12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Eh, I dont agree with the thought process but I believe it goes like this: Although we understand the universe terrifically well, it is tremendously elegant and there are still a lot fo fundamental mysteries. To some people this suggests a creator, and they can believe in it - but they don't treat this as an idea they have any evidence for whatsoever, would never once use it in an explanation for why something works, and don't push it on other people. That is how the "religious scientist" thinks, I believe. It is more like an idea they like to entertain than something they actually consider an indisputable truth - comparable to, say, a quantum physicist's personal beliefs on why exactly a particle behaves the way it does - he knows he is almost certainly wrong, or only partially correct at best - but it is very interesting to think about and maintaining an interest in the subject is critical to dedicating yourself to it.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


Even Physicists have Particle Accelerators to help contribute shreds of evidence towards the way a particle behaves. If there were a Large GODron Collider that could help determine the existence of a God I would be all about building it.

As it currently stands there is no solid proof or experiment or even a THEORY that would explain God or a Soul or an Afterlife. Scientists use Evidence and Experiments and Theories and Hypothesis for everything they do.

But when it comes to Faith oh dear Jeebus no we would not think about applying that same logic to something as scary as the Capitol G.

Heck even the guy in the video that the OP posted is at LEAST using evidence (albeit incorrectly applied) and has created a THEORY!

Faith just says "It is impossible to know" without even trying. Just straight up giving up and quitting. No Theory. No experiments. No evidence. What a bunch of lazy bones. How lame. Who wants to hang around a bunch of quitters?

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by JScytale

 

Even Physicists have Particle Accelerators to help contribute shreds of evidence towards the way a particle behaves. If there were a Large GODron Collider that could help determine the existence of a God I would be all about building it.

As it currently stands there is no solid proof or experiment or even a THEORY that would explain God or a Soul or an Afterlife. Scientists use Evidence and Experiments and Theories and Hypothesis for everything they do.

But when it comes to Faith oh dear Jeebus no we would not think about applying that same logic to something as scary as the Capitol G.

Heck even the guy in the video that the OP posted is at LEAST using evidence (albeit incorrectly applied) and has created a THEORY!

Faith just says "It is impossible to know" without even trying. Just straight up giving up and quitting. No Theory. No experiments. No evidence. What a bunch of lazy bones. How lame. Who wants to hang around a bunch of quitters?

Yes maybe if you read one book and believe everything it says BUT you looking at it in terms of a mainstream 'Christian God' -It would be impossible for any scientist of any form/field to 'prove' the existence of a god without he himself dabbing into philosophy and/or spirituality/occult. Personal experiences can hold more truth and value then any scientific data can EVER provide.

I urge everyone who watched that original video i posted to check out his full lecture provided in the link...i know hes a back-yard scientist but listen to his full argument, he actually has some really good points

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Griffo515]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Griffo515]

reply to post by theufologist

...I also see intelligent design in it. For obvious and self-evident reasons (DNA, etc...you name it).

Here you go, this is quite recent, just this year. After watching, I recommend clicking the link, and follow to another video...ah, well, I'll just put them both here for you:



This one has nice music, requires reading comprehension. May need to pause occasionally for it to sink in....

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
reply to post by JScytale

 

Even Physicists have Particle Accelerators to help contribute shreds of evidence towards the way a particle behaves. If there were a Large GODron Collider that could help determine the existence of a God I would be all about building it.

As it currently stands there is no solid proof or experiment or even a THEORY that would explain God or a Soul or an Afterlife. Scientists use Evidence and Experiments and Theories and Hypothesis for everything they do.

But when it comes to Faith oh dear Jeebus no we would not think about applying that same logic to something as scary as the Capitol G.

Heck even the guy in the video that the OP posted is at LEAST using evidence (albeit incorrectly applied) and has created a THEORY!

Faith just says "It is impossible to know" without even trying. Just straight up giving up and quitting. No Theory. No experiments. No evidence. What a bunch of lazy bones. How lame. Who wants to hang around a bunch of quitters?

You *completely* missed the point. My point was, he, and I assume others, saw it as conjecture, imagination, etc. Thinking about things we don't know about. Scientists do this frequently *in their own heads* but it is always there and never enters such things as scientific papers.

