Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old

An anonymous reader writes "Published today in the journal Current Biology, a new study shows that laughter is not a unique human trait, but a behavior shared by all great apes. Tickle a baby chimpanzee and it will giggle just like a human infant. This is because laughter evolved millions of years ago in one of our common ancestors, say scientists."

Comments

and today...

[Anonymous Coward]

those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved' humans.

The monsters!

[Anonymous Coward]

They tickled three human babies for this experiment.

Re:The monsters!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing! Back in the war, we chased the teddy bears into their cuddle bunkers, then had to tickle them out with machine hugs and fun throwers!

...They say the more soldiers you tickle, the easier it gets. Well, sir, it doesn't.

Re:The monsters!

[Goldberg's Pants]

Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old

That's funny, because so are the gags on "According to Jim".

Re:The monsters!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but courtney-thorne smith is hot...

That is not even Funny

[G3ckoG33k]

Hrrmmpff.

Re:That is not even Funny

[sqldr]

It's not even news either. Studies showed that rats make high pitched (ultrasound) noises when you tickle them.

Re:That is not even Funny

[FiloEleven]

That was my first thought as well. There's an episode of Radiolab all about laughter, and they have a video on that page of a researcher tickling rats.

Re:That is not even Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

That was your first thought? About laughter? Really?

Re:That is not even Funny

[FiloEleven]

Yes. Yes it was.

Re:That is not even Funny

[sam_handelman]

I'm replying to erase the bad mod I just made, clicked in the wrong place.

  I don't like the new moderation UI. Meant to mod you up.

  I suspect that there may be technical differences between the results but it's a valid point.

Re:That is not even Funny

[HTH NE1]

Ha-ha ha ha, NARF!

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old. Scientists sure do like to take liberties with what they say has evolved. The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect. Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms. Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place? We may as well assume that 2 people with brown hair must have had the same parents or that 2 people both born with webbed feet came from the same parents. But that logic would just be absurd wouldn't it? And since I'm speaking out against the liberal agenda I must post as AC or else be modded down simply for disagreeing with the desired establishment.

Re:hmmm

[Tenebrousedge]

Mod parent up, +1 Funny.

Re:hmmm

[bogjobber]

The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect. Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms. Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?

OK, I'll bite. Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait. It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory. And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.

Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda." Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.

Re:hmmm

[interkin3tic]

After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments. I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.

Re:hmmm

[G3ckoG33k]

"2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect"

No, it is not incorrect. True, those shared traits may not have evolved from a common ancestor, and then they are "analogous" traits; .e.g. the wings in bats and birds are examples of that.

If they have evolved through a common ancestor then they are "homologous" traits; the wings of bats and birds are examples of homologus traits, if regarded as forelimbs and not as wings.

In order to judge which is correct you need make a "phylogenetic analysis". The Internet is full of decriptions on the various techniques on how to do that.

Go search for it, boy.

Re:hmmm

[Jurily]

Evolution is quite real. Humanity has played with it for a long time. But we must drop the assumption that behavior observed now has been there 16 million years ago. Why do we assume chimpanzees stopped evolving, again?

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, i *never* would have guessed the current modding of the parent and grandparent post on /. ... 4AM must be the conservative crowd or something.

Re:hmmm

[psnyder]

Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?

If you have:

1. variation
2. heredity
3. selection

It's impossible NOT to have evolution.


We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.

1. Variation: We see mutations in every baby. Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits. We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.
2. Heredity: We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.
3. Selection: The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on. (They'll be making more babies.)

These mutations are not selective to a specific sub-set of traits. They go across the board effecting every trait of an organism. Nature is constantly changing every aspect of every organism right in front of our eyes, with every new birth. If we do this for millions of years it's impossible NOT to have an incredibly different organism at the end.

The misconception comes from the idea that an ape gave birth to a human. This is simply not the case. The change was very gradual, changing trait upon trait over time. Today's apes are VERY different from the apes of the past.

The only reason we separate and classify into Homo erectus, sapians, neanderthalensis, etc. is to make sense of it all. We give different words to groups of organisms that have different traits. They're basically the same living thing with slightly different traits.

Where we draw the line and call things different species, races, etc? Well it's very difficult, and so we're constantly refining what names we give to groups with different traits. But they're just NAMES. The traits change all the time.

This gradual change in traits that we observe happening RIGHT NOW is what many people call evolution. There's LOTS of evidence (bones & fossils) to say that this has always happened.

When observing all of this right in front of our eyes, it actually takes a leap of faith to say things don't evolve. Even the last 2 Catholic Popes (heads of a very non-liberal organization) have understood and agreed with it. Once you see it, you have to say, "I don't believe my eyes." And THAT is the true leap of faith.

Re:hmmm

[Insanity Defense]

After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments. I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.

You wouldn't expect them to evolve would you? To do so would in fact be hypocritical of them. You can't expect them to compromise their faith by doing such a thing.

Re:hmmm

[Zontar The Mindless]

AC, you are my new King/Queen/Fido of Whoosh. Brilliant.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you would have transient skeletal remains and at last count there were...none. You lost me at "It's impossible NOT...". Such a logical fallacy.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well after 16 million years or so you do kinda get set in your ways Sonny,

Get ORF my Lawn.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not evolution. That's genetic engineering

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you; I didn't understand the first time, when interkin3tic said it.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiktaalik says suck it. Or did you mean hominid fossils? OK, here, here, and here.

Re:hmmm

[Skrullmukken]

I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old.

You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.

Re:hmmm

[Cstryon]

I really hate this Creationists bashing science, Scientists bashing Creation. Complete nonsense. Evolution happens, I have my Dads shaped mouth, and my moms huge teeth. Kinda sucks because my jaw locks up when I'm eating, but these are traits passed on. If it weren't for our brains, I would possibly be one of those poor suckers that doesn't breed, because of traits. (But My MD can make things otherwise, and I'm married => ) But I am also a Christian (LDS), It would be silly of my to assume that the universe was created by an all powerful being, and he wasn't able to set in motion EVOLUTION! For all we know, God told Moses it was 7 days, because Moses just wouldn't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe. Here's what I believe, God Created the universe, god created life, God caused evolution to Just work, so that Humans would eventually evolve. Adam was the first Smart enough primate to understand these things. Whether it was 6000 years, or billions of years since the earth was created, if God is all powerful, he can do it how ever he wants, and will do it the way it best works.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's evolution.

