The Genius of Charles Darwin

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :: Scientists have claimed that there is a group of apes, the bonobos, that have eradicated male aggression through a somewhat conscious effort on the part of the females

So what was the trick the ladies used ?

An enormous amount of lesbian sex has eradictaed any sexual need for the males while the fellas have to face a formidable gang of hairy macho women. That's actually the truth, more or less.

So, what kind of males do the lesbian bonobos go after? Effeminate ones?

This is very interesting stuff if it's what you study 905 ..

They go for respectful unaggressive types. Obviously like.

Anthropology is a very diverse field.

Guest

905 wrote:: Bonobos are the exception that tests the rule. They are quite different from chimps in many important respects. They have a much more stable diet, which increases group stability and especially female bonding. Bonobos would find it much harder to rape a female bonobo, were they so inclined, because of female solidarity. Also they don't hunt, which means less leverage when it to demading sex.

It is impossible for a male bonobo to tell when a female is ovulating, unlike chimps. Males don't know when to fight over the females and if they did they would still have to contend with the protective females.

These are the reasons given for unaggressive bonobos. None of it changes the fact that our nearest natural relatives are quite violent, often in ways that closely resemble our own. Far from being an imposed idea this is scientific observation, working against the imposed idea of the gentle ape. The bonobos split from the chimp family around 1.5 million years ago while we split over 5 million years ago. This means we are much closer to the aggressive chimps than the peaceful bonobos.

Well, no - it means that the bonobos are much closer to the chimps than we are, yet our "close relationship" to the aggressive chimp is taken to mean we are also naturally aggressive, while the even closer relationship of the peaceful bonobos to the aggressive chimps shows that that linkage is complete rubbish.

905 wrote:: No society in the world has been shown to be peaceful. For a non-biological trait it is surprisingly universal.

Ah - that is something of a separate observation. The majority of human societies are pretty peaceful, though, on a day-to-day basis - when was your last direct experience of violence?

Guest

Sorry, I meant that we are closer to the aggressive chimp than we are to the peaceful bonobo. For most of our history human groups have resembled chimp groups. They are small and they rely on unstable amounts of food, often meat. Also, it is or was clear when females ovulate. This seperates both the chimps and the humans from the bonobos.

My last direct experience of violence was when I tried to pull out my hair, just there now. You have confused aggression and violence again, to my distress. Aggression is a common part of human society. I was involved in aggression whilst driving, whilst walking down the street, on television and in the newspapers. Aggression is part of everyday life, unlike bonobos.

And my seperate observation is still a valid one. When something like patriarchy or spirituality are found in all human cultures, they are generally thought of as biological. Attempts have been made down the years to find a peaceful bonobo-like society, none has been found.

Guest

In the meantime, has anyone read this?: Palin the latest torch bearer for anti-science

This is exactly the kind of thing that worries me about evolution and science's view of themselves. The term 'anti-science' sounds like it comes straight out of the same meaningless hole as 'pro-choice'. I can share the writer's concerns about education, but I think the remedy doesn't lie in trying to monopolise science. Scientists will be expected to take an oath of allegience to the Enlightenment next. It's no good going on about ideological science and perpetuating some ideologies yourself. and what's so chilling about this:

Quote :: In 2006, Palin said that evolutionary science and creationism should be taught alongside one another. "Teach both, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools," was her chilling pronouncement.

Education, debate? Shock horror!

Guest

905 wrote:: Sorry, I meant that we are closer to the aggressive chimp than we are to the peaceful bonobo. For most of our history human groups have resembled chimp groups. They are small and they rely on unstable amounts of food, often meat. Also, it is or was clear when females ovulate. This seperates both the chimps and the humans from the bonobos.

My last direct experience of violence was when I tried to pull out my hair, just there now. You have confused aggression and violence again, to my distress. Aggression is a common part of human society. I was involved in aggression whilst driving, whilst walking down the street, on television and in the newspapers. Aggression is part of everyday life, unlike bonobos.

True enough - I shouldn't confuse the two. What I am trying to say, though, is that while aggression may be an aspect of humanity, it is often justified on the basis of spurious reasoning - in other words, the chimp-human similarity cannot be used to 'justify' human aggression, because the much closer chimp-bonobo link doesn't lead to the bonobo being aggressive.

Nor, of course, does being "naturally aggressive" justify being violent - and I'm not for a moment claiming you have said it does, although it seems quite a popular link.

905 wrote:: And my seperate observation is still a valid one. When something like patriarchy or spirituality are found in all human cultures, they are generally thought of as biological. Attempts have been made down the years to find a peaceful bonobo-like society, none has been found.

Yes, I don't disagree.

Guest

Whatever about justifying aggression, I think the human-chimp similarity 'explains' it. We'll just have to disagree over the Bonobos. Explaining something and justifying it are very different things as you know.

Guest

905 wrote:: Whatever about justifying aggression, I think the human-chimp similarity 'explains' it. We'll just have to disagree over the Bonobos. Explaining something and justifying it are very different things as you know.

I'm sorry to keep niggling at this, but you cannot draw a causal relationship that says "genetic similarity to aggressive chimps -> aggressive", because it's patently false in the case of bonobos, despite their being even more closely related to chimps than we are. Unless the one factor that differentiates bonobo DNA from chimpanzees happens also to be the one that determines aggression, while none of the four factors that differentiate our DNA from chimps is, the connection simply doesn't hold any weight.