I am talking about things like imagining WHAT gravity is, or WHAT magnetism is. We understand how it behaves, what causes it to exist, etc so incredibly thoroughly, yes. We understand how gravity behaves, that it is caused by a warping of space-time due to the mass of an object, can predict its force tremendously accurately, but as to what the force in itself actually is, that is up to your imagination. Magnetism is probably an easier to understand example of what I am talking about. Again, like gravity, we understand pretty much everything there is to understand about it with unbelievable detail and accuracy. As to why the force actually exists (what is it in reality?) that's up to conjecture because we probably wouldn't be able to truly understand it until we had instrumentation capable of perceiving fourth, fifth, etc dimensional space and translating it to three dimensions empirically (or translating raw measured data directly into mathematical data).

I had used the example of trying to understand why a particle behaves the way it does in quantum physics precisely because we DON'T know why they behave the way they do, what we can do is observe, analyze trends, and predict (sometimes successfully).

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
- Richard Feynman

“If anybody says he can think about quantum physics without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.”
- Niels Bohr

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."
- John Wheeler

[edit on 31-7-2009 by JScytale]

mispost.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


I think we are starting to veer off topic hardcore by getting into religion when the OP is trying to have a post about the Primate/Human link. My bad for veering off topic. Sorry OP.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks a lot. I'll watch'em both after a shower. (it's very hot here today!)

reply to post by AltruisticNarcissist


Great post, but... where did you get the idea that I'm a creationist? Because I said I believe in a "creator"? I never for a second thought in my life that the Earth was 6000 years old and all of that crap. With all the respect i give to opinions different than mine, that's one of the two or three theories I really disrespect, because it's blatantly based on nonsense and deliberately and proudly ignores the evidence. I DO contemplate those you call "the real mysteries". That's what i refer to when I talk about "God".

Everytime somebody mentions "God" you "scientists" feel the urge to take out of the hat both religion or creationism. I really don't get it.

(Don't get me wrong though, I agree with everything else you said.)

About the "man is an animal" issue, well, I don't really think so. I'm thinking as a three year old boy now, so, here's my question: why the distinction then? Why man to the left and animals to the right? There is a difference, infinitely small or incredibly huge I don't know, I only know it can't be grasped. It's in front of our eyes. Perfectly clear. And I'm not talking about genes, chromosomes, et cetera.

That's why I give the Pye man a little bit of credibility.

Originally posted by theufologist
About the "man is an animal" issue, well, I don't really think so. I'm thinking as a three year old boy now, so, here's my question: why the distinction then? Why man to the left and animals to the right? There is a difference, infinitely small or incredibly huge I don't know, I only know it can't be grasped. It's in front of our eyes. Perfectly clear. And I'm not talking about genes, chromosomes, et cetera.

That's why I give the Pye man a little bit of credibility.

WHAT distinction? There is none. The only distinction that exists is in your mind because you happen to be a human being, so your brain is wired to recognize other humans, understand humans, identify humans as something special, etc.

Originally posted by theufologist
reply to post by AltruisticNarcissist

 

Great post, but... where did you get the idea that I'm a creationist? Because I said I believe in a "creator"? I never for a second thought in my life that the Earth was 6000 years old and all of that crap. With all the respect i give to opinions different than mine, that's one of the two or three theories I really disrespect, because it's blatantly based on nonsense and deliberately and proudly ignores the evidence. I DO contemplate those you call "the real mysteries". That's what i refer to when I talk about "God".

Everytime somebody mentions "God" you "scientists" feel the urge to take out of the hat both religion or creationism. I really don't get it.

(Don't get me wrong though, I agree with everything else you said.)

creationism doesnt necessarily mean god. if you think life on earth was created, seeded, or engineered by extraterrestrials, you are a creationist.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


hi - in distingishing ` creationists ` - how about ` panspernists ` as a subset to bracket those who believe the ` aliens dun it ` origins ?

it is important to distinguish tnose who dispute elvolutionary theories and credit " aliens " as the first question to put tp them is ` explain the origins of aliens `

edit to clarify :

DOH - thinking rationaly - panspernia does not even specify an alien creator - merly an origin from beyond earth

its possible - pehaps plausible to believe in a naturalistic pansperina orign of life

as apposed to intercescionist pansperina

fook - thinking these things when drunk hurts my head

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ignorant_ape]

JScytale
On the issue of gaining brain....
Are you familiar with the Cro-Magnon people?
And how about those Massive skulls found in Peru?
see here: ancient skulls

Nature doesn't cause more intelligent creatures to lose their phyisical attributes that are designed for survival. You idea that gaining brain causes losing natural survivability is illogical.

