"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[mzungu]

Video -- Spear-Wielding Chimps Studied -- National Geographic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgIa_sTc5V4

 

[AV1611VET]

None! We are all the result of evolution!

Then I submit that's where the problem lies -- evolution.

Evolution says we're all the same; creationism says we're a cut above?

 

[Jro]

Overtone singing is a fairly primitive version of that, but humans certainly do do it

Huun Huur Tu at Philadelphia Folk Festival, August 2006 - YouTube

*loves HHT*

(I'm having an unusually youtube-y day today )

On that note (no pun intended), can I please have some juicy links on those birds? I had a vague recollection that they can do that, but I didn't want to bring it up without sources.

Here's a cool source about polyphony- http://earbirding.com/blog/specs/polyphony

Neat video by the way, I'm spending some time reading about HHT now!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Overtone singing is a fairly primitive version of that, but humans certainly do do it

*snip*
*loves HHT*

(I'm having an unusually youtube-y day today )

On that note (no pun intended), can I please have some juicy links on those birds? I had a vague recollection that they can do that, but I didn't want to bring it up without sources.

Here's a cool source about polyphony- http://earbirding.com/blog/specs/polyphony

Neat video by the way, I'm spending some time reading about HHT now!

You both might enjoy the documentary Genghis Blues. Netflix has it but not on instant.

 

[Naraoia]

Here's a cool source about polyphony- http://earbirding.com/blog/specs/polyphony

That's awesome, thanks!
Now that I think of it, I probably hear this all the time without realising it.

 

[Naraoia]

You both might enjoy the documentary Genghis Blues. Netflix has it but not on instant.

I'm afraid I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic for Netflix.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then I submit that's where the problem lies -- evolution.

Evolution says we're all the same; creationism says we're a cut above?

And what oher reason is there to believe Creationism? You guys are all in favor of hierarchies only when you get to place yourselves as superior.

An evolutinary mindset provides a certain sense of humilty that creationists commonly lack.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm afraid I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic for Netflix.

Well, I'm sure there are other sources.

 

[AV1611VET]

An evolutinary mindset provides a certain sense of humilty that creationists commonly lack.

Hey, pal, I'm not the one going around labeling myself a 'wise man'.

Your evolution is full of narcissism, and you don't even see it; so is your science.

And for the record, keep whining about how far behind we are compared to country x, y, and z, so they can triple the tuition when everyone signs up for the next semester.

 

[Nostromo]

Hey, pal, I'm not the one going around labeling myself a 'wise man'.

Your evolution is full of narcissism, and you don't even see it; so is your science.

Interesting snippets from Wikipedia:

The binominal name Homo sapiens is due to Carl Linnaeus (1758).

The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.

Notice the dates, before Lamarck, Mendel or Darwin.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That video of the guy making weird voice is cool. It would be neat to hear a whole chorus of people doing that. Thanks for posting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting snippets from Wikipedia:

The binominal name Homo sapiens is due to Carl Linnaeus (1758).

The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.

Notice the dates, before Lamarck, Mendel or Darwin.

So?

I've shown prescient evolution from the time of Solomon.

 

[Nostromo]

So?

So? You seemed to be blaming evolutionary theory for the narcissistic use of 'wise' in our Latin name, when it's really the work of a creationist. The fact that you think you've shown prescient evolution from the time of Solomon is irrelevant, as that wasn't Linnaeus' view so it isn't how he came up with the name.

 

[AV1611VET]

So? You seemed to be blaming evolutionary theory for the narcissistic use of 'wise' in our Latin name, when it's really the work of a creationist.

And that's supposed to mean what, exactly?

Don't you guys believe the Crusades were orchestrated by Christians?

The fact that you think you've shown prescient evolution from the time of Solomon is irrelevant, as that wasn't Linnaeus' view so it isn't how he came up with the name.

Linnaeus can take a hike.

 

[Nostromo]

And that's supposed to mean what, exactly?

It means you're wrong, AV.

I don't imagine I'll hear you decrying Creationism as narcissistic any time soon though.

Linnaeus can take a hike.

Shocker.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Hey, pal, I'm not the one going around labeling myself a 'wise man'.

Your evolution is full of narcissism, and you don't even see it; so is your science.

Science is the most humble discipline there is. A good scientist will throw away his or her most cherished theories and beliefs if they are shown to be false or in error. That is something that you cannot do. You are the one who is too narcissistic to let go of your beliefs if they are shown to be false. You are arrogant enough in your beliefs that you've set up "Boolean standards" that make your assumptions unalterable.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey, pal, I'm not the one going around labeling myself a 'wise man'.

Your evolution is full of narcissism, and you don't even see it; so is your science.

As has already been pointed out, it was a Creationist who came up with the name, not an evolutionist. Therefore, it has nothing to do with evolution being narcisistic. It really isn't a very good argument anyway, and I'm not sure why you emphasize it so much. That's my two cents anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

As has already been pointed out, it was a Creationist who came up with the name, not an evolutionist.

That means nothing.

Did he do it in spite of creation, or in respect to it?

The term is now accepted by just about everybody (as far as I know); creationists and evolutionists, Christians and atheists, scientists and lay persons alike.

Just because a creationist came up with it, does that make it right?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That means nothing.

It means that whatever point you were pretending to have just went right down the toilet.

Did he do it in spite of creation, or in respect to it?

Well, there's never been a creationist in history who has ever had an ounce of respect for creation -- too busy preserving their own fairy tales (of which they are both the narrators and the stars) to actually take a look at it.

The term is now accepted by just about everybody (as far as I know); creationists and evolutionists, Christians and atheists, scientists and lay persons alike.

Just as the term "disaster" is used by just about everybody -- even those who don't believe in astrology.

If you have a problem with the term, would you place the responsibility on a creationist for inflicting it upon the rest of us?

Just because a creationist came up with it, does that make it right?

You're going to have to find a creationist who actually cares about "right" in order for that question to mean anything.

 

[mzungu]

I have finally concluded the following:

Creationists are only interested in their own version of the truth and simply cannot even entertain the very notion that they may be in err.

Science has absolutely no problem relegating humans to a lower status if an animal or other being is shown to be superior. In fact science has shown how many animals are superior in many ways to humans. Even insects are superior to us in many ways. Science not religion showed evidence that all humans are the same irrespective of colour or race! While religion preaches racism.

Science has shown that all life is related and this leads to one being humbled and accepting the preciousness of life.


Excerpt from Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences

Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.

A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans. A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.

A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.

Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.

A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes. Why Were Genes Used In This Comparison, and How Do They Relate To DNA?

Genes are the fundamental units of DNA function. In DNA terms, genes are discrete sections of the DNA sequence that are part of much longer DNA molecules. They provide the biochemical instructions for producing all of the components of biological organisms. Some genes specify visible physical traits, while others govern metabolic processes. Most traits, such as the shape of your face, require the actions of many genes.
Why Are We So Similar?

The DNA of these species is so similar because the basic organization of life is widely shared, with the largest differences found between plants and animals, or between tiny single-celled organisms like yeast and large multicellular organisms like ourselves. The similarities reflect a common ancestry that appears to be shared by all life on Earth.

Are People Really Identical?

Even though humans share 100% of the same genes, the instructions contained within the genes are not entirely identical. Each person is unique. People have different hair colors, facial structures, and other traits. These differences between individuals result from very small differences in their DNA sequences. DNA also contains many so-called "housekeeping genes" that control important metabolic processes. As you will see, some of the differences in these genes can cause illness.
Although the DNA of any two people on Earth is, in fact, 99.9% identical, even a tiny difference can have a big effect if this difference is located in a critical gene.