A dog with traits desirable to humans is more likely to be bred. Dog breeders are an evolutionary force selecting for traits like long hair and good temperament.

Humans are not separate from evolution, evolution does not become "genetic engineering" just because the selection pressure comes from humans rather than anything other than humans. It's all about fitness, and in a world dominated by humans, dogs desirable to humans are more fit.

Re:hmmm

[SanityInAnarchy]

God told Moses it was 7 days, because Moses just wouldn't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe.

Or it's possible the Bible was, in whole or in part, written by humans who got it wrong.

Here's what I believe, God Created the universe, god created life, God caused evolution to Just work,

Abiogenesis doesn't require a supernatural being, either.

But you're right -- there are many opportunities for a deity to help things along, and neither evolution nor abiogenesis makes it impossible to adapt a Christian belief.

That's not a typo -- I said "adapt", not "adopt". Just as Christianity has had to adapt itself before, to the idea of Earth being spherical, and Earth not being the center of the Universe.

It's good to see you're on the right track... I only hope...

I am also a Christian (LDS)

I only hope that you don't try to apply any of that religion to either your science or your ethics -- or at least, I hope you're as good at adapting it as you have been with evolution.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits. Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story. You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too. Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor. There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones. You could theoretically, under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation, have two border collies, one in the UK and one in America, separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.

Now this isn't to say that there isn't a common ancestral connections, it's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true. In fact, some people, even here on slashdot, will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species. They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something. Take this laughter situation, rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth. Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages. To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor, then rats, cats, dogs, and elephants, most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.

On the other hand, if laughter, especially at an early age, it a function of necessity in pack animals (rats, apes, elephants, canine, felines, and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn (interpret) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species, the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances. Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life. In short, it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who didn't.

Re:hmmm

[SpeZek]

That's not evolution. That's genetic engineering

The only difference is that we're doing it, rather than natural selection.

Re:hmmm

[Epistax]

Not to mention that totally unrelated animals can evolve similarly in similar environments. Whales and dolphins sure look like fish sometimes..

Re:hmmm

[sillybilly]

You are talking about a concept similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_realizability.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things. Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there. There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date. However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.

With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but don't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know. You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species. This has been present with cattle probably just as long. However, that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution (changes within the same species) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.

You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution. Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change. However, this doesn't mean that the line of thinking is true, nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false, that the micro evolution has to be false too. Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution, it doesn't prove that aspect, and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors. It doesn't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.

Please don't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye can't spot them under some circumstances. That is the reality of what you did, you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time.

Re:hmmm

[sillybilly]

But when talking apes vs. humans, there is a high chance that laughter was around in the common ancestor 16 million years ago, as opposed to both descendant sub lines of evolving it independently, say 9.8 and 5.3 million years ago.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

That was an interesting theory. I haven't heard of it before but it sounds like a lot of other things I have heard of.

However, we have seen what can be interpreted as laughter in other animals too. Young elephants have shows signs of this, Rats emitted ultrasonic squeals in response to tickling, Dogs emit emotion and come back for more just like the chips presenting their feet to be tickled again and again with their laughter studies.

Lets forget about the common ancestor for a minute, we know the speech patterns are different between apes and humans, we know they are different between most other species. Now, if all these other animals share a similar trait, that means that at any given point in time when the environment made it more of an advantage to pack together, these could have been inherent strong points accentuated by breeding and the survival during these times. Now there could have been several environmental scenarios throughout time but it isn't unreal to believe that the same effects would have happened to similar looking and functioning animals. In short, if it effected apes, it most likely would have effected humans in the area too. Even if we are a single line species evolved from a separate pile of goo, it's possible that the events paralleled and effected each other the same.

Now, putting the common ancestor back into the mix. The same is still true, if could be a trait from a common ancestor, or it still could be an event or series of events that brought it out. The common ancestor only introduces another possibility, it doesn't eliminate any others.

Re:hmmm

[tecnico.hitos]

We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.

1. Variation: We see mutations in every baby. Brothers (who are not twins) do not look exactly alike, and do not have exactly the same traits. We can observe that this is because mother and father give different halves of their DNA to each AND we observe mutations occuring within the embryo.
2. Heredity: We observe those same traits being passed on to the next generation.
3. Selection: The organisms with traits that make it easier to survive long enough to reproduce will have more of their traits passed on. (They'll be making more babies.)

I Am Not A Creationist, but given the way things are now I think it's more about how often people have heterosexual intercourse without (or with ineffective) preconceptive methods than how evolved they are.

I think we may need a new terminology... unless getting laid become a measure of evolution.

Re:hmmm

[Cstryon]

I only hope that you don't try to apply any of that religion to either your science or your ethics -- or at least, I hope you're as good at adapting it as you have been with evolution.

Well, here's how I see it. Science is how things work, how the universe works, how biology works. My religious beliefs are why we have a universe, and why we are here. To say that our understanding of science must be wrong because there is a god, is saying that God is unable to do it. Which is saying that God is not Omnipotent. But to believe in a god, you should not doubt his ability to make this universe. So I draw the line, God Lives. Now, lets appreciate this universe he made, by understanding how it works.

Re:hmmm

[psnyder]

You've used the word 'evolve' in the sense of development, advancement or maturity. These are subjective terms.

Biological evolution has a very different meaning. It's merely the process of variation / selection / heredity. It does not mean that something becomes more complex or more intelligent (although certain complexities and intelligences do tend to help with survival in the wild, and therefore those traits might stick around).

So, yes, whoever makes more babies will have more of their traits spread around. There's a good chance that about 1 in 12 men in Asia (and therefore 1 in 200 men worldwide) are descendants of Genghis Khan.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

We are natural selection, as much as anything else is.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Show me a chihuahua and a great dane breeding without artificial intervention. Without humans, they are separate species.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

All skeletal remains are transient.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

If a God can exist without having a creator, so can a Universe. Saying God created it answers nothing, predicts nothing of value, and is thus essentially meaningless. By your logic, God could have created the Universe this very second, with light already in transit from distant galaxies, thoughts already half formed in your mind, a half written post on a computer in front of you, memories of writing it snug in your head.

