Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
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.