Your #3 is also illogical. You seem to be overlooking that fact that Eskimos, American Indians and many Asian people living in Northern climates still have dark skin. There is geological evidence that those "Northern Climes" were not always so cold. Think harder.

5& 6..Guess again. Nature doesn't produce any traits that cause an animal to be at a disadvantage, such as hair and nails that just keep growing. Sure selective breeding could get it, but in our alleged primitive state making such selections would put the species at risk. Don't point to Domestic Animals....they have been artificially bred, and it is necessary for the breeders to continue to make selections to retain these traits.. Back to the wild they would revert to the wolf type.

Do tell us what genetic disorders some animals have. And don't point to domestics, as they do have lots of them.

So you think that humans and apes/monkeys/chimps are "almost" identical?
Maybe you want to tell me how I can tell the difference between you and the Chimp.
When you have counted any differences, let me know if you still think it is still only 2.5%.
Omniskeptic
So how exactly does the 24th chromosome prove common descent?

If we did have common descent, we got the short end of the stick, didn't we.
All the ape/monkey family survive and thrive without the brain power that we have.
So what exactly is the logic in developing such a brain?

Evolution is still A THEORY, it is not established fact.

OK Turkeyburger, so tell us how is it that nature designed us so that we need toilet paper.
THe apes/monkeys/chimps don't.
WHy have we been downgraded?
Why would nature create this flaw?
Do you think it was a matter of Natural Selection?

Ignorant ape...All genetic defects are NOT recessive. Some of them are Dominant and it only takes One parent to pass it on. Some of these defects are in degrees. The Parent may have only a slight almost unnoticable case, and the child will have it full blown. I speak from knowledge of a defect in my family. Three generations of it.

Genetic disorders don't self eradicate because some of them are so miner that it doesn't matter to the breeding pair. For others like Epilepsy...well it is argued that these people have a right to reproduce.

ALL cultures the world over have folk tales of "Gods" that came from the sky and created them.
They describe these "Gods" as being tall, fair skinned, blue-eyed blonde and red-haired people.

So why exactly do you all fight so hard to be descended soley from all those primitive forms?
How about if it is only half right?
Why do you fight so hard against being a product of genetic manipulation by and advanced race of people?

You throw the word "mutation" around like you know what you are talking about. Fact is mutations in nature are difficult to perpetuate. If you think otherwise, you are not doing a logical chain of thought, and you know nothing about genetic inheritance. The one whose genes are different must necessarily be bred back to its offspring. There is also the assumption that it and its first offspring survive. That's why most products of mutation are in domestic animals.

Yes, Chembreather, they show you drawings because they have little else. They found a bone in Asia a few years ago and some artist constructed a drawing of a whole animal from it. A monkeky type animal of course. THey named it Peking Man. Some years later a much smarter person was looking at this bone perported to be a portion of the skull of this creature. Well, ha ha, it was identified to be AN ELEPHANT'S KNEE CAP!!!!

So desparate these evolutionists are that they have constructed many frauds. And fools stilll belileve them.

And these same diehard evolutionists are the same ones who think that we are the most technological people ever to inhabit Earth.

reply to post by Griffo515


None of what he says is proof of anything other than the idea that evolution has it flaws and doesn't design perfect creatures. I do find it strange that so many missing links of evolution die out rather than co-habitation but given the time scales over which evolution works and the massive number of variables involved in a given species survival I guess it makes sense most of our relatives would die off and the ones that remained would become quite different from us.

I don't rule out the possibility of aliens being involved in our development, after all it was a long time ago and scientists and historians don't have all the answers. The origin of man is still shrouded in mystery with tantalizing clues left in the myths and artifacts of our early ancestors allowing for speculation and imagination to fill in the blanks....

I have remarked to friends about how I wish we'd kept our tails when the ape-monkey line broke into two... I want my tail back

reply to post by OhZone

Nature doesn't produce any traits that cause an animal to be at a disadvantage, such as hair and nails that just keep growing.