That is no more or less absurd than saying God created the Universe billions of years ago.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Silly boy, Technical possibility isn't diminished by physical improbability.

The physical size differences in the dogs is attributed to a single gene sequence (IGF1 gene) which is inhibited or suppressed in smaller dogs through selective breeding. The IGF1 gene acts like or triggers a growth hormone which accounts for large dogs stature. In short, the biological differences between a chihuahua and a great dane are present in all small dogs verses large dogs.

Now, pointing to something like a chihuahua and a great dane and the differences there causing them not to interbreed is much like the attempt to stray from the definition of species in order to claim speciation. In fact, with the same principles applied, physically not being able to reproduce because of physical obstructions or physical mechanics and not biological obstructions would make both the chihuahua or a great dane different species then their respective selves if another chihuahua or a great dane they were simply on separate continents separated by an ocean and possessed no possability of breeding within their own breed. Because they don't breed doesn't mean they cannot breed, and even if they don't breed, it doesn't mean they are a separate species. Obviously a chihuahua nor a great dane separated by an ocean would be considered different species because they didn't reproduce with their own species on the other continent.

Noting biologically prohibits a great dane and a chihuahua from breeding outside of the mechanics necessary due to the obvious differences. Whether or not this possibility to breed is artificial doesn't play into this. As I said, the specific different is the suppression of a gene in the DNA sequencing, they are the same species and are capable of interbreeding. The characteristics preventing a chihuahua and a great dane from naturally breeding is a result of the species not being separate species.

Also, without humans, they wouldn't exist in the first place. Humans breed chihuahuas and great danes into existence. They are after all, breeds of the same species. And don't start claiming that humans can be involved in one instance but not the other just to press a pointless point.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Humans are just part of the natural environment that created both breeds. No difference. Great danes and chihuahuas are separate species. Just like two species on the opposite sides of a ring in ring species are separate. You can see this in birds of the arctic circle. Each type can breed with those next to it, but travel too far around the circle and the species can't breed. For example, A-B-C-D-E-F-G. A can breed with G and B, produce sterile offspring with C and F, and can't breed at all with D. Such collections of ring species exist all over the world, and it's not too far of a stretch to look at great danes and chihuahuas the same way. Because a great dane father would simply kill a chihuahua, the mother is physically unable to bear the children even with artificial insemination.

But all that is moot, because we have far more compelling evidence. We've bred species of fruit flies in the lab that can no longer interbreed with wild fruit flies. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. The debate about macro evolution is over. It was only ever considered a separate thing by creationists anyhow. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

Humans are just part of the natural environment that created both breeds. No difference. Great danes and chihuahuas are separate species. Just like two species on the opposite sides of a ring in ring species are separate.

Ring species are not that much of a problem at all. They are not biologically blocked from breeding, just physically or mechanically. Now, if humans are just part of the natural enviroment, then don't object to humans causing the breeding which proves rings species much like the great dane and chihuahua argument. Either be consistent or stop arguing.

You can see this in birds of the arctic circle. Each type can breed with those next to it, but travel too far around the circle and the species can't breed. For example, A-B-C-D-E-F-G. A can breed with G and B, produce sterile offspring with C and F, and can't breed at all with D. Such collections of ring species exist all over the world, and it's not too far of a stretch to look at great danes and chihuahuas the same way. Because a great dane father would simply kill a chihuahua, the mother is physically unable to bear the children even with artificial insemination.

Which bird can and can't breed but are the same species? Choice and mechanic disadvantage is not relevant but which birds are incapable?

But all that is moot, because we have far more compelling evidence. We've bred species of fruit flies in the lab that can no longer interbreed with wild fruit flies.

Actually, no we haven't. We have bred fuit flies that don't favor other fruit flies but the only genetically incompatible fruit flies were created though direct gene manipulation under a microscope. In short, the only natural breeding is a preference unless we splice genes in and out of their eggs. That isn't natural and isn't much different then taking a pig's heart and placing it in a human. You get something that lives but isn't a separate species.

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. The debate about macro evolution is over. It was only ever considered a separate thing by creationists anyhow. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing.

Specialization has only been observed by direct manipulation of the raw genetic material (a process that could never be natural) or by bastardizing the definition of species.

Macro and Micros are not the same thing either. I already explained the differences and the terms are used by people pointing to the specific in which evolution breaks. That could be creationist but it can also be evolutionist who don't buy the entire story. You cannot attempt to define or redefine the descriptive words others use to point to a specific part of a theory they are in disagreement with. Your insistence that it is the same thing is nothing more then you trying to hide the shaky parts inside the sound ones in a slight of hand attempt to avoid criticism of it. In species evolution does not prove anything would ever jump species or become a new species. All it means is that change and adaptation occurs inside the species. Attempting to hide speciation behind that obvious and noticeable fact is nothing more then propping up smoke and mirrors to make the crowd think something else is happening.

Re:hmmm

[mikael]

Unfortunately, creationists have created an escape condition from that logical argument. They accept that there are small changes that occur between every generation, but that these are small changes that cancel out and do not add up to the major changes that are are claimed to have happened (assuming they don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago).

Re:hmmm

[spun]

You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.

You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was invented, a new species of bacteria had evolved that could digest it.

You can't just deny factual evidence and call it an argument.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.

I fully understand what a ring species is. What I don't acnowledge is your attempt at a usage for the term. Physically prohibited from breeding doesn't mean biological incapable. That is why a ring species doesn't present any problems. It also doesn't lend the support that you think it does either.

You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was invented, a new species of bacteria had evolved that could digest it.

You are the one who is wrong. None of the observed speciations happened without scientist splitting genes and direct manipulation of them. What is incorrectly being called speciation is where a group of offspring don't tend to breed or somehow are not physically-mechanically capable of interbreeding. That is not speciation yet you and many other people want to claim it is. Here is the test, look at the definition of species and if the result can interbreed (naturally or not) then it's the same species. Quit with the semantics of changing the definitions in order to support a point that would never otherwise have been possible. This is not a situation where if you don't like the game change the rules works.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.

You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.

It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. You don't even know what the word species means, or what interbreeding means, as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the concept of ring species. You lack a high school level knowledge of biology and expect to be taken seriously in a discussion.

You don't even know enough to know that you sound like a complete buffoon. Your arguments are logical, but your assumptions are completely off kilter and contrary to current knowledge, heck, you don't even use basic words from biology correctly, so your conclusions are nonsensical.

You just keep claiming that completely untrue things are true, but who are you trying to fool?

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.

No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life.

You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.

No, you are either misinformed or attempting to purposely blur the lines to support your positions. The evidence doesn't contradict anything when you escape from the current theory of evolution and take the evidence at hand for their own merit.

It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. You don't even know what the word species means, or what interbreeding means, as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the concept of ring species. You lack a high school level knowledge of biology and expect to be taken seriously in a discussion.

Oh, ad hominem attracts. Gee Wizz, who would have thought it. I know exaclty what they mean and you do too. You also know exactly what I am talking about as this isn't our first discussion over this. Usually you are the religious gloval warming pusher but we have talked about macro and micro evolution before.

You don't even know enough to know that you sound like a complete buffoon. Your arguments are logical, but your assumptions are completely off kilter and contrary to current knowledge, heck, you don't even use basic words from biology correctly, so your conclusions are nonsensical.

Take on the points or shut up. It's really thatr simple. You should know by now that you have to present hard evidence to change my mind, not personal attacks.

You just keep claiming that completely untrue things are true, but who are you trying to fool?

No, I keep claiming that completely possible things are possible. You are the one incorrectly claiming that they are impossible by pointing to non-relevent positions.

Re:hmmm

[that IT girl]

You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.

Not to start a big discussion on this, since I really don't have enough of an opinion to care, but isn't this the exact opposite argument people use to say that God doesn't exist? "I can't see him or see any hard evidence, so he must not exist" right? Or is that qualifier only used when it's convenient? ;)

Re:hmmm

[Cstryon]

Who says God doesn't have a creator? You're arguing against issues that can't be proven, or dis proven. And this is my point. Science is not a religious thing, and Religion is not a science thing. For me, being a Christian, and also a scientist, I only have to believe that God was the greatest scientist that ever lived, and currently lives. But what difference does that make when it comes to science? Only that I have a reason why everything is here. It doesn't effect the scientific method at all.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

You are still wrong about ring species. Oh, and I can't change your mind, your mind is closed. You just keep denying that the facts I present are facts, without saying why or shoeing any evidence. You aren't arguing a point, you are simply denying facts.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

No, I'm arguing the point that your facts don't mean what you think they mean. You can't take facts on their own and present them on their own to the conclusion, you have to interpret them surrounding a bastardized concept that when applied liberally breaks down in an instant as obnoxious and absurd.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Wrong. Facts are facts. Speciation is an observed fact, not a theory or opinion. You are simply ignoring the facts. Your opinions aren't even unique or new, plenty of ignorant people hold the exact same opinions you do. And those opinions have been proven over and over again to be false opinions based on wishful thinking, not observation.

Go to talkorigins, you will see all your opinions debunked with hard science.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

For instance, you claim: "No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life."

This is as patently false as claiming the earth is flat. Learn basic biology before attempting to discuss it. I mean, you are claiming the exact opposite of observed fact. It is patently obvious that you didn't even read the article on ring species.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

You need to drop the religious zealotry and look at it for what it is. The facts are A, B, and C, specialization claims are nothing more then an interpretation of those facts. The facts by themselves don't say anything about speciation, it allows you to create conclusions or opinions about them in order to signify their meaning. The facts on their own don't say anything close to what your claiming, and evolution, macro-evolution to be precise is not a fact, it's an opinion of facts.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

Which species specifically state that the biological make up is so different that reproduction is biologically impossible? And no, don't point to idiots misinterpreting something, point to the actual research. You called it and are insisting something, now show it.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

I gave you a link to dozens of examples. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Your opinions, not the facts as witnessed by thousands of field researchers.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're retarded.

The bible should be treated as the fiction it is. It is so full of lies, exaggeration and half-truths that it should not be considered in any way a historical document. All examinations of history should be from sources that aren't > 50% bullshit.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

If you can't admit the simply truth that the interpretation of evidence is opinion until empirically observed, then this conversation is over due to your own ignorance.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

I think I asked for links to the actual research which does say "doesn't reproduce" and mot incapable of doing so. Instead, you show links to a site that is designed to push the agenda or opinion over others, that really smart there.

But lets look at your page and what it was to say about speciation with the fruit flies,

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971): sterile males, can't mate period and would not evolve the species at all

Thoday and Gibson (1962): didn't mate from preferential selection, not biological incompatability

Crossley (1974) : again preference and choice, no biological incompatability

Kilias, et al. (1980) : Sterile offspring and preference or choice, no biological incompatability

All the rest is interpreted too. It doesn't say what your wanting it to say on it's own.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Pick and choose your data much? It says exactly what I'm claiming: speciation has been observed.

Here's my favorite:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

You are so closed minded about evolution, it's scary. You've decided what's true and what isn't, and you won't let facts get in your way.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to incorrectly assume that we can know a thing to be true even if we do experience it with our senses.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

There is no interpretation as to whether two animals can biologically breed. Whether they can or can't is a fact, not an opinion.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

There is too, the animals in question are not prevented by biological restrictions to interbreeding, they are being prevented by geographical, mechanical, or preferential restrictions. In a lab, all of the animals can be fertilized and the embryos implanted into any of the animals and they live until something prevents that from happening. In your great dane verses Chiuaua it's a mechanical restriction in the gulls from wikipedia article, it's a migratory restriction.

You claiming that they can't interbreed is nonsense and claiming it is proof of speciation is nothing more then opinion. All of the diverse populations can be selectively bread back over whatever external hurdle prevents the interbreeding and this can all happen within the end of the ring.

You can claim it is something more, but it is just a claim, and opinion about the evidence.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Wrong, you will need to show some sources when you make outrageous claims. Why should anyone believe just your word on it? I've shown sources. The wiki article clearly states, "In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species."

Genetic differences prevent interbreeding. It's clear as day, why do you keep arguing? But that's just wikipedia, right? I probably edited it myself, hmmm? Go pick up any biology textbook. You're dead wrong about too many things to count.

Who are you hoping to fool with your lies? You realize, you just look like an idiot to anyone with an education, right? Only people as uneducated as you could possibly buy the crap you're selling.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

I need to show sources, What's wrong with yours? They say what I say, they even quote studies and everything. Take your talk origins article-- I already pointed where it said as I do.

