignore the fact they have changed over time and through cultural pressures and intersocial development is to ignore the very point. Morality has developed in it's own fundamental evolutionary way. I'm sure there are far more knowledgeable people on here who can point out the areas of study for this.
Still nothing separates us from animals.
18. Comment #184484 by mordacious1 on May 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Bullet
You also need to look up the definition of "theory". christianity is NOT a theory, it's a myth. Natural Selection is an accepted theory (to describe evolution) but evolution is a FACT. Read a book other than the bible and you might learn something.
Other Comments by mordacious1
19. Comment #184486 by Darwin's badger on May 25, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Yeah, huzonfurst - and why is the theory of gravity still called the THEORY of gravity? Get out of that one, Rommel./sarcasm
Bullet, are you a troll or just really ignorant?
Other Comments by Darwin's badger
20. Comment #184490 by mordacious1 on May 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I suppose, even to understand a dictionary, you need some basic knowledge to comprehend what the definitions mean.
Darwin's badger
Yeah, everytime one of these morons tell me that evolution is a theory, I suggest we throw their kid off a 10 story building. Gravity is only a theory...
Other Comments by mordacious1
21. Comment #184491 by Quine on May 25, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Bullet, I suggest you go read the Lying for Jesus thread (from the beginning), where you will find many others have already made your comments, and where you will be able to read the answers and get the links to the background sources. Other Comments by Quine
22. Comment #184492 by mordacious1 on May 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm
No real school teaches that christianity is a theory, christian schools, maybe. Other Comments by mordacious1
23. Comment #184498 by Auraboy on May 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm
My dog knows when it's been bad.It looks really sad about it. But I suspect the little bastard is just putting on a show to mollify my almighty wrath. You can't trust these animals to know right from wrong.
Much like politicians in that respect. And arch-Bishops. But their hound dog expressions carry less weight with me.
Other Comments by Auraboy
24. Comment #184500 by Auraboy on May 25, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Moral and ethical concerns have changed with the developments of societies. Other Comments by Auraboy
25. Comment #184501 by epeeist on May 25, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Comment #184487 by BulletWhy has it been taught in schools? There is too much evidence for it to simply be called "myth". There are enough facts for creation for it to be called a theory, by far. Thats why it has been taught in schools. It is a reasonable explanation of how we got here, as is eveloution.Sometimes I really understand why Steve Zara left to do other things.
- Evolution is a fact. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. Have a look for the history of Spartina Anglica and Tiktaalik for examples.
- Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis is an explanation of how evolution takes place. It is a scientific theory
- Scientific theories have a number of properties, including accuracy, broadness of scope, self-consistency and consistency with other theories, parsimony and fruitfulness of research programs. These are from Kuhn, Popper would also add testability and falsifiability.
- The theory of evolution has undergone critical tests and is falsifiable. You can find extensive information on this here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
- Creationism is not science. The judge in the ACLU-Arkansas trial said so, and the judge in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial concluded that "Intelligent Design" wasn't science either. In fact Michael Behe was forced to admit that a definition of science broad enough to include ID would also be broad enough to include astrology. Do you want that taught in schools too?
If you believe your god created the universe in 7 days you are going to have to do some work to prove it.
- You are going to have to show that the universe was created
- You are going to have to show the creator was a deity
- You are going to have to show that this deity is interventionist and didn't just move on to the next job once he finished this universe
- You are going to have to show that your particular deity is the one worshipped in one particular area of one particular planet circling one particular sun amongst 400 billion others stars in one particular galaxy amongst 150 billion others
- You are going to have to show that this was documented in the "holy book" of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives
Other Comments by epeeist
26. Comment #184502 by epeeist on May 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Comment #184495 by BulletI promise you, im not lying. My problem is, Im fourteen years old man. Im still trying to figure things out for myself. Basically, Im getting my facts straight, but theres still a lot that I dont understand.If you are prepared to learn then people here will help you. You might want to start with - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
Other Comments by epeeist
27. Comment #184503 by Verylee on May 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm
What is it with creation-ists and CAPS? I can't bring myself to use the term "intelligent design proponents", that's a FACT. Other Comments by Verylee
28. Comment #184504 by moderndaythomas on May 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bullet, Bullet, Bullet, Bullet, Bullet.
If you want to test established theories for yourself, begin with gravity and jump off a ten story building.
If not gravity, try the germ theory and eat a nice steaming pile of dog sh*t.
I had asterixed out the "i" so as not to damage your nice christian boy sensibilities.
But seriously (and I can't believe I have to explain this), a theory to science is to the military a five star general. Evolution for all intense and purposes should be ranked as a law were it not for the fear (political) of damaging those christian sensibilities.
