| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2003 01:03:24 AM |
| Object: |
Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 03:49:03 AM |
|
|
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal world
are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any human being is.
I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of human souls and divine
rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
23 Sep 2003 12:09:34 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
Here is an article about human and chimp's DNA similarity.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-3.html
"Our DNA may be only 94% the same as chimps" If this turns out to be
correct then chimps may not our closest relatives at all. This would
put them very close to the gorillas (assuming gorillas DNA similarity
stays the same). This also suggests that humans diverged from the
common ancestor earlier than we had calculated before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
24 Sep 2003 12:29:20 AM |
|
|
In article <a07bedeb.0309222109.407abbc5@posting.google.com>,
(Born Again Atheist) wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food
that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
Here is an article about human and chimp's DNA similarity.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-3.html
"Our DNA may be only 94% the same as chimps" If this turns out to be
correct then chimps may not our closest relatives at all. This would
put them very close to the gorillas (assuming gorillas DNA similarity
stays the same). This also suggests that humans diverged from the
common ancestor earlier than we had calculated before.
Even if the 94% figure is correct, have we found any closer relative
among living species? Perhaps we should look at the DNA sequences of
more primates.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
28 Sep 2003 10:15:31 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message news:<jhachm-C90719.22292023092003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <a07bedeb.0309222109.407abbc5@posting.google.com>,
michael@buffalo.com (Born Again Atheist) wrote:
Even if the 94% figure is correct, have we found any closer relative
among living species? Perhaps we should look at the DNA sequences of
more primates.
Found some nice family tree tables. Common chimp and pygmy chimp are
thought to be our closest relatives at this point. These two species
most likely diverged from our common ancestor *after* we did.
http://www.evol.ism.ac.jp/evolu_tree/primate_tree.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/zoo/primatesintro.htm - Very nice
tables!
The guy actually used Jared Diamond's data table to create his own. If
you have the book "The Third Chimpanzee" it is on page 21.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
28 Sep 2003 08:50:27 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2003 08:15:31 -0700, (Born Again
Atheist) posted in alt.atheism:
Found some nice family tree tables. Common chimp and pygmy chimp are
thought to be our closest relatives at this point. These two species
most likely diverged from our common ancestor *after* we did.
Not only is that scientifically impossible, it's semantically
impossible.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
29 Sep 2003 12:09:47 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<n62fnvsede4g162ha6gd2mc3auotv5khhg@Pern.rk>...
On 28 Sep 2003 08:15:31 -0700, (Born Again
Atheist) posted in alt.atheism:
Found some nice family tree tables. Common chimp and pygmy chimp are
thought to be our closest relatives at this point. These two species
most likely diverged from our common ancestor *after* we did.
Not only is that scientifically impossible, it's semantically
impossible.
Phrased it poorly and incorrectly.
We diverged from *their* common ancestor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
29 Sep 2003 08:51:59 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2003 22:09:47 -0700, (Born Again
Atheist) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<n62fnvsede4g162ha6gd2mc3auotv5khhg@Pern.rk>...
On 28 Sep 2003 08:15:31 -0700, (Born Again
Atheist) posted in alt.atheism:
Found some nice family tree tables. Common chimp and pygmy chimp are
thought to be our closest relatives at this point. These two species
most likely diverged from our common ancestor *after* we did.
Not only is that scientifically impossible, it's semantically
impossible.
Phrased it poorly and incorrectly.
We diverged from *their* common ancestor.
Just as poorly phrased, but enough to show me that you probably mean
that they diverged from their common ancestor after Homo and Pan
diverged from *our* common ancestor. That's almost axiomatic.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 01:01:26 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
Very interesting. I am wondering how do evolutionary biologists and
zoologists explain this animal altruism using the prevalent theory of
selfish genes (genetic antagonism)? In other words, it is widely
believed that natural selection takes place within the genetic level
(the smallest of all) and not within the higher levels (ex: species,
phylum, order or even individual).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark W" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 08:00:19 AM |
|
|
"Born Again Atheist" <michael@buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:a07bedeb.0309202201.f40af4a@posting.google.com...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take
food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were
that
compassionate.
Very interesting. I am wondering how do evolutionary biologists and
zoologists explain this animal altruism using the prevalent theory of
selfish genes (genetic antagonism)? In other words, it is widely
believed that natural selection takes place within the genetic level
(the smallest of all) and not within the higher levels (ex: species,
phylum, order or even individual).