Damn dude, just give up, they aren't lies and you kicking and screaming doesn't make them so. Look at your own links objectively and you will see exactly what I see. If you can't look at them objectively, then sit down and shut up about it.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

I don't even know how to have a conversation with someone who just keeps on denying the truth. You keep claiming my sources say something they do not say. It is pathetic. You've lost, epic fail. Anyone can read those sources, you are playing to people who won't even read them, hoping they will take your word for it. Please, read the sources, anyone can see that I am right and you are lying.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

Well mis-documented.

Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory.

It would be better for evolutionists if there were no fossil record at all, because it would be easier to abide by an "argument from silence" defense than to have to counter the chorus of fossils, which loudly mock the evolutionist-inspired geologic time table found in textbooks.

The "living fossils" are especially amused at evolutionism's fossil claims: "I'm not dead yet! I think I'll go for a walk."

Moreover, they affirm the Genesis account of a worldwide Flood and provide evidence for a "young earth."

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your little virgin brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?
I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

That AC comment wasn't by me. I think you know me well enough that I would just say it in regular posts if I wanted to say it.

However, I am sort of inclined to agree with him.

I have pointed to where your sources say the things they do, yet you are attempting to take the collection and bring them to your preconceived conclusion. The problem with this isn't what your doing as a practice in general, That's how science works, you interpret the evidence to the best possible explanation. But what is wrong is that you are dead set on claiming nothing could ever be different and are now misinterpreting the evidence to say more then it actually does. We have discussed this on three different threads, one of which you pointed to a talk origins article and that is the one I Specifically pointed it out on.

Now, it is highly likely that ring species given enough time, could speciate. But all the reasons stopping them from interbreeding is either Mechanical, preferential, of geographically blocked. And to that point, all of those barriers to interbreeding can be manipulated out within the same breeds and the incapability disappears. In your Chihuahua example, the breed classification says 9 pounds but people have found purebred Chihuahuas to not only exceed that, they have lost the miniature status too. Of course they are no longer considered Chihuahuas even though their linage is pure Chihuahua.

Most of what you are claiming is semantics anyways. If a Chihuahua that is capable of overcoming the mechanical limitations and capable of breeding with a great dane is no longer considered a Chihuahua because it exceeds the breed specification even though it's blood line is pure Chihuahua, then your point is only made at the exclusion of evidence. The Deer Chihuahua which is not an AKC recognized breed but is pure chihuahua is evidence of this in which is is completely capable of interbreeding with a great dane. The deer Chihuahua is the actual breed that the miniature dogs were created from. They chose a runt to runt breeding practice to encourage the smaller dog size of the same breed. The Chihuahua can get up to 40lbs in size which is much larger then the typical runt to runt bred Chihuahuas.

Now the same things go for all the other ring species, they can be manipulated within the breed beyond any of the limitations to breeding. You can't show one single example where this isn't possible. the limits are not biological.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

I know that. I have a stalker again, pissed some idiot off weeks ago and he keeps reposting this.

I can't keep arguing with you because you keep ignoring what I say, claiming that the facts I present are mere opinion. For example, here's a quote I've posted before about ring species:

In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species.

Here's another bit that specifically makes my point:

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

Here's a bit about salamanders, Dawkins used it to illustrate ring species:

The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5]

Now, you may claim that when they say, "Can't interbreed" they mean, "Are physically incapable of breeding, but if brought together, could be bred." But this is flat out wrong, scientists have tried to breed the two sorts of salamanders, and they can not produce a feertile offspring.

The limits are biological. Sorry to once again blow your argument out of the water, but you can not show any source that will back up your misinterpretation of ring species.

You simply can't find such a source. Not one. They don't exist, except in your head. get it? You've lost, pack it in, give it up, you are just making yourself look foolish.

Or, you know, you could find one single source that backs up your claim about ring species. I'm waiting.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible should be treated as the fiction it is. It is so full of lies, exaggeration and half-truths that it should not be considered in any way a historical document. All examinations of history should be from sources that aren't > 50% bullshit.

Regardless of what you want to think or claim about the bible, the simple fact that some of it is correct, at least from an historical perspective, is indisputable. That parts we know to be historically accurate has been validated using normal scientific and archeological means.

Now I didn't use the bible to do anything but show how something false doesn't make everything false. I didn't say anything was validated or true except what is historically known to be true from sources outside the bible. You need to get over your fears of the bible or anything resembling religion, and take the value of the statement for what it is and not as something you should be afraid of.

Re:hmmm

[hkmwbz]

Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story.

Not at all.

Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor.

This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.

They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something.

You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men. Goodbye.

Re:hmmm

[sillybilly]

Or laughter is as old as rats and dogs, inherited from a common ancestor, passed down as a trait. It could come from a collectively common ancestor of rats, dogs and monkeys, from a very very long time ago.

Re:hmmm

[hkmwbz]

You are talking to a complete moron who refuses to accept simple facts. Might as well ignore him before his stupidity rubs off on you.

Re:hmmm

[hkmwbz]

At least you have seen ONE woman naked. Your mother. Every night before you have intercourse with her. Your brother is also your son, after all.

Re:hmmm

[spun]

Sigh. I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious that to him, this is some kind of a game, where there are winners and losers. It isn't about sharing knowledge or discussion at all. It's about not losing, and as long as he doesn't admit he's lost, in his mind he's the winner.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

Not at all.

Yes, it is. This was illustrated with the conversations about breeds of dogs is extinct as we know them today would all pretty much be considered a different species with only archeological evidence availible.

The scientific process for looking at the past is to look at the evidence, determin how it fits together then test that determination. While the theory hasn't been falsified, it doesn't mean it won't be or that two entirely different theories could be just as valid with the given evidence. That's just how science works and if you don't understand that very basic principle, you shouldn't be talking about it at all.

Currently, the process is "here is the hypothesis that comprises this theory, does it fit and where". It just happens to be that we are talking about biological evolution here. If it does fit, it doesn't create a problem for the theory, if it doesn't, you examine why it doesn't and conclude hypothesis to why it doesn't fit or how it can fit. If there is a reasonable and probable explanation supported by other facts (evidence is facts), then it fits. If not, then either evolution gets changes, the time line for the dig site, or something to see where the problem is. You cannot say that isn't interpreted to fit into a prescribed story.

