The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Science: Macaque Monkey Goes Totally Bipedal
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the
Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan,
Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has
switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human
history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in
William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause
of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote
imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No
matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain
functions."
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/07/21/monkey_israel040721.html[/URL]
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the
Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan,
Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has
switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human
history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in
William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause
of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote
imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No
matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain
functions."
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/07/21/monkey_israel040721.html[/URL]
Page:
The theory of evolution, is an attempt to describe what is happening, how and why. The theory describes the facts and the evidence. The theory comes after observation of the facts. The theory of evolution may be hopelessly wrong (although it has stood the test of time for 150 years already), but that would not change the fact that evolution occurs - we would just have to find a new and better theory for explaining it.
A good theory can also be used to produce predictions about future observations based on the known facts and evidence. A theory should also be falsifiable - this means that it should be possible to think of an experiment that would prove the theory wrong if it is not sound. One of the big problems with creationist hypotheses is that they are not open to refutation - any possible set of evidence can be explained away with some variation on "God did it, for Mysterious Reasons".
"Theory" as used by scientists has a quite different meaning to "theory" as used by a bloke you met in the pub. A theory is an attempt to explain a observed phenomenon using evidence and experiment, not a wild guess or something that just popped into your head a moment ago.
For example, aerodynamics theory allows us to build large passenger aircraft. Tons of metal that flies because theory predicted that the wings would suck it up into the sky. Sounds unlikely, but it works. Would you refuse to get on board a 747 because it was designed by theorists?
Theories are often used to explain "laws". The Law Of Gravity is fairly obvious - drop an apple and it will fall onto the head of any scientists sitting below. (Slightly more precisely, objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity). The theory of gravitation attempts to explain the law of gravity in detail; how it works, and what causes it. The theory of evolution, likewise, attempts to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution. Evolution happens. It can be seen, measured and experimented with. The theory of evolution describes the facts of evolution. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be completely wrong, that won't alter the fact that evolution still actually happens - we'll just need a better explanation (one which will not only explain everything that the theory of evolution did, but it would also have to explain why the theory of evolution worked so well for so long).
Evolutionary theory is still being debated. The underlying principles are very well understood and agreed upon, but there is still disagreement over many of the fine details. This does not mean that it should be discarded, or that it is simply wrong. It just needs more work. You can test your theories of aerodynamics in a wind-tunnel in just a few hours. To properly test evolution, you really need a test-tube the size of a planet and a few billion years (but for now, we'll just have to settle for creating new species in labs).
If good, solid evidence is produced that contradicts the theory of evolution, then (as with all theories) it will have to be either radically modified to fit the new evidence, or abandoned if that is not possible. Nobody has yet managed to produce such evidence...
One of the problems with developing evolutionary theory is that large changes happen over a very long period of time. Small-scale evolutionary changes can be done today - dog-breeding, myxamatosis-resistant rabbits in Australia, the Goatsbeard flower in America, fruit-flies in laboratories, antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution is happening, and to deny that is foolish. To say "It's only a theory, so it doesn't mean anything." is also foolish. It is a theory supported by overwhelming, freely available evidence, with just a few details to iron out. I think many creationists realise this, which is why they are trying to demolish the theory by ridicule and misinformation (if you came here thinking it's "just a theory, just a wild guess" then you have fallen victim to their campaign) or prevent it from being taught in schools. If they are so sure it is wrong, all they have to do is disprove it by normal, rational, scientific means. They're not having much luck so far, which is why they rely on misrepresentation of the facts
A good theory can also be used to produce predictions about future observations based on the known facts and evidence. A theory should also be falsifiable - this means that it should be possible to think of an experiment that would prove the theory wrong if it is not sound. One of the big problems with creationist hypotheses is that they are not open to refutation - any possible set of evidence can be explained away with some variation on "God did it, for Mysterious Reasons".
"Theory" as used by scientists has a quite different meaning to "theory" as used by a bloke you met in the pub. A theory is an attempt to explain a observed phenomenon using evidence and experiment, not a wild guess or something that just popped into your head a moment ago.
For example, aerodynamics theory allows us to build large passenger aircraft. Tons of metal that flies because theory predicted that the wings would suck it up into the sky. Sounds unlikely, but it works. Would you refuse to get on board a 747 because it was designed by theorists?
