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."
those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved' humans.
They tickled three human babies for this experiment.
Hrrmmpff.
Mod parent up, +1 Funny.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Anthropologists will be tickling all sorts and varieties of monkeys, apes, primates, and every other mammal just to see if they giggle too.
16 million and 1 years ago? Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off.
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
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
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.
And that rats also giggled when tickled.
A reference from 1998 might be uselful for those interested.
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.
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.
Which kinda reinforces my view of TV comedy - recycled, plagiarised and derivative. Now I know why
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
"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.
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?
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.
.
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:
It's impossible NOT to have evolution.
We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
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.
A: So what do you do for a living?
B: I tickle orangutan babies and then write about it.
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?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
AC, you are my new King/Queen/Fido of Whoosh. Brilliant.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
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?"
If one mammal can laugh, why not another? We share plenty of other traits.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
yes, it is infact just seconds younger than the classic "pull my finger" joke
There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
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?
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.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
How do they know? Did they carbon date a fossilized rubber chicken?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
That's not evolution. That's genetic engineering
The only difference is that we're doing it, rather than natural selection.
Not to mention that totally unrelated animals can evolve similarly in similar environments. Whales and dolphins sure look like fish sometimes..
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.
You are talking about a concept similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_realizability.
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.
Can't spell slaughter without laughter!
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.
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.
We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
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.
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
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.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
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.
We are natural selection, as much as anything else is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Show me a chihuahua and a great dane breeding without artificial intervention. Without humans, they are separate species.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
All skeletal remains are transient.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
Which bird can and can't breed but are the same species? Choice and mechanic disadvantage is not relevant but which birds are incapable?
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.
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.
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).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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 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.
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?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? ;)
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
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.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
I gave you a link to dozens of examples. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your opinions, not the facts as witnessed by thousands of field researchers.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There is no interpretation as to whether two animals can biologically breed. Whether they can or can't is a fact, not an opinion.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Not at all.
This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.
You are retarded, lying, and spewing out straw men. Goodbye.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
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.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are the one who doesn't understand, as you have clearly demonstrated.
Typical creationist nonsense: Pick a single example and ignore all the other elements.
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that you are just yet another dishonest and ignorant creationist.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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