Why, exactly, is that a disadvantage? You can't just barge in, and claim it.

Sure selective breeding could get it, but in our alleged primitive state making such selections would put the species at risk.

Why? This goes to the question above. Also, who's to say, or know, when longer cranial hair began to appear? Certainly it can be said that even early pre-humans were tool users. Seems that long hair isn't such an 'evolutionary disadvantage' then! People were smart enough, at some point, to deal with it. BTW, nails? Ever had a pet cat? Dog? I know, you said:

Don't point to Domestic Animals....

which is ridiculous, actually, because all domestication did was to alter certain physical characteristics that are purely superficial, and select in some cases for temperment.

But, back to cats, for instance. Their nails (claws) continually grow. AND shed. OUR nails shed in a different way, perhaps --- they get worn down.

Speaking of nails, that (in Humans) is just ONE of about two dozen things I can think of off the top of my head, to show that we evolved. WHY the very, very tender area (the 'quick') below them? Put there for the convenience of ancient torturers??

The rest of your attempt to "refute" JSc is equally flawed. Attempting to question the natural skin colors of peoples in other areas besides Africa shows that you didn't understand the concept of diet, migration, interbreeding and a whole host of other possible factors to explain that. Humans didn't evolve in a bubble.

thought to add, don't all (or most) mammals continually grow hair? I just think some species shed more. AND, what about back hair, on Human males??? In my twenties, nice chest hair, no back hair. NOW, though...yuck!

[edit on 31 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by OhZone
JScytale
On the issue of gaining brain....
Are you familiar with the Cro-Magnon people?
And how about those Massive skulls found in Peru?
see here: ancient skulls

Nature doesn't cause more intelligent creatures to lose their phyisical attributes that are designed for survival. You idea that gaining brain causes losing natural survivability is illogical.

Wrong. We didn't lose natural survivability because human beings don't rely on muscles to survive. We rely on outsmarting prey and predators.

Your #3 is also illogical. You seem to be overlooking that fact that Eskimos, American Indians and many Asian people living in Northern climates still have dark skin. There is geological evidence that those "Northern Climes" were not always so cold. Think harder.

Wrong again. Eskimos are an exception, yes, and their reasons are two-fold. They have only lived in far northern latitudes for a short period of time historically, and their diets are already rich in vitamin D.

anthro.palomar.edu...

The Inuit people of the American Subarctic are an exception. They have moderately heavy skin pigmentation despite the far northern latitude at which they live. While this is a disadvantage for vitamin D production, they apparently made up for it by eating fish and sea mammal blubber that are high in D. In addition, the Inuit have been in the far north for only about 5,000 years. This may not have been enough time for significantly lower melanin production to have been selected for by nature.

5& 6..Guess again. Nature doesn't produce any traits that cause an animal to be at a disadvantage, such as hair and nails that just keep growing. Sure selective breeding could get it, but in our alleged primitive state making such selections would put the species at risk. Don't point to Domestic Animals....they have been artificially bred, and it is necessary for the breeders to continue to make selections to retain these traits.. Back to the wild they would revert to the wolf type.

It isn't a disadvantage, its an annoyance. In fact it may have encouraged our ancestors to develop tools to deal with it. Also, nature produces TONS of disadvantageous mutations. MOST of the time mutations are bad. Those animals just die and rarely reproduce. Also, in order for us to selectively breed dogs to have hair like ours, the potential had to exist in their genes in the first place - we simply activated those genes. In order to introduce a completely new feature, either a mutation had to happen (which is unlikely in the time span of human selection), or they had to be engineered (before genetic engineering). Also, dogs would not revert in the wild. they would continue adapting to a new environment. Ever see a dingo? They are domestic dogs that began living wild and adapted to their new environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Do tell us what genetic disorders some animals have. And don't point to domestics, as they do have lots of them.

How about albinism?

hypotrichosis?


there is a lot of reading on the subject.
books.google.com... =en&ei=IWZzSqG5Gou_lAfs0u3vCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=genetic%20disorders%20wild&f=false

So you think that humans and apes/monkeys/chimps are "almost" identical?
Maybe you want to tell me how I can tell the difference between you and the Chimp.
When you have counted any differences, let me know if you still think it is still only 2.5%.