Theories are often used to explain "laws". The Law Of Gravity is fairly obvious - drop an apple and it will fall onto the head of any scientists sitting below. (Slightly more precisely, objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity). The theory of gravitation attempts to explain the law of gravity in detail; how it works, and what causes it. The theory of evolution, likewise, attempts to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution. Evolution happens. It can be seen, measured and experimented with. The theory of evolution describes the facts of evolution. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be completely wrong, that won't alter the fact that evolution still actually happens - we'll just need a better explanation (one which will not only explain everything that the theory of evolution did, but it would also have to explain why the theory of evolution worked so well for so long).
Evolutionary theory is still being debated. The underlying principles are very well understood and agreed upon, but there is still disagreement over many of the fine details. This does not mean that it should be discarded, or that it is simply wrong. It just needs more work. You can test your theories of aerodynamics in a wind-tunnel in just a few hours. To properly test evolution, you really need a test-tube the size of a planet and a few billion years (but for now, we'll just have to settle for creating new species in labs).
If good, solid evidence is produced that contradicts the theory of evolution, then (as with all theories) it will have to be either radically modified to fit the new evidence, or abandoned if that is not possible. Nobody has yet managed to produce such evidence...
One of the problems with developing evolutionary theory is that large changes happen over a very long period of time. Small-scale evolutionary changes can be done today - dog-breeding, myxamatosis-resistant rabbits in Australia, the Goatsbeard flower in America, fruit-flies in laboratories, antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution is happening, and to deny that is foolish. To say "It's only a theory, so it doesn't mean anything." is also foolish. It is a theory supported by overwhelming, freely available evidence, with just a few details to iron out. I think many creationists realise this, which is why they are trying to demolish the theory by ridicule and misinformation (if you came here thinking it's "just a theory, just a wild guess" then you have fallen victim to their campaign) or prevent it from being taught in schools. If they are so sure it is wrong, all they have to do is disprove it by normal, rational, scientific means. They're not having much luck so far, which is why they rely on misrepresentation of the facts
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Now that I've thought about it, what happens if a fundamentalist
> christian plays ISS Pro Evo ?
> Is it blasphamy? 3 hail-marys for every hour of play, or held back
> for half an hour after choir practice? *Shudders*
Humorous point. I've never before owned a Pro Evo, but I've ordererd number 4 as a GAD. I didn't really realise the title to a little while longer when I just said it and realised it said 'Pro Evolution' - my solution is simple I just don't go around saying the whole name. It's not a big deal to me, because it's just a game.
> Now that I've thought about it, what happens if a fundamentalist
> christian plays ISS Pro Evo ?
> Is it blasphamy? 3 hail-marys for every hour of play, or held back
> for half an hour after choir practice? *Shudders*
Humorous point. I've never before owned a Pro Evo, but I've ordererd number 4 as a GAD. I didn't really realise the title to a little while longer when I just said it and realised it said 'Pro Evolution' - my solution is simple I just don't go around saying the whole name. It's not a big deal to me, because it's just a game.
Ant wrote:
> Ah, wonderful!
>
> Thanks to this obviously near-human Macaque, I now realise that my
> religion is totally pointless and so I shall completely forget my
> strong faith and everything God has ever done for me! Instead, I
> shall venture forth into the masses and teach the forgotten and the
> sinful the ways of the Macaque!
>
>
> {:)
Heh. Well, being as how fundamentalist christians (motto: Putting the "Mentalist" back in Christianity) insist we should unquestioningly accept that humanity was condemned because a woman made out of a rib ate an apple because a snake told her to, I sorta figured it would be nice for evolution to have another animal tale.
Oh, and no; I'm not saying you're a fundamentalist. You've certainly never insisted that a non-believer is somehow inferior to you for not sharing your beliefs, so I have no particular beef with you.
God, that sounded really arrogant didn't it? Wasn't meant to...
> Ah, wonderful!
>
> Thanks to this obviously near-human Macaque, I now realise that my
> religion is totally pointless and so I shall completely forget my
> strong faith and everything God has ever done for me! Instead, I
> shall venture forth into the masses and teach the forgotten and the
> sinful the ways of the Macaque!
>
>
> {:)
Heh. Well, being as how fundamentalist christians (motto: Putting the "Mentalist" back in Christianity) insist we should unquestioningly accept that humanity was condemned because a woman made out of a rib ate an apple because a snake told her to, I sorta figured it would be nice for evolution to have another animal tale.
Oh, and no; I'm not saying you're a fundamentalist. You've certainly never insisted that a non-believer is somehow inferior to you for not sharing your beliefs, so I have no particular beef with you.
God, that sounded really arrogant didn't it? Wasn't meant to...
I am fish man and I live in the sea
God made the world and god made me
I am monkey man and I live in a tree
God made the.. you get the idea.