Christianity, however, has absolutely no evidence in support of it, which is why the cornerstone to any religion is faith.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
29. Comment #184505 by EvidenceOnly on May 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Bullet,- your cell phone operates on the THEORIES of wireless communications, electronics, chemistry (batteries), etc.
- your car operates on the THEORIES of mechanics, electronics, chemistry, gravity, etc.
- your house is built on the THEORIES of gravity, material sciences, etc.
- you can walk around based on the THEORY of gravity.
They are all just theories but theories that are so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that we call them fact.
If you do not understand the difference, you should no longer use anything from this world and just pray to your God that gravity keeps working for you so that you do not get lost in space.
It is never too late to accept that we invented Gods in our image and that the holy books are just myth and stories written generations ago by people who did not know as much as we do now.
Let go of this false certitude of religion and open up to the wonderful world of theories that explain the facts we observe.
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
30. Comment #184507 by moderndaythomas on May 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Bullet, you're fourteen? Sorry my man, I had thought I was messing with someone a bit older. Excuse my rhetoric. This would explain why the need for a definition of the term "theory". Other Comments by moderndaythomas
31. Comment #184508 by epeeist on May 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Comment #184503 by VeryleeWhat is it with creation-ists and CAPS? I can't bring myself to use the term "intelligent design proponents", that's a FACT.Then use the term "cdesign proponentsists" - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
Other Comments by epeeist
32. Comment #184509 by irate_atheist on May 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm
33. Comment #184501 by epeeist -Sometimes I really understand why Steve Zara left to do other things.Indeed. One does start to lose the will to live when dealing with some people.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
33. Comment #184510 by Verylee on May 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Bullet, you're fourteen? Sorry my man, I had thought I was messing with someone a bit older.
Oh yes, he must be. He certainly has the mind of a fourteen year old, and not a day older...just read through his posts!
Other Comments by Verylee
34. Comment #184511 by EvidenceOnly on May 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I would not pick on Bullet's age. I've met 14-year olds who are more open to follow the evidence to wherever it leads to than an 80-year old Pope.Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
35. Comment #184512 by Quine on May 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Hi Bullet,You are young enough to remember what is was like to find out that there is no Santa; he is just a made up guy to help folks feel good and have a myth for a special kind of party. Every civilization of humans have also made up deities to make them feel good. It can also be a hard part of adult life to find out that the religion you were taught as a child is made up. If you were born in India you would now (probably) be wondering if the Hindu deities you believe, are real. In the modern world you have an advantage over your parents; you can look up and find the truth for yourself.
Other Comments by Quine
36. Comment #184513 by moderndaythomas on May 25, 2008 at 2:30 pm
EvidenceOnly
I agree totally, but one must watch one's language when children are about.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
37. Comment #184515 by Verylee on May 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I've met 14-year olds who are more open to follow the evidence to wherever it leads to than an 80-year old Pope.
Yes EvidenceOnly, you are right. That was an unfair comment, and I am sure there are many 14-year olds who are now very pissed with me! Apologies.
Other Comments by Verylee
38. Comment #184516 by AoClay on May 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Bullet, here's the point about it being a fact. Species are not immutable, they have clearly changed over time. Things change over the generations...FACT.The theory (explanation) part: Now explaining that with natural selection and mutation and genetic drift might not be sufficient, but it's accepted as such and has a hell of a lot of support. There's nothing close to a supported alternative as far as I know.
It's a theory like gravity, like heliocentrism, like atomic theory, and like relativity.
Getting something branded a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is the greatest reward a scientist can have from what I've seen. You're trying to use theory as a colloquial term, but the colloquial term for evolution is a fact (TM Dawkins). The scientific term for it is theory.
Other Comments by AoClay
39. Comment #184524 by Wosret on May 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm
15. Comment #184470 by Bullet
How are we different? We have the ability to choose right and wrong. If an ape does something wrong, that ape will not know that, because it doesnt have the same ability.
I'm always completely blown away at a theists ability to assert something they have absolutely no way of knowing if true, as if it were indisputable fact. They just think that sounds rights, so they assert it as (pattern the expression) the lords truth.
I like to quote Lincohn in these situations "if you have stated something as truth, that you do not actually know to be truth, then you have lied, and being right by coincidence does not excuse you of this fact."
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of not admitting when you don't know something and just making stuff up you think sounds right and calling it true.
Now, my lecture is over, and I will say that this point is factually mistaken. All social animals have at least proto-ethical and moral structure, many complex. Through the spectrum of social animals ranging from chimps to rats, will starve themselves before taking food if it will result in another one receiving an electrical shock. Monkey's will share food after completing a task that required the help of other monkey even if only one monkey was rewarded. These are just a couple examples, but there is extensive evidence that other animals in fact do behave quite morally toward members of their societies (even examples of empathy toward organisms they don't know). It is merely an announcement of one's arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and unappreciating for the level of one's knowledge to just ignorantly assert something.