It has been conclusively genetically proven. We have FULLY mapped both our genome and the chimpanzee genome. Every single gene.
www.scientificamerican.com...

[edit on 31-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Griffo515

 

I have remarked to friends about how I wish we'd kept our tails when the ape-monkey line broke into two... I want my tail back

But then we wouldn't be apes
Apes didn't have any use for tails anymore, which is why it had disappeared. It could have remained even without a use, such as say our appendix, but it was one of the features which managed to die off, maybe because predators could grab apes by their tails. I mean, we still TECHNICALLY have tails, but its just a few bones at the bottom of your spine.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by OhZone
If we did have common descent, we got the short end of the stick, didn't we.
All the ape/monkey family survive and thrive without the brain power that we have.
So what exactly is the logic in developing such a brain?

Because in their environmental niche, they didn't need to be tremendously smart. Of course, they are still by far the most intelligent animals in their respective habitats.

Evolution is still A THEORY, it is not established fact.

A scientific theory is essentially fact, because a hypothesis is not a scientific theory until it is held up by mountains of evidence and stood up to thousands of scientists trying to disprove it. Gravity is a scientific theory.

OK Turkeyburger, so tell us how is it that nature designed us so that we need toilet paper.
THe apes/monkeys/chimps don't.
WHy have we been downgraded?
Why would nature create this flaw?
Do you think it was a matter of Natural Selection?

We don't need toilet paper. They would benefit from it just as much as we do - they just don't care. It is simply a tool we *very recently* designed to make life a little easier.

Ignorant ape...All genetic defects are NOT recessive. Some of them are Dominant and it only takes One parent to pass it on. Some of these defects are in degrees. The Parent may have only a slight almost unnoticable case, and the child will have it full blown. I speak from knowledge of a defect in my family. Three generations of it.

And I covered this earlier. There are zero single-gene defects that kill a person before reproduction is possible.

Genetic disorders don't self eradicate because some of them are so miner that it doesn't matter to the breeding pair. For others like Epilepsy...well it is argued that these people have a right to reproduce.

Speaking of epilepsy and going back to your old animals dont get genetic defects, I had a pet rabbit with epilepsy.

ALL cultures the world over have folk tales of "Gods" that came from the sky and created them.
They describe these "Gods" as being tall, fair skinned, blue-eyed blonde and red-haired people.

WROOOOOOONG.
ALL cultures have religious belief to some extent. A MINORITY believed in actual Gods (most believed in animalistic spirits), but those became the dominant ones. A TREMENDOUSLY small minority described their gods like you did. The only reason you think that way is because thanks to christianity, Jesus etc is portrayed as white most often (I have seen churches in peru with Jesus portrayed as brown). Do you REALLY think the romans saw Zeus as blond haired and blue eyed?

So why exactly do you all fight so hard to be descended soley from all those primitive forms?
How about if it is only half right?
Why do you fight so hard against being a product of genetic manipulation by and advanced race of people?

Because evolution can explain EVERY SINGLE ADAPTATION, and there is NO evidence of genetic manipulation? that's about it.

You throw the word "mutation" around like you know what you are talking about. Fact is mutations in nature are difficult to perpetuate. If you think otherwise, you are not doing a logical chain of thought, and you know nothing about genetic inheritance. The one whose genes are different must necessarily be bred back to its offspring. There is also the assumption that it and its first offspring survive. That's why most products of mutation are in domestic animals.

Umm, duh? That is the whole POINT of evolution. Most of the time the animal with the mutation is going to die. If it happens to be a mutation that actually helps him, he is much more likely to survive and as a result pass it on.

I would very strongly recommend you actually learn about evolution before you attempt (poorly) to criticize it. Even if you refuse to believe it, LEARN ABOUT IT AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY STATES before making a point for point when all of your points aren't even aimed at evolution, but instead your misguided interpretation of what the word means.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
thought to add, don't all (or most) mammals continually grow hair? I just think some species shed more. AND, what about back hair, on Human males??? In my twenties, nice chest hair, no back hair. NOW, though...yuck!

I believe he was referring to the fact that most mammals have hair that will grow to a specific length and stop growing until it is shed, while a minority of animals that includes us have hair that will continue growing until death.