It makes perfect sense. Altruism is most commonly used within the family. In
this way by being altruistic the same genes are surviving as would if they
were purely selfish.
Take ants for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 07:49:22 PM |
|
|
"Mark W" <mark.whickman@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bkk7d5$2jrmm$1@ID-182137.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Born Again Atheist" <michael@buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:a07bedeb.0309202201.f40af4a@posting.google.com...
It makes perfect sense. Altruism is most commonly used within the family. In
this way by being altruistic the same genes are surviving as would if they
were purely selfish.
Take ants for example.
I think the idea is that all altruistic acts and behavior that we
exhibit in animals (including ourselves) are ultimately selfish in its
core. Take us , humans, for example. Sometimes we do good deeds and
expect "nothing" in return . At first glance that is how it looks but
at closer examination we uncover our true selfishness: fame,
popularity, social standing, reputation, hidden interests, and so on.
How often do we put $20 bills in wallets that people lose? This act
would be almost purely altruistic. But no, we like others to
acknowledge our good acts. Therefore, human altruism is almost
non-existent. Take volunteering environmentalists for instance. These
people risk their lives, spend energy, time, and other resources to
achieve their goals. Are they really altruists? I don't think so. Such
people are deeply concerned about well-being of humans themselves. Ex:
upset in an ecosystem has a direct or/and indirect impact on humans,
polluted environment generates diseases and poor health, misuse of
natural resources places fates of future generations into uncertainty.
You got the idea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 01:24:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark W" <mark.whickman@ic.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bkk7d5$2jrmm$1@ID-182137.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Born Again Atheist" <michael@buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:a07bedeb.0309202201.f40af4a@posting.google.com...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
It makes perfect sense. Altruism is most commonly used within the family. In
this way by being altruistic the same genes are surviving as would if they
were purely selfish.
Take ants for example.
Yes, and bees. We are all driven by genes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 04:54:48 AM |
|
|
And it came to pass that (Born Again Atheist) did
write in alt.atheism,
news:a07bedeb.0309202201.f40af4a@posting.google.com:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take
food that will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most
humans were that compassionate.
Very interesting. I am wondering how do evolutionary biologists and
zoologists explain this animal altruism using the prevalent theory of
selfish genes (genetic antagonism)? In other words, it is widely
believed that natural selection takes place within the genetic level
(the smallest of all) and not within the higher levels (ex: species,
phylum, order or even individual).
I'll take a crack at it. The gorilla is used to it's keeper bringing food
and carng for it, and sees other humans outside the cage. The gorilla
might even view these interactions as forming some kind of group (a
reasonable assumption, as gorillas do live in groups in the wild, we'd
expect them to be hardwired to view things this way). In the wild it
would benefit a gorilla to care for young in it's group, as these have a
reasonable chance of sharing some genetic material (think about a group
that has been breeding for several generations).
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 02:32:03 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2003 23:01:26 -0700, (Born Again Atheist) wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4o4omvgeqrc93suftjn7g4mcueakpokpog@4ax.com>...
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
Very interesting. I am wondering how do evolutionary biologists and
zoologists explain this animal altruism using the prevalent theory of
selfish genes (genetic antagonism)? In other words, it is widely
believed that natural selection takes place within the genetic level
(the smallest of all) and not within the higher levels (ex: species,
phylum, order or even individual).
I'm not a scientist, so please feel free to take a chainsaw to my opinions, but
I personally have no difficulty with altruism emerging as a desirable property
in animals that live as part of a community. Individual cells have been
sacrifing themselves for the good of the greater (multicelluar) organism for
about a billion years.
In creatures like primates, and especially in humans, where co-operation is
essential for survival, having a sense of empathy with closely related
individuals clearly makes a lot of sense.
I'm not sure how this relates to the second part of your question though. I
thought that the whole point of natural selection was that it acted on a
specific creature and its opportunities to pass on its genes. What does it mean
to say that it acts on a species other than as a side effect of acting on many
individuals?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Born Again Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
23 Sep 2003 11:24:30 PM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<hdkqmv435elv18537sbi5qhuc9gtk78sic@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2003 23:01:26 -0700, (Born Again Atheist) wrote:
What does it mean
to say that it acts on a species other than as a side effect of acting on > many individuals?