This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.

That was an example. Do you know what an example is? The relevance is entirely aplicable to the context of the sentence. Did you notice that I was talking about DNA similarities in the context of a common ancestor and later stated that it doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means you need confidence in the evidence and theories.

You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men. Goodbye.

Ahh, so here lays your ultimate goal, your one of the evangelical atheist who troll everyone who doesn't step in sync with your holy books. You see, you are actually validating my point that you quoted, "They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something."

So lets examine that sentence, who is they, well a third grade English skills would show people that it is the "some people, even here on slashdot," who "will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science)". And now you reduced the conversation to name calling and trolling because either A: you weren't smart enough to figure that out, or B: you are one of those people I was talking about. If I had to guess, I would figure a combination of both leaning more to the later but still with a lot of ignorance helping you out.

Perhaps one day, you won't be afraid if something in science changes or if someone looks at something differently. Science revolves around checking the validity of what we know and it will be no better then a religion if you keep it up.

Re:hmmm

[hkmwbz]

Yes, it is. This was illustrated with the conversations about breeds of dogs is extinct as we know them today would all pretty much be considered a different species with only archeological evidence availible.

Not at all. But you are too ignorant to understand this. You are focusing narrowly on your own superstitious misconceptions of science. You are ignoring the other data that is available. All creationists do.

While the theory hasn't been falsified, it doesn't mean it won't be or that two entirely different theories could be just as valid with the given evidence. That's just how science works and if you don't understand that very basic principle, you shouldn't be talking about it at all.

You are the one who doesn't understand, as you have clearly demonstrated.

That was an example. Do you know what an example is?

Typical creationist nonsense: Pick a single example and ignore all the other elements.

You see, you are actually validating my point that you quoted, "They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something."

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that you are just yet another dishonest and ignorant creationist.

Re:hmmm

[sumdumass]

Not at all. But you are too ignorant to understand this. You are focusing narrowly on your own superstitious misconceptions of science. You are ignoring the other data that is available. All creationists do.

Then what did it say? I think you will find that when you attempt to explain it (if your even close to being up for the task) that you will have to repeat what I just said.

BTW, I have said nothing to indicate I'm a creationist. Either stick to what was said, it go troll somewhere else. Keep your own religion out of this. Two species not being linked by a common ancestor says nothing about creation, it only talks to the correct interpretation of science and the evidence at hand.

You are the one who doesn't understand, as you have clearly demonstrated.

Either start backing your claims up or shit up. My claim was rooted in science and practically copied from the works of Darwin and others thought to have been skilled in this area.

Typical creationist nonsense: Pick a single example and ignore all the other elements.

Yes, shoot the messenger and not the message. That's a real strong plank your standing on. Don't be surprised when it breaks and you bump your head and die. Hopefully it happens before you further contaminate the gene pool. And yes, that example was specific to the context of what was being said. However, I don't think you even remotely understand what was being said and instead resulted to your knee jerk defense of your religion. "oh my, someone is saying something constructive and encouraging debate over evolution. I must stop them, label them as a creationist, and preserve the written word exactly as it is stated today.".-- Why don't you grow up??

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that you are just yet another dishonest and ignorant creationist.

When everyone who doesn't agree with your good book has to be creationist to you, then only in your mind am I one. You have mentally fabricated this ideal that no one can ever discuss probabilities, the weight of the evidence, or the validity of claims over evolution otherwise they are attacking your faith. This isn't science at all, it isn't productive, and is in effect, you showing the same narrow minded traits that religions do in attempts to interpret their bibles in the creation of church doctrine. You are a religious fanatic who is too stupid to realize it.

And now

[KneelBeforeZod]

Anthropologists will be tickling all sorts and varieties of monkeys, apes, primates, and every other mammal just to see if they giggle too.

Imagine being a comic...

[SupremoMan]

16 million and 1 years ago? Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off.

Well, that's a relief...

[painehope]

Now I have an excuse for my general demeanor and telling the really, really bad users "because you're a fucking idiot, to be honest!".

? /Wipes sweat away from brow, spills beer...damnit

Horses laugh too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you think the term "Horse laugh" comes from?

I thought it had already been tested on rats

[Cochonou]

And that rats also giggled when tickled.
A reference from 1998 might be uselful for those interested.

Re:I thought it had already been tested on rats

[TheLink]

My hypothesis- if an animal can play, it can "laugh" or at least it is familiar with the concept of "laughing".

Many animals play. And play is often an important part in their lives and development.

There are various sorts of humour though.

Some involve you laughing because your brain suddenly made a lots of unexpected connections.
Not sure how that relates to you being tickled by someone else.

First Fart Joke..

[retech]

In other news, the first fart joke is thought to be nearly 16 million years old. Since even the most primal of hominids would have had fingers to be pulled when trying to relieve gas.

... as are the jokes

[petes_PoV]

Which kinda reinforces my view of TV comedy - recycled, plagiarised and derivative. Now I know why

Hu?

[aepervius]

Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms.
Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?


Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
Ha I see you are a creationist then. I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.

Re:Hu?

[sumdumass]

Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?

Wow, good argument there. Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't. You see how that seems ridiculous? The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality. Obviously, there are people who aren't convinced that A happened, the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who doesn't agree run out and find why A is not true. This is especially problematic if A isn't true to begin with and the focus is on A.

Ha I see you are a creationist then. I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.

This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion. First of all, faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion. In the way the GP used the term, the statement was exactly like this "Shall I even mention the _enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence's interpretations being absolutely correct_ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place?"

But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion. Because of your own ignorance, you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it, which is the scientific way, you then attempt to remove all value of the statement, ignore it, and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.

You may be one of these evangelical atheist, it doesn't matter. But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis, then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against.

I badly formulated it

[aepervius]

"Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?" should read "could you please show us proof that the current theory (and the evidence for it) that human/ape/chimp share a common ancestor is false".

Might be a case of convergent evolution

[G3ckoG33k]

Might be a case of convergent evolution.

From what i have understood, social animals behave more or less the same; there is a evolutionary advantage in some behaviours. That should then also why we can communicate better with dogs rather than polar bears, despite that they both are about equally "far" from us.

Rats are social animals and, possibly, their giggling is one cue to a mutual social behavious - perhaps social animals giggle. How then do dogs giggle? I do not know what do expect, but perhaps they giggle, but we just have not identified it as such yet.

