The BBC has also thought that chimpanzees were entering the Stone Age.
Eminent anthropologist Frans de Waal explains that politicians have a lot to learn from how chimpanzees show empathy. “How chimpanzees reveal the roots of human behaviour” at BBC
Reality: Chimpanzees don’t seek humans out the way dogs do. In many ways, dogs are more like humans than chimpanzees are and better able to communicate with us emotionally. Dogs don’t seek out chimpanzees, come to think of it, though recently, some researchers needed to convince themselves that something like that was happening between monkeys and wolves. (Uh, no.)
Physical resemblance is apparently not all it’s cracked up to be. Serious study might be worthwhile.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: A top anthropology finding of year show humans cognitively closer to dogs than chimps
Anthropologist does not see chimpanzees as fuzzy humans If a well-to-do idler wants to pretend that his spaniel requires psychoanalysis, life’s rotten for that individual dog. But dogs are hardly going extinct. The fact that chimpanzees are an endangered species means that it’s important to understand them as animals who need a specific habitat, not as pre-humans entering the Stone Age.
Intelligence tests unfair to apes?
and
Are apes entering the Stone Age?
I can accept that chimps show altruism and empathy. But to say that it is just like humans would be a stretch. Especially considering that I can’t be sure that anyone else shows empathy and altruism just like I do. I can only presume that this is the case.
wow I really hated BBC. Of course this is all about a group of saintly chimpanzees and we’re not even going to glance over their are more unsavory behaviors just the ones where they share all the time and they act like Jesus Christ where the Virgin Mary.
Ed George at 1, it would be very difficult to show a human level of empathy without a human level of consciousness. So of course, they don’t. Why the BBC needs to pretend otherwise when there is so much we need to do for the chimpanzees’ survival and welfare is a bit hard to understand. Maybe it goes with the territory.
Where is love, empathy, and altruism to be found in physics, chemistry, or especially in Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ maxim?
Altruistic behavior of any type is completely antithetical to Darwin’s theory.
In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’, would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins’ video:
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for?
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, and especially altruism, would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction.
Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.
The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival:
Moreover, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
Moreover, in the following article Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig reveals that “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species.”
Moreover, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.
To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound ignorance (perhaps both).
Simply put, Darwinists have no clue how one cell achieves its ‘form’, much less do Darwinists have an inkling as to how the tens of trillions of ‘extremely altruistically cooperative’ cells make up the final human ‘form’
And, to state the obvious, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.
Whereas, on the other hand, Theism, especially with recent breakthroughs in quantum biology,,,
,,,is found to be very well supported in its claim that God, Who is beyond space and time, has formed each of us, i.e. each of our ‘unifying souls’ that provides cohesion for the tens of trillions of cells, in our mother’s womb.
Thus in conclusion, the rampant altruism that is found throughout nature, whether physical or behavioral altruism, falsifies Darwin’s theory. ,,, As Darwin himself stated, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”.
If only Darwinism were a normal falsifiable science, instead of being the pseudoscientific religion for atheists that it actually is, this rampant altruism found within nature should count as yet another devastating falsification of Darwin’s theory,, Again, IF ONLY Darwinism were a normal falsifiable science!
It seems unconscionable to me, bornagain77 and all, because it’s not like there is an endless supply of chimpanzees, as there might be of lapdogs, for people to pretend something about the way they think.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the chimps really do have a remarkable quality of thought of some type that is entirely lost in this nonsense to pretend they are just like humans.
News at 6, yes I’ve often wondered just how badly ‘Darwinian science’ has hampered scientific breakthroughs.
For example, I truly believe quantum computation would be far more advanced than it currently is if biological science was not so muddled in Darwinian propaganda as it currently is:
Specifically, a VERY promising avenue of research that is apparently completely ignored by the vast majority of ‘Darwinian scientist” is to look to unlock the secrets of quantum biology so as to overcome extreme difficulties that have, for many years now, stymied engineers in their quest to build quantum computers that can be of practical, even commercial, application.
Of related note to the OP, contrary to the ‘selfish gene’ concept, that is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition, genes are instead best thought of as existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation, (i.e. mutual ‘altruistic’ behavior).
Which is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’. (And should, if Darwinism were a science instead of being the religion for atheists that it actually is, count as a direct falsification of the theory).
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/might-snakes-provide-a-way-of-testing-dawkinss-selfish-gene-hypothesis/#comment-667208