You are right. Genes 'manipulate' individuals ("Dawkins coined a
special term for individuals - 'survival machines') in ways that best
conduct their own proliferation. Since members of same species are the
most beneficial to this particular individual his genes will form ties
altruistic and selfish alike) to this group to better chances of gene
propagation. His immediate family and relatives (beginning from
himself up to 2nd cousin or so) will be of special value and
relationships with these members will be much more altruistic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
25 Sep 2003 10:03:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:49:03 +0100, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal world
are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any human being is.
I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of human souls and divine
rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
Well, obviously god talked to a little monkey Moses and gave him the
10 Monkey Commandments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
25 Sep 2003 04:51:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:03:08 -0400, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:49:03 +0100, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm
reveals that even monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for
desperate fundie appeals to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food that
will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were that
compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal world
are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any human being is.
I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of human souls and divine
rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
Well, obviously god talked to a little monkey Moses and gave him the
10 Monkey Commandments.
But did he spank it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 08:15:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:49:03 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm reveals that even monkeys
have a sense of justice. So much for desperate fundie appeals to God as
the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food
that will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were
that compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal
world are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any human
being is. I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of human
souls and divine rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
They either dance their way around it or call you a liar.
I've pointed out *repeatedly that the basics of our own human moral system
can be seen in other primates. Most often, I just get ignored after that...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 05:54:08 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote
news:<pan.2003.09.20.13.15.58.390481@eac.org>
They either dance their way around it or call you a liar.
I've pointed out *repeatedly that the basics of our own human moral system
can be seen in other primates. Most often, I just get ignored after that...
That seems to be their best defense, especially given that they have
nothing that could be called an offense (that's not to say they're not
offensive, of course...).
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 12:05:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:15:58 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:49:03 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm reveals that even monkeys
have a sense of justice. So much for desperate fundie appeals to God as
the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take food
that will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most humans were
that compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal
world are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any human
being is. I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of human
souls and divine rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
They either dance their way around it or call you a liar.
I've pointed out *repeatedly that the basics of our own human moral system
can be seen in other primates. Most often, I just get ignored after that...
There have been well-publicised cases where zoo gorillas have
comforted and cared for kids who fell into their pits and hurt
themselves, until they were rescued.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 05:52:32 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<1q1pmvo9k9muc3uf812359pllbsa5lb832@4ax.com>...
There have been well-publicised cases where zoo gorillas have
comforted and cared for kids who fell into their pits and hurt
themselves, until they were rescued.
The only one I ever heard of was in 1996 where Binti Jua, a gorilla at
Brookfield zoo in Chicago picked up a small child that had fallen into
the enclosure, and deposited him by the entrance door. The gorilla
apparently showed more attention to the child at that time than the
parents did, but there was some question as to whether it really
represented an humanitarian gesture or if the gorilla was simply doing
what she was trained to do with objects that fell into the enclosure.
Funnily enough I cannot find any reference to this on either CNN's or
the BBC's web sites, but here are a couple of somewhat tangential
references to it:
http://myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=binti
http://www.pcipr.com/clients/casehistories/ecs_0006.htm
On the other hand, Koko the "talking" gorilla (using ASL) is possibly
the only non-human who has ever hosted an Internet chat show:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9804/24/gorilla.chat/index.html
Apes like Koko and like the chimpanzees introduced to us in Roger
Fouts' book, "Next of Kin" (Avon Books, 1997) can leave only the most
moronic people clueless to how close we are, not only genetically, but
mentally.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 03:36:55 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2003 15:52:32 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<1q1pmvo9k9muc3uf812359pllbsa5lb832@4ax.com>...
There have been well-publicised cases where zoo gorillas have
comforted and cared for kids who fell into their pits and hurt
themselves, until they were rescued.
The only one I ever heard of was in 1996 where Binti Jua, a gorilla at
Brookfield zoo in Chicago picked up a small child that had fallen into
the enclosure, and deposited him by the entrance door. The gorilla
apparently showed more attention to the child at that time than the
parents did, but there was some question as to whether it really
represented an humanitarian gesture or if the gorilla was simply doing
what she was trained to do with objects that fell into the enclosure.
Funnily enough I cannot find any reference to this on either CNN's or
the BBC's web sites, but here are a couple of somewhat tangential
references to it:
I saw a film (taken by a tourist's video) on the news showing the
event. The female gorilla also protected the child from a male who
tried to attack it. She didn't just put him at the door; she waited
and turned him over to an attendant.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
21 Sep 2003 04:38:27 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:tkoqmvskd4ds1r6a1okfmc3js3buun9v3b@4ax.com...
On 20 Sep 2003 15:52:32 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<1q1pmvo9k9muc3uf812359pllbsa5lb832@4ax.com>...
There have been well-publicised cases where zoo gorillas have
comforted and cared for kids who fell into their pits and hurt
themselves, until they were rescued.
The only one I ever heard of was in 1996 where Binti Jua, a gorilla
at
Brookfield zoo in Chicago picked up a small child that had fallen
into
the enclosure, and deposited him by the entrance door. The gorilla
apparently showed more attention to the child at that time than the
parents did, but there was some question as to whether it really
represented an humanitarian gesture or if the gorilla was simply
doing
what she was trained to do with objects that fell into the enclosure.
Funnily enough I cannot find any reference to this on either CNN's or
the BBC's web sites, but here are a couple of somewhat tangential
references to it:
I saw a film (taken by a tourist's video) on the news showing the
event. The female gorilla also protected the child from a male who
tried to attack it. She didn't just put him at the door; she waited
and turned him over to an attendant.
Thomas P.
I saw that video on "Real TV", or Animal Planet, or something. She
definitely protected that child from at least one, and as I remember it,
all the other gorillas, male and female. It was definitely "motherly
instinct", and I think I remember that she may have had a child of her
own die recently? Don't quote me on that.
--
ArWeGod
(remove underscore to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 05:55:08 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2003 15:52:32 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<1q1pmvo9k9muc3uf812359pllbsa5lb832@4ax.com>...
There have been well-publicised cases where zoo gorillas have
comforted and cared for kids who fell into their pits and hurt
themselves, until they were rescued.
The only one I ever heard of was in 1996 where Binti Jua, a gorilla at
Brookfield zoo in Chicago picked up a small child that had fallen into
the enclosure, and deposited him by the entrance door. The gorilla
apparently showed more attention to the child at that time than the
parents did, but there was some question as to whether it really
represented an humanitarian gesture or if the gorilla was simply doing
what she was trained to do with objects that fell into the enclosure.
That one, but there was also one in the UK maybe a decade or more
earlier.
Funnily enough I cannot find any reference to this on either CNN's or
the BBC's web sites, but here are a couple of somewhat tangential
references to it:
http://myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=binti
http://www.pcipr.com/clients/casehistories/ecs_0006.htm
On the other hand, Koko the "talking" gorilla (using ASL) is possibly
the only non-human who has ever hosted an Internet chat show:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9804/24/gorilla.chat/index.html
Apes like Koko and like the chimpanzees introduced to us in Roger
Fouts' book, "Next of Kin" (Avon Books, 1997) can leave only the most
moronic people clueless to how close we are, not only genetically, but
mentally.
I remember Koko's sadness when she lost her cat and then a few years
later her mate.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried Sysadmin" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationists Can't Get The Monkey Off Their Backs |
20 Sep 2003 10:08:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:15:58 -0500, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:49:03 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
On 19 Sep 2003 23:03:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm reveals that even
monkeys have a sense of justice. So much for desperate fundie appeals
to God as the ultimate source of morality.
Budikka
Interesting. See also:
http://www.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/compassion.htm
Rhesus monkeys have been shown to starve themselves rather than take
food that will result in pain being imposed on others. If only most
humans were that compassionate.
To me this shows quite clearly that our closest relatives in the animal
world are at least as capable of telling "right" from "wrong" as any
human being is. I'd love to see what the religionists with their talk of
human souls and divine rewards in the afterlife have to say about this.
They either dance their way around it or call you a liar.
I've pointed out *repeatedly that the basics of our own human moral system
can be seen in other primates. Most often, I just get ignored after
that...
IMHO, humans are the ones who will RATIONALIZE themselves out of these
ethical dilemmas and use gawd a great deal of the time to do it.
Greater intelligence gone wrong. They will say it is gawd's will or
heaven sent or blah blah blah. Rather than do the right thing, they will
do the selfish thing, and thus put themselves into a position of being
controlled. Theists are sheep. They are controlled. Being an atheist, I'm
more prone to see the big picture of what is going on and tell someone to
***** if I'm being manipulated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