.

Re:Might be a case of convergent evolution

[BoogieChile]

Sound of one dog laughing?

Would you believe they go ha-ha-ha?

http://www.petalk.org/LaughingDog.html

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Ludicrous and unscientific. A chimp appears to react to stimulation of it's nerves ... assumption that humans "evolved" from chimps accepted (anything else would be modern day heresy) ... leads to laughter at least 16 Million years old is now an established fact. Where has the scientific rationale gone in this age of ignorance?

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Some dude in a chair reads a paragraph written by a non-expert summarizing an article written by another non-expert in a popular science magazine, which summarizes an article written by experts summarizing and describing a year or two's worth of work. Then on the basis of reading just that one paragraph summary, of a summary, of a summary, dude decides that he knows better than the experts and can toss the whole thing in the bin with derision. What's next in our age of ignorance is openly, loudly, and proudly flaunting our ignorance, apparently.

I want that job

[psnyder]

A: So what do you do for a living?
B: I tickle orangutan babies and then write about it.

No touchy!

[Valdrax]

From the article:

If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.

If you tickled me, especially if you when I was a small child, I would make sounds that were easy to mistake for joy when they were really sounds of pain or distress. I HATED being tickled. Hated it. My Mom would tickle me until I couldn't breathe when I was about 3-4, and I tried desperately to get away, but I couldn't stop laughing or uncurl myself from a ball. It took her a few years to get that I really, honestly despised it.

My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?

Re:No touchy!

[commodoresloat]

My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?

Actually, they were measuring the researchers' laughter. The orangutans didn't like being tickled at all, but the researchers thought it was funny as hell.

Re:No touchy!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're what we call, in the biological scientific world, a faggot.

Re:No touchy!

[Nyder]

Ya, blame your lack of amusement on your mom.

Re:No touchy!

[thecod]

From the article:

If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.

How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?

Because they -are- capable of fighting it off!

Re:No touchy!

[Ignatius D'Lusional]

That's a really good point... if tickling is a reflex that makes us "laugh" although it's clearly unpleasant (does anybody *actually* like to be tickled, other than masochists???), maybe tickling orangutans isn't the best way to research laughter. What we need to do is research their reaction to HUMOR.

Obviously there aren't any orangutan joke writers (other than Jeff Foxworthy, I suppose), but if comedy stems from the tragedy of others, maybe we should find out if orangutans still "laugh" when they see another orangutan fall from a branch or something similar that humans universally find humorous.

Re:No touchy!

[retech]

It because you have Asperger's.

Re:No touchy!

[sa1lnr]

"My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8083230.stm

I think the ape in the video would have ripped the guys arms off if he didn't like it.

Re:No touchy!

[rohan972]

Ya, blame your lack of amusement on your mom.

I don't know that anybody likes to be tickled for very long. My wife hated tickling because of her experience of her father repeatedly tickling her way beyond the point that it was unpleasant and like the GP to the point that she couldn't breathe. She was really apprehensive when I started to tickle our children until she saw them coming back requesting more. Unlike her father, I tickle for a shorter time, giving them the opportunity to get away.

I used to think it was a bit of a strange thing about my wife, until one day I mentioned to her brother something about the kids liking being tickled and his response was shocked disbelief. In their family, what should have been a great bit of fun between parents and kids was distorted to the point of being a form of abuse (I'm not saying that about the GP's mom). I might not have thought it possible if I had not come into contact with my wife's family.

Re:No touchy!

[owlstead]

How do YOU know that you didn't sincerely like it when you were young? The problem with tickling is is that the ticklee is not in control. If you are susceptible to tickling there's little you can do but laugh. If the tickler abuses this, it is very easy to get annoyed pretty fast. I'm not into child psychology much, but I can only presume that babies don't hate their mother because she's in control. At least I haven't got any hateful tickling memories of my years before 4 years old.

That said, I've had a pretty fun youth. And yes, tickling was a fun part of it, including the slight agitation you get with it; I'm pretty much defenseless against a good tickler even now (which my nephew of 6 of course uses to his advantage, fortunately I've got longer arms).

Re:No touchy!

[redcaboodle]

By the orangutans' reaction when the researcher next appeared? Did they flee him or come to him to be tickled again? That should be a good indicator if the apes in question enjoyed it. Also, one could watch out if the orangs copied the behaviour and tickled other members of the group.

Of course, the researcher could have just looked up ook in the librarian's orangutan-human dictionary.

Re:No touchy!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're the ass burger!

Re:No touchy!

[bertok]

That's an interesting new metric: Average number of arms remaining per researcher.

"Ooo... he really didn't like that at all! Bob's going to need help feeding himself tomorrow!"

Re:No touchy!

[4D6963]

+1, Insightful!

Re:No touchy!

[dodobh]

Oook!

Re:No touchy!

[pipingguy]

Have you applied for work at Gitmo?

Farting more than 20,000,000 years old

[Anonymous Coward]

Belching may be older. Waving could be several million years old too. A wry smile is considered to be a more recent phenomena. Quizical grins could be as old as the hills.

Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

A: So what do you do for a living?
B: I tickle babes and then write about it.

24-bit Value

[troll8901]

In other news, scientists have named these 16 million old laughter as "True Laughter". In comparison, the human laughter is named "Hi Laughter", believed to be between 16384 and 262144 years old.

First joke

[quenda]

Scientists have extrapolated the first joke, which translates like this:

A mandrill walks up to a watering hole. The barmonkey says "Why the long face?"

Re:First joke

[youn]

I thought the first sign of humor was the now famous phrase, "is that a banana or are you happy to see me"

Whas it a fart joke?

[Ezrymyrh]

I am betting it was the old "Pull My Finger classic"

Re:These evolutionists should be gagged and put in

[Anonymous Coward]

OK I'm with you on putting "evolutionists" (I guess that means the scientifically literate) in their place. That place is teaching Biology in K-12 schools and universities. I just don't follow the part about the gag. Science education has been gagged by ignorant and proud of it fundies in this country for decades. Shouldn't we be taking the gag out?

So? We are all mammals

[SmallFurryCreature]

If one mammal can laugh, why not another? We share plenty of other traits.

Re:So? We are all mammals

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how many people actually don't think of humans as simply being just another species of animal. To them, there are humans on the pedestal of godliness, and then there are worthless animals below us.

A vast number of people will do anything in their power to deny having anything in common with "lesser" animals. I think it's largely due to needing to find a way to justify how we treat other species. Anyone who considers other species to be on any kind of equal footing with us wouldn't be capable of eating meat that comes from raising animals in prisons for mass-slaughter.

How I long for another species to come along and treat us like we treat today's species. Imagine us being bred in the millions, sharing only square meters of space for a short life span, only to be hung up and slaugtered like worthless meat. When we're the criminals, it's "our way of life". Were we to become the victims, it would be a "horrifyingly, disgusting practice".

We are talking great apes

[SmallFurryCreature]

If a great ape doesn't like something, your first clue will be that you die. They might look like gentle giants of nature but any great ape is many times stronger then a human being. Try this, you swing yourself up on a branch with one arm holding a baby or tractor tire with the other.

The saying "where does a 400lbs gorilla sit: anywhere it wants to" isn't for nothing.

An orangutan incapable of fighting of a research assistant :p

it is a fact

[lyberth]

yes, it is infact just seconds younger than the classic "pull my finger" joke

We are not alone

[scubamage]

Studies have shown that many other species have vocalizations best described as laughter, including chimps, dolphins, and rats. I wonder if this is a purely mammal thing?

Re:These evolutionists should be gagged and put in

[SanityInAnarchy]

We all know that science is a conspiracy to gain control of the government and children.

No, science is a process by which we observe the world and try to understand it. That's all.

And by the way, technology is applied science. If science is really such a conspiracy, you, sir, have no business using a computer, or any of the fruits of science, if you truly believe what you're saying. I hope the next time you're offered antibiotics, you refuse them, on the grounds that you believe evolution is a conspiracy -- after all, without evolution, no antibiotics, and no modern medicine.

Let's say you're right. Let's pretend for a moment that science really is some vast conspiracy with some "liberal" agenda. What would be the point?

I mean, think about this for two seconds. Can you actually come up with a motive that makes sense? Really, now -- a vast, global conspiracy, among tons of educated people -- people who often disagree on other things, and are not easily lead (think "herding cats"), but all agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming -- to, what, convince people of evolution?

Dude. At least the moon hoax kind of makes sense, to boost the morale of the country, and to be able to say we were there first -- and that's bunk, too. Your conspiracy theory doesn't even make as much sense as the moon hoax.

But then, I'm not sure why I'm going to bother arguing with you...

These evolutionists should be gagged and put in their place.

Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, either, let alone separation of church and state. These are not dangerous liberal ideals, these are the founding principles of the United States of America. I don't know that you live here, but if you do, your whole post here is an insult to your country -- the founding fathers would've been ashamed.

16 million?

[PPH]

How do they know? Did they carbon date a fossilized rubber chicken?

Re:16 million?

[Lemmy Caution]

I blind-dated a fossilized rubber chicken once. Not something I'd recommend.

Oblig

[selven]

Can't spell slaughter without laughter!

A Hungarian joke is no laughing matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

... which makes you question where in the evolutionary timeline Hungarians branched off.

(Claimer: I'm 1/2 Hungarian BTW)

Observed Instances of Speciation

[spun]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Interbreeding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding

Get back to me when you're more educated. You are a virtual clone of millions of other uneducated people who know nothing about biology or evolution yet think they are fit to argue what they don't comprehend. You are not unique, your arguments have been made and refuted a million times before. It gets boring.

Re:Observed Instances of Speciation

[sumdumass]

it's pretty bad when you think of yourself as the only one who knows the truth. Millions of other ignorant people might be a sign that you reality just isn't all that believable.

I have read those point before, I know what they claim to say. However, they don't present anything new to the mix as you are attempting to claim. You also bastardizing science in order to make the claims fact when they are mostely opinion about facts.

Perhaps you should get back to me when you're more educated on the differences between fact and opinion.

Denial is not just a river in Africa

[spun]

You've got nothing but opinions, unsupported by facts. Your opinions don't match up with reality. Just contradicting the truth doesn't make an argument. I've disproven every one of your so called claims, but you just keep denying it.

Re:Denial is not just a river in Africa

[sumdumass]

I don't think you understand, it's all opinion over observed evidence. You are making jumps to maintain your position and in doing so, you have offered nothing but unterpreted evidence that relies a whole lot on opinion. You have not disproved anything, you have simply stated your opinion and the opinions of other people.

In fact, you are the one with the denial problem.

Re:Denial is not just a river in Africa

[spun]

If you'd even read the wiki article on ring species, you would know you are dead wrong about facts, not opinion. Whether an animal is genetically capable of mating with another is a fact, not an opinion.

Same with speciation, we have observed dozens of incontrovertible speciation events, both in the lab and in the wild. These aren't opinions, and just claiming they are won't make the facts go away.

I am the one presenting facts, facts that first year biology students know.

Re:Denial is not just a river in Africa

[sumdumass]

I have read the Wikipedia articles. In fact, it just says the end populations are too distant to breed. It doesn't say biologically incapable of breeding just that they don't breed. It even offers the gulls as an example in which they are perfectly capable of interbreeding but do not because of migration patterns and preferences. This is no a biological restriction to breeding and you calling them a separate species or pointing at is as proof of specialization is nothing but opinion. It's not fact, it's opinion about facts. The evidence or facts themselves don't say what you wanting it to say so you add opinion and interpret it to fit your mold.

That's ok too, That is how science works. But don't deny someone the ability to challenge the opinions or what you think the evidence means because it's all interpreted opinion.

Re:Denial is not just a river in Africa

[spun]

Oh. My. God. Nope, wrong again. It specifically says biologically unable to breed. Not migration patterns and preferences, please. Did you just skim it looking for certain words? Migration patterns, physical barriers, and preferences, plus mutations over time, have left them unable to breed physically. Fact.

just a thought...

[beeezo]

Humans probably developed laughter as a stress relief... life was probably pretty rough and laughter releases stimulants in the brain ... euphoria of sorts in the midst of a hard life ... not to mention - things like seeing a some one trip and fall is funny!... on a primitive level; because you can be genuinely concerned for the person's well being and still have to fight back the laughter if not a laugh out loud. just a thought