This goes with evolution as well, a theory is an explanation or model that explains a body of facts. A theory is of course not a fact, because it is an explanation, and explanations are not facts. It is a fact that when dropped, objects are observed to fall towards the center of the planet, to explain this, is the theory of gravitation. It is a fact that we share a common ancestry with all life on earth, established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming fossil, genetic, geological, and biological evidence. The theory to explain this is Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection and spontaneous genetic mutation.
Read a book, and learn not to assert things you don't know to be true. That is speaking untruths, and you are conscious to the fact that you haven't studied the subjects and have not even a superficial understanding of them, so your ignorance is quite vincible, and you have no grounds for being excused from lying.
Other Comments by Wosret
41. Comment #184529 by qomak on May 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I've also observed that some people engaging in online debates/forums are somewhat on the edge. Apparently, here is no exception either. Other Comments by qomak
42. Comment #184534 by skybri on May 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm
...if you haven't seen this, it's worth a look; great show about us and our cousins:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/program.html
...This Memorial day, why not also give a thought (and some appreciation)to all your ancestors' trials and tribulations so you could be here...next chance is Nov.1 the "Day of the Dead".
Other Comments by skybri
43. Comment #184536 by notsobad on May 25, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Tribalism, here called group-mindedness, was identified as the problem some time ago.This article should have come up with solutions.
Other Comments by notsobad
44. Comment #184551 by rod-the-farmer on May 25, 2008 at 5:08 pm
adults impart information by telling and showing, and children trust and use this information with confidence. Our nearest primate relatives do not teach and learn in this manner.
While I am not an experienced observer of behavior in the larger apes, I think this is nonsense. I have seen several TV programs where the adult apes seem quite clearly to be teaching juveniles how to crack nuts, etc. The author here sounds like one of those types who keep insisting, despite all the evidence, that mankind is just "special".
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
45. Comment #184560 by petrucio on May 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Wanting to find out what makes humans special is bullshit. There's nothing special. The end result of our stay in this world may be, but there's nothing intrinsically different or special about us. We just got a little bit better at somethings to tip over.And dude, saying that we are not smarter because a 2 year-old human is not better at cognitive tests than adult primates? How about testing adults against adults for a fair assessment, you self-deluded, intellectually dishonest asshole?
Other Comments by petrucio
46. Comment #184564 by Christopher Davis on May 25, 2008 at 6:05 pm
"a theory to science is to the military a five star general."---moderndaythomas
Sorry Tom, I'm going to have to disagree. Most scientific theories make sense.
But, that reminds me of a joke...
Q: What's the difference between a General and God?
A: God doesn't think he's a General
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
47. Comment #184569 by AoClay on May 25, 2008 at 6:21 pm
rodthefarmer,Mammals are (or at least were) defined by how they raise their young and how they learn from imitation, etc.
So not only is it wrong, it's damn wrong. Primates do it, just like any mammal (and again, thats at least how they used to be defined, there might be anomalies by now or it could be crazy talk by now.)
Other Comments by AoClay
48. Comment #184571 by Thor'Ungal on May 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Agreed,
I hadn't even noticed that part, but yes it's wrong. I thought the big difference was in representational language but I'm wondering if other animals manage this too.
It might just come down to having the right combination of traits: to cooperate; develop language; technology; etc. This is one reason I wonder why we don't try to develop the same traits in other species, the building blocks seem to be there.
Thor
Other Comments by Thor'Ungal
49. Comment #184573 by Christopher Davis on May 25, 2008 at 6:49 pm
In regards to animals and moral sense...
I know I've read about reconciliation being a big part of Bonobo "culture" (unfortunately,can't remeber where), and I remember watching a show on the DISCOVERY CHANNEL about two chimps (Keely and Ivey, I think) and when one of them pissed off an older chimp she repeatededly tried to reconcile, but to no avail. The older chimp wouldn't immediately forgive her and the young chimp's behaviour was noticeably altered.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
50. Comment #184678 by Barry Pearson on May 26, 2008 at 12:52 am
This topic was covered, apparently more comprehensively, in the latest New Scientist:
So you think humans are unique?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826571.700-so-you-think-humans-are-unique.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_So you think humans are unique?
Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #184439 by esuther on May 25, 2008 at 8:41 am
While the gap between the social behaviors of non-human animals and humans seems large, I think Mr. Tomasello is too anxious to prove that humans are better and does not give enough mention of studies indicating complex social and even apparently moral communications among non-human animals.That is, that the difference is in degree, not kind.
Esuther
Other Comments by esuther