How could we possibly have evolved from apes, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 14-8-2008 @ 12:52 PM by no name needed

Originally posted by gluetrap

But, I am also not convinced that gorillas, orangs, and chimps are not sentient beings. So that scores me an F on my intelligent design biblicly based science exam before we are even out of the gate.

I'm convinced that they are. They make tools, they have been observed fishing, they have emotions and they can communicate w/us through sign language (like we can't see the communication by just looking in their eyes). These relatives of ours are intelligent, free thinkers.....as are many other species. Think about this: we have taught primates and dolphins...even dogs to communicate with us, using our language (sign language, hand signals, vocalizations, etc.) but we have never cracked their language....perhaps their language is just too complex for us to wrap our minds around.

Star for you!

reply posted on 14-8-2008 @ 01:09 PM by gluetrap

I am als convinced they are as well. Along with many other higher order socially complex mammals...like wolves and the domestic dog for instance. or dolphins or elephants.
while they might not have alphabets and subways and war, they do have conflicts with rival groups, have been known to kill for the sheer pleasure of it (both dolphins and dogs), use planning and teamwork when hunting or entering new territory and have a HIGHLY complex system of communication using both body language and vocalizations.

The communication that goes in my pack of three dogs is amazing and subtle and beautiful to watch.
Learning just the basics of that communication makes living happily together so much easier.

reply posted on 14-8-2008 @ 01:26 PM by dave420

reply to post by gluetrap

The communication between dogs is fantastic, but it's nowhere near the complexity of dolphins or great apes. For the simple reason that dogs' brains are simply not geared for such communication. I love dogs, don't get me wrong (especially Bassett hounds). They are extraordinary animals, or rather, they are extraordinary machines, geared to do one job very well - hunt. Either by sight, by smell, or some combination of the two. Their teamwork is fantastic, but it's instinctual, it's not like dog 1 says to dog 2 'go hide behind that bush and bite that sheep square in the face when I tell you' and dog 2 goes 'roger dog 1, dog 2 over and out'. They just see what's going on and think for themselves. Their communication, verbally or physically, is very basic at best. Great apes and dolphins do things very differently, as we have the ability to put ourselves in the place of others we are communicating with. When you point to something, a great ape and a human will follow your finger. A dog will either look at your finger, or follow the general direction of the movmement of your hand. He won't put himself in your position and work out from your eye and finger position what you're pointing to.

Again, I'm not besmirching the good name of dogs, I'm just pointing out their lack of the parts of the brain that are essential for the high-level communication. I feel you're anthropomorphising dog behaviour, which (especially according to the Dog Whisperer) is always doomed to fail.

The Bassett in question: Ernesto - a highly skilled hunter (Scent hound), but he has very basic ability to communicate, when compared to great apes and cetaceans.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 14-8-2008 @ 01:42 PM by gluetrap

reply to post by dave420

I fully agree that the communication levels are much below the levels of great apes or dogs. I have a husky, talk about a machine that is perfectly made for its
purpose, so much strength and will in such a pretty little package!!!

I went with dogs in this situation because they are a realm of little controversy. (unless you are the one guy I have seen lately around here who really really seems to hate dogs.) Also because there seems to be a lack of basic understanding of evolutionary theory as well as the evolutionary process at work. I can think of no other group besides canine that offers such a vast array of forms, barring insects, but insects dont really fit the discussion.

They are also easily accessible for people to actually see and observe to possibly understand the conclusions and correlations I was trying to make.

edited to add: that puppy might be the cutest thing I have seen in weeks. I have a black and tan coonhound, Loki, who is the sweetest most loving dog I have ever had, he is however smart at only one thing in the world and that is sniffing and tracking.
I love working breed dogs!

[edit on 14-8-2008 by gluetrap]

reply posted on 14-8-2008 @ 01:46 PM by no name needed

reply to post by gluetrap

Yes! And for those that argue that other animals lack the ability to invent/create technology...think about this: perhaps they just decided that "going green" was the way to go

Humans seem to be the only species that has found it necessary to alter our environment to be comfortable living in it!

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 12:02 AM by kegs

Has the American education system really become this bad? It's hard to believe...

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 06:48 AM by dave420

reply to post by gluetrap

The thing with different dog breeds is the difference in genetic make-up of each breed is absolutely miniscule. You can take one breed of dog and make an unrecognisable new breed in only 6 generations. Unlike insects, where the differences are much greater (wasps and ants can't breed, yet they are very closely related, for example) all dogs can inter-breed (even chihuahas and great danes, if you provide step-ladders and Barry White music). They are genetically identical, hence we have different "breeds" of dog instead of "species". The forms are only superficial. Insects are a whole class, whereas dogs are a single species. I find the whole thing fascinating.

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 07:40 PM by The Matrix Traveller