We're not even linearly descended from chimps - so it is entirely possible that chimps went up an 'aggressive branch', bonobos went up a 'peaceful one', while we went up yet a third. This kind of "genetic determinism" really isn't at all scientific - it's a partial and distorted use of the evidence.

Guest

If Darwin was such a genius, why did he not discover genetics? And given that his inheritance theory was so wrong, how did his theory get accepted?

See
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/208/237

Guest

erigena wrote:: If Darwin was such a genius, why did he not discover genetics? And given that his inheritance theory was so wrong, how did his theory get accepted?

See
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/208/237

Essentially, because Darwin's theory did not require any more scientific theory of inheritance than did horse-breeding. It was already known that one could breed for desirable traits, and to eliminate undesirable traits - Darwin's real insight is that nature acts as selectively as does the breeder. The actual mechanisms of inheritance are irrelevant - they could be Lamarckian or Mendelian without impacting Darwin's theory. Indeed, as time goes by, it seems more and more likely that there are epigenetic mechanisms of inheritance as well as genetic - which remains irrelevant to the idea of natural selection.

Sadly, it's possible to quote Wikipedia on the subject:

Quote :: However, Darwin's achievements were fourfold: firstly, to propose a credible mechanism (natural selection); secondly, to provide a great deal of new evidence for evolution; thirdly, to present his ideas in a compelling book; and fourthly, to ally with other highly motivated and influential biologists and philosophers in a concerted effort to publicize and advocate his ideas. On every point, Darwin was successful.

Guest

ibis wrote:

erigena wrote:: If Darwin was such a genius, why did he not discover genetics? And given that his inheritance theory was so wrong, how did his theory get accepted?

See
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/208/237

Essentially, because Darwin's theory did not require any more scientific theory of inheritance than did horse-breeding. It was already known that one could breed for desirable traits, and to eliminate undesirable traits - Darwin's real insight is that nature acts as selectively as does the breeder. The actual mechanisms of inheritance are irrelevant - they could be Lamarckian or Mendelian without impacting Darwin's theory. Indeed, as time goes by, it seems more and more likely that there are epigenetic mechanisms of inheritance as well as genetic - which remains irrelevant to the idea of natural selection.

Sadly, it's possible to quote Wikipedia on the subject:

Quote :: However, Darwin's achievements were fourfold: firstly, to propose a credible mechanism (natural selection); secondly, to provide a great deal of new evidence for evolution; thirdly, to present his ideas in a compelling book; and fourthly, to ally with other highly motivated and influential biologists and philosophers in a concerted effort to publicize and advocate his ideas. On every point, Darwin was successful.

Really? What are they, Ibis ?

Guest

The cosmosandhistory article has much on epigenetics.

Part of D's problem was that he was actually a Lamarckian; the contrastive term is neo-Darwinian, not Mendelian

Lest we forget, the irish "famine" used many of the tropes that later became Spencerian/Darwinism

ibis wrote:

erigena wrote:: If Darwin was such a genius, why did he not discover genetics? And given that his inheritance theory was so wrong, how did his theory get accepted?

See
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/208/237

Essentially, because Darwin's theory did not require any more scientific theory of inheritance than did horse-breeding. It was already known that one could breed for desirable traits, and to eliminate undesirable traits - Darwin's real insight is that nature acts as selectively as does the breeder. The actual mechanisms of inheritance are irrelevant - they could be Lamarckian or Mendelian without impacting Darwin's theory.
Sadly, it's possible to quote Wikipedia on the subject:

Quote :: However, Darwin's achievements were fourfold: firstly, to propose a credible mechanism (natural selection); secondly, to provide a great deal of new evidence for evolution; thirdly, to present his ideas in a compelling book; and fourthly, to ally with other highly motivated and influential biologists and philosophers in a concerted effort to publicize and advocate his ideas. On every point, Darwin was successful.

Guest

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:: Whatever about justifying aggression, I think the human-chimp similarity 'explains' it. We'll just have to disagree over the Bonobos. Explaining something and justifying it are very different things as you know.

I'm sorry to keep niggling at this, but you cannot draw a causal relationship that says "genetic similarity to aggressive chimps -> aggressive", because it's patently false in the case of bonobos, despite their being even more closely related to chimps than we are. Unless the one factor that differentiates bonobo DNA from chimpanzees happens also to be the one that determines aggression, while none of the four factors that differentiate our DNA from chimps is, the connection simply doesn't hold any weight.

We're not even linearly descended from chimps - so it is entirely possible that chimps went up an 'aggressive branch', bonobos went up a 'peaceful one', while we went up yet a third. This kind of "genetic determinism" really isn't at all scientific - it's a partial and distorted use of the evidence.

Sorry to be geting back to you way too late on this one, but apart from mentioning descent, which is a problematic idea, I never said humans were genetically closer to chimps than bonobos. I mentioned the similarity of environment and behaviour as the link between the two and their behaviour (or at least for humans for much of their history), similarities that aren't there for the bonobos.

The factors that I point out that differentiate between chimps and bonobos are environmental and metabolic. Bonobos live in an area where they don't compete with gorillas for foodstuffs, therefore thye have a much more stable diet. In bodily terms, it isn't obvious when they menstruate (why this is I don't know), this makes a lot of difference when it comes to males fighting for mating rights.

The aggressive ape hypothesis requires an aggressive ancestor ape, from which we've all descended, for which there is really no evidence. We can only guess.