Not particularly looking to take the pi**, it's just that I've been awake for a loong time, the room is swimming a little bit, and it impresses me that I can rhyme still. Even if I can't walk properly (actually I'm a bit afraid to try).
It's my last day temping at my current place tomorrow, I could try to not sleep again tonight and see what happens.
I could arrange to get a lift so I don't have to drive...
I am south american beetle man and I live in the rain forrest canopy
God made.. Hmm....
Ant wrote:
> And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
Curious. What do you mean?
I'm not about to rally an assault of logical reasoning pro evolution - maybe that's favouritism, or just character reference.
I'm just interested to know what you mean.
Now that I've thought about it, what happens if a fundamentalist christian plays ISS Pro Evo ?
Is it blasphamy? 3 hail-marys for every hour of play, or held back for half an hour after choir practice? *Shudders*
Actually, this is turning into a bit of a harsh attack on fundamentalist christians after all.
Not to imply that Ant is that way inclinded...
*Sleeps*
God made the world and god made me
I am monkey man and I live in a tree
God made the.. you get the idea.
Not particularly looking to take the pi**, it's just that I've been awake for a loong time, the room is swimming a little bit, and it impresses me that I can rhyme still. Even if I can't walk properly (actually I'm a bit afraid to try).
It's my last day temping at my current place tomorrow, I could try to not sleep again tonight and see what happens.
I could arrange to get a lift so I don't have to drive...
I am south american beetle man and I live in the rain forrest canopy
God made.. Hmm....
Ant wrote:
> And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
Curious. What do you mean?
I'm not about to rally an assault of logical reasoning pro evolution - maybe that's favouritism, or just character reference.
I'm just interested to know what you mean.
Now that I've thought about it, what happens if a fundamentalist christian plays ISS Pro Evo ?
Is it blasphamy? 3 hail-marys for every hour of play, or held back for half an hour after choir practice? *Shudders*
Actually, this is turning into a bit of a harsh attack on fundamentalist christians after all.
Not to imply that Ant is that way inclinded...
*Sleeps*
Geffdof wrote:
> This isnt proof of evolution. Its proof that monkeys can be clever and
> teach themselves new things. The genetic makeup of the monkey is
> unchanged.
Evolution isn't all about genes. Being able to speak isn't in our DNA as humans, it just proves beneficial for us to be able to do it.
> This isnt proof of evolution. Its proof that monkeys can be clever and
> teach themselves new things. The genetic makeup of the monkey is
> unchanged.
Evolution isn't all about genes. Being able to speak isn't in our DNA as humans, it just proves beneficial for us to be able to do it.
That is (one of) the greatest pictures of a monkey I ever did see.
Jim of Honor wrote:
> Let's all be petty and miss the point!
>
> Who's for ignoring the fact that this is used to attack
> fundamentalist Christianity's refusal to acknowledge evolution and
> not the whole of Christianity itself? I know I am.
I wasn't being petty at all, and if you'd been visiting these forums for a while you'd know that...
I think it's petty that whenever anything, and I mean anything at all, comes up that could possibly be used to disprove Christianity and many of our beliefs it's instantly posted - as if it's supposed to change my views?
And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
> Let's all be petty and miss the point!
>
> Who's for ignoring the fact that this is used to attack
> fundamentalist Christianity's refusal to acknowledge evolution and
> not the whole of Christianity itself? I know I am.
I wasn't being petty at all, and if you'd been visiting these forums for a while you'd know that...
I think it's petty that whenever anything, and I mean anything at all, comes up that could possibly be used to disprove Christianity and many of our beliefs it's instantly posted - as if it's supposed to change my views?
And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
This isnt proof of evolution. Its proof that monkeys can be clever and teach themselves new things. The genetic makeup of the monkey is unchanged.
If I teach myself to play the guitar it doesnt mean that my kids will be able to play the guitar.
This monkey is just pushing itself to its limits. Its still a monkey. When Tony Hawks did a 900 on his skateboard nobody claimed that a new species had arrived. He is still human, just he has gone to the limits.
If I teach myself to play the guitar it doesnt mean that my kids will be able to play the guitar.
This monkey is just pushing itself to its limits. Its still a monkey. When Tony Hawks did a 900 on his skateboard nobody claimed that a new species had arrived. He is still human, just he has gone to the limits.
Humans are indeed retarded monkeys...
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> On another note, I couldn't help noticing that one of the possible
> given reasons was "brain damage".
>
> Which kind of says it all really.
Heh.
> On another note, I couldn't help noticing that one of the possible
> given reasons was "brain damage".
>
> Which kind of says it all really.
Heh.
Page: