Aping Dr Dolittle

[Kimpatsu]

From today's Guardian: (www.guardian.co.uk)
A Japanese researcher reckons he will soon have monkeys communicating with humans. And, Laura Spinney finds, it could reveal how language evolved.

Thursday November 25, 2004

In a laboratory in Saitama, central Japan, monkeys are behaving strangely. If someone sticks out a tongue, they do the same. If a person goes to unclip the latch on a box, the monkeys follow suit. If they need a rake to reach a piece of fruit, they ask for it with a special call. All of which is confounding experts, because none of it should be possible. Monkeys in the wild rarely ape, and as far as we know, they never, ever, ask for rakes.
The Japanese macaques raised in Atsushi Iriki's lab are not particularly gifted. But intriguingly, he expects them soon to be communicating with him vocally, using simple linguistic rules. This isn't just an elegant Dr Dolittle curiosity: it holds the real possibility of understanding autism in humans and unlocking the vast unused power of the human brain.

Iriki, head of the laboratory for symbolic cognitive development at the Riken Brain Science Institute, says his experiment will tap into neural systems monkeys always had, but have never been activated. He hopes to learn something about monkey thought, but more dramatically, about how language emerged in humans -and what happens when it breaks down in autistic children, for example.

So what lies behind Iriki's attempt? As the ape brain evolved, it accumulated the components of a language. By the time the vocal tract could support speech, we were already human. But our brains, according to Iriki, were "language-ready" much earlier. In the monkey, this happened in a more fragmented form. The only reason it did not emerge was that the conditions were never right. "Maybe in the wild, vocal communication was not necessary for monkeys to survive, or was even harmful," says Iriki. "Those functions were not expressed or were even suppressed, even though their brains were furnished with the machinery."

Iriki knew that monkeys would never be able to speak, lacking as they do the necessary vocal apparatus, but he became convinced he could perhaps exchange meaningful coos and grunts with them. To do so, he realised he would have to rear monkeys in an environment where to communicate in this way was not only safe, but in their interest. Could he encourage them to vocalise a primitive language? Would they use it to communicate not only with other monkeys, but even with him?

The experiment has excited his peers and won Iriki the Golden Brain Award, presented annually for brain research by the Minerva Foundation in the US. "This is a guy who is on to a really exciting research programme," says neuroscientist Michael Arbib of the University of Southern California. Monkeys in the wild produce a limited range of calls - alarm calls to warn of approaching predators, for instance. But, says Arbib, "the general consensus would be that the set of calls is pretty much innate. Iriki now seems to show that the call system may be much more flexible than we thought".

Iriki has a reputation for lateral thinking. Trained as a dental surgeon, he became interested in pain and by that route came to study the brain. Several years ago, he showed that a macaque trained to use a rake to grab a piece of fruit could operate just as skillfully whether it could see its own hand, or was prevented from seeing it and shown instead a video image of the hand, rake and fruit reward.

Based on those findings, Iriki argued that monkeys had a concept of body image that matched a nine-year-old child. The findings seemed to demonstrate a level of abstract thinking that nobody had suspected in monkeys - though researchers had long argued for it in chimps, orang utans and gorillas. And they created a dilemma for Iriki.

The problem was this: if monkeys have a relatively advanced view of themselves, how is it that they appear to be so oblivious to the behaviour of others, unable to follow the gaze of another monkey or imitate gestures, as even human toddlers can do? It mattered to Iriki because imitation and joint attention are considered key building blocks of the kind of shared understanding that makes communication possible. In the wild, monkeys rarely imitate. But two pieces of evidence suggested to Iriki that they could learn to - and they hinge on a recently discovered type of brain cell called a "mirror neuron".

Animal behaviour experts have very occasionally observed both imitation and joint attention - which lets one follow another's gaze - between mother and infant macaques in the wild. And, though macaques seem to show no interest in others' actions, activity in their brains suggests they do. It harbours a type of neuron that fires not only when it performs an action, but also when it sees another monkey perform the same action.

These mirror neurons were first identified by Giacomo Rizzolatti of the University of Parma, Italy, and colleagues in the early 1990s in an area of the macaque brain called the premotor cortex, and specifically in a sub-section called F5. Subsequently they have turned up in other areas. Luciano Fadiga at the University of Ferrara then found evidence that the human brain contained a mirror system of its own.

When Rizzolatti's group investigated the human brain more closely, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, they showed that, among other places, mirror neurons show up in Broca's area, which in the human brain is responsible for speech production. F5 in monkeys is associated mainly with hand movements, but is the anatomical equivalent of Broca's area.

There followed frenzied speculation about the role of mirror neurons. Rizzolatti and Arbib claimed that by providing the platform for imitation and shared understanding, they made language possible. Nevertheless, the question remained for Iriki: if humans and monkeys have mirror neurons, why are humans natural mimics while monkeys hardly ever imitate?

"Maybe monkey brains are unaware of the mirror neurons' potential," he says. "When their brains realised the possible uses of this system, perhaps due to the expression of a gene trig gered by some accidental incident in the course of evolution, that could have been the beginning of the explosion of intelligent functions."

Iriki suspects that a likely trigger for that realisation was human child-rearing practices. Using eye contact, mothers teach their babies to look in the same direction and to copy their actions. So in Iriki's lab, monkeys are reared as closely as possible to humans, with an intense relationship between the young monkey and its human carer.

In a study published last year, his group showed that three in four monkeys brought up in this way learned joint attention, and once they had learned it, began to imitate a human's actions without having to be taught.

Iriki is not the only scientist to experiment in this area. At Georgia State University, Atlanta, primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh has taught a human-reared pygmy chimp to become adept at communicating with symbols. But the difference is that Iriki's macaques choose their own calls to express what they want. When he trained two macaques to use a rake to retrieve a fruit reward, and then to call for either food or the tool, he found the monkeys produced different cooing noises depending on what they wanted. "I think this is the evolutionary precursor of naming," he says.

Psychologist Klaus Zuberbühler of the University of St Andrews says that what Iriki reports is new: monkeys are not known to produce acoustically distinct sounds associated with novel events or objects - certainly not with a man-made tool.

Zuberbühler studies Campbell's and Diana monkeys in West Africa, whose calls are innate. "The acoustic structures of the different predator calls vary from one monkey species to the next, but those species are still able to understand each other," he says.

By contrast, Iriki's monkeys' new calls do not yet have much communicative power. Each monkey has a different call for a given object, and the sounds are not the same. Iriki thinks it might be possible to teach naive monkeys to imitate the calls of others, and in so doing, help them learn what they mean. They might then use the calls themselves, to express the same idea. He can envisage, say, a macaque calling to another macaque for a tool, which is then dutifully handed over.

"This is fascinating," says Fadiga, who thinks Iriki's work has the potential to reveal the origins of human language. But he also has doubts, not least that the monkeys will maintain any primitive language they develop. "The question is, do you think the monkeys need this language? Because if they do not need it, they will not teach others."

Rizzolatti, meanwhile, is excited by the possibility that monkeys have mirror neurons but are unable to use them. "That has some interesting implications," he says. "For instance, perhaps autistic children have the mirror system but cannot use it. Or perhaps it is there, but not fully developed."

One common symptom among autistic children is that they repeat words spoken to them without apparently understanding them - a phenomenon known as echolalia. At the same time, their language development is delayed, suggesting their mirror system may be malfunctioning. Rizzolatti speculates one could use tricks similar to Iriki's to improve the system's functioning in those kids.

Iriki does not think it too far-fetched to suggest that humans could one day tune into his monkeys' enriched repertoire of sounds, using it to converse with them at a simple level. Then there will be a debate as to whether it deserves to be called language.

"I think it's going to remain the case that language as we know it in humans is different from language that even the best brought-up ape is going to get to," says Arbib.

But Iriki is already thinking laterally again. If monkey brains have redundant capacity, why not human brains? "Human language and intelligence could be brought up to a much higher level than we are at now," he says.

"We are still in the middle of evolution. We can dream of the future."

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
From today's Guardian: (www.guardian.co.uk)
"Monkeys in the wild rarely ape..."
"...how is it that they appear to be...unable to...imitate gestures"

This is new research? I've been hearing people say "monkey see; monkey do" my whole life. ;)

Quite an interesting article, actually.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
This is new research? I've been hearing people say "monkey see; monkey do" my whole life. ;)
Note that monkeys and apes are different species, Brian, although they are kissing cousins. Apes can be taught to imitate (gorillas have learned sign language in the past), and chimps learn from each other to fashion tools, but monkeys are not so bright.
Kinda like me, really...

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Note that monkeys and apes are different species, Brian, although they are kissing cousins. Apes can be taught to imitate (gorillas have learned sign language in the past), and chimps learn from each other to fashion tools, but monkeys are not so bright.
Kinda like me, really...
I know that monkeys and apes are different species; that's why this research on macaques is supposedly new.

But the expression isn't "ape see; ape do" nor more specifically "gorilla see; gorilla do" -- it's "monkey see; monkey do." So it would seem that somebody has known of this "aping" behavior in monkeys for a long time.

Of course scientists, in their Ivory Towers, don't always consider "common knowledge" to be knowledge; they have to propose a hypothesis, do a controlled experiment, publish the results in a prestigious journal, receive a peer review...

Also, as this article points out, monkeys are a lot "brighter" than they have been given credit for; kinda like me. :D

[Kimpatsu]

Actually, Brian, I think you'll find that the term "monkey see, monkey do" originated in a time before taxonomy placed the apes in a different category from monkeys.
But then again, as a perfect cladist, I lump you in with the dinosaurs... :D

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But then again, as a perfect cladist, I lump you in with the dinosaurs... :D
Now that's a cladogram I'd like to see. Frankly, the phylogentic branching doesn't seem to fit; but if you say so, who am I to argue.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Now that's a cladogram I'd like to see. Frankly, the phylogentic branching doesn't seem to fit; but if you say so, who am I to argue.
It's like Col. O'Neill in Stargate doing his crosswords:
(1A) Heavenly body
Uma Thurman
(1D) Atomic weight of boron
Fat
Etc... :D

[Washi]

Ain't gonna happen.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Ain't gonna happen.
What ain't, Washi?

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
What ain't, Washi?


"chatting" with the chimps

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Washi
"chatting" with the chimps
What do you mean? It's already happening.

While the gorrilla Koko is one of the most famous cases, there are also many chimpanzees who have been taught ASL and are "chatting" with humans all the time.

[Kimpatsu]

To be fair, Brian, CSICOP is skeptical, (http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/) whilst Nature (PBS) is gung-ho (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/koko/friendship.html) in favour.
I'm not sure whether, in the CSICOP article, Chomsky isn't being just a tad speciesist? (Sagan was in favour.) I wonder what Dawkins makes of it?

[Gene Williams]

Hell, I talk to my dogs all the time...they listen a lot better than most other people, and understand what I am saying in some rudimentary way, probably based upon tone and body language. But, hey, I can't build an interspecific bio-linguistic theory out of it. PBS makes you want to go down on all fours.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Hell, I talk to my dogs all the time...they listen a lot better than most other people, and understand what I am saying in some rudimentary way, probably based upon tone and body language. But, hey, I can't build an interspecific bio-linguistic theory out of it. PBS makes you want to go down on all fours.
...When we all know that's the woman's position, right, Gene? :D
As I said, the issue of Koko has been the subject of serious criticism, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothesis of ape language isn't sound. More research is needed. For example, I find Noam Chomsky's knee-jerk denial of the possibility to be a tad speciesist, without him having thought through the possibilities. The recent discovery of Homo floriensis, (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02999_fs.html) for example, who were closer to our apelike ancestors than Homo sapiens are, had some form of communication skills. At some stage, the capacity for abstract thought and language evolved; the question is, at what point? I remember seeing a documentary over a decade ago now, in which a young ape seemed able to communicate, and had internalised such concepts as "indoors" and "outdoors". Even assuming that this were true, and not wishful thinking on the part of the ape's handlers, there is still the possibility that the ape was an anomaly--an ape Einstein, if you will--and that language is beyond the capabilities of most apes. Then again, maybe not. That's why, all I know for sure is that more research is needed.

[Gene Williams]

I think more research would be fascinating, but I don't see the day when you and I will sit down with a group of monkeys over tea and discuss Shakespeare...unless we attend a Democratic convention:D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
I think more research would be fascinating, but I don't see the day when you and I will sit down with a group of monkeys over tea and discuss Shakespeare...unless we attend a Democratic convention:D
But the conversation would still be more stimulating than if we attended a Republican convention, where all the delegates are slime... :D

[Gene Williams]

Whe I took Cultural Anthropology back in the '70's, It was believed that language most likely evolved from hunting and the need to communicate during the chase or the stalk, or perhaps (even more likely in my estimation) from the need to communicate during inter-group warfare. I wonder if that is still the popular hypothesis?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Whe I took Cultural Anthropology back in the '70's, It was believed that language most likely evolved from hunting and the need to communicate during the chase or the stalk, or perhaps (even more likely in my estimation) from the need to communicate during inter-group warfare. I wonder if that is still the popular hypothesis?
As far as I'm aware, yes. The real issue is how did the language ability evolve? Certainly, the ability to communicate detailed ideas does provide an evolutionary advantage, so it will be favoured by natural selection, but the brain is a costly organ to run in humans because it is so highly developed, so how did such an organ evlove to handle language without putting itself at an evolutionary disadvantage? Susan Blackmore argues that its memes that are responsible; i.e., that independent replication of ideas is the driving force behind higher cogitation, as memes care naught for the physical burden of replication (unlike DNA), and so there are in fact not one but two replicators at work in our evolution--genes and memes--and they sometimes pull in different directions. In this case, the memes won, and humans evolved.
To return to your original point, however, Gene, selection pressure for survival would favour some rudimentary form of communication, because hunting in packs was the only way humans could bring down a woolly mammoth, or similar big game. Neanderthals evidently had communication skills, for they ritualistically buried their dead and showed other signs of social behaviour that require the ability to communicate abstract thoughts (afterlife, ritual, etc.).
Now, I really ought to go do some work...
Best,

[Gene Williams]

Yes, in fact, those rituals and the abstract thought associated with them go back even further than was suspected at the time I was studying anthropology.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Yes, in fact, those rituals and the abstract thought associated with them go back even further than was suspected at the time I was studying anthropology.
Agreed; the issue of quite when higher social cognition arose is open to debate, but that's unsurprising, given that we're dealing with prehistoric times so, literally, there is no written record of the practices in question.

[Gene Williams]

There is a very good book by Colin Tudge called, "The Time Before History," in which he discusses the history of the earth and its inhabitants, including the many genotypes with which evolution has experimented (the elephant and the horse form were surprisingly popular over the eons), as well as the many, many human, or humanoid, migrations that occurred through millenia. Indeed, it seems evident that not only did certain human precursors co-exist on the planet rather than follow each other in neat sequences, but there were so many migrations of populations from continent to continent and land form to land form that it would be impossible to find a "pure" human genotype.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
There is a very good book by Colin Tudge called, "The Time Before History," in which he discusses the history of the earth and its inhabitants, including the many genotypes with which evolution has experimented (the elephant and the horse form were surprisingly popular over the eons), as well as the many, many human, or humanoid, migrations that occurred through millenia. Indeed, it seems evident that not only did certain human precursors co-exist on the planet rather than follow each other in neat sequences, but there were so many migrations of populations from continent to continent and land form to land form that it would be impossible to find a "pure" human genotype.
Which inconvenient fact rather puts a spoke in the Nazi theories of racial purity, doesn't it?
Thanks for the book recommendation, Gene.

[Gene Williams]

Ah, yes, Die Ubermensch! A pretty lame concept considering that there are probably no truly pure races. Some argue that the Japanese and the Jews are closer to racial purity than most races, but I wonder if that is true. It is for damned sure the Germans weren't. BTW, when you become ruler of the planet, are you still going to let me be the uberschulemeister and teach all the young girls?:D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Ah, yes, Die Ubermensch! A pretty lame concept considering that there are probably no truly pure races. Some argue that the Japanese and the Jews are closer to racial purity than most races, but I wonder if that is true. It is for damned sure the Germans weren't. BTW, when you become ruler of the planet, are you still going to let me be the uberschulemeister and teach all the young girls?:D
Absolutely, and Harvey will still be the Partymeister and chief beer Gauleiter.
FYI, the notion of Japanese racial homogeneity is a complete myth. Japanese from the north (Hokkaido, Aomori, etc.) are ethnically very different from Japanese from the south (Okinawa, Kumamoto, Fukuoka, etc.). The country would have to split into two, north and south, to maintain racial homogeneity for both. (This is owing to the northerners being descended from Chinese/Mongoloid people who entered Japan from the north, via the Bering Strait, whereas the southerners are ethnically Polynesian.) Further, there is the issue of the great metropolitan melting pots such as Tokyo and Osaka, to which people move from all over Japan, and they interbreed and intermarry, thereby further diluting the supposed "racial purity".
I don't know about the Jews, but I thought Judaism was a religion, not a people. One can convert to a religion, but not change one's race.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
many chimpanzees who have been taught ASL and are "chatting" with humans all the time.


They haven't and they aren't.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
They haven't and they aren't.
Evidence, please.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Evidence, please.

You've got it backwards. That's not how supporting a positive statement works.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
You've got it backwards. That's not how supporting a positive statement works.
Robert, I posted above links to people who assert that apes have indeed learned sign language. If you disagree with them, you must supply evidence as to why they are wrong.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Robert, I posted above links to people who assert that apes have indeed learned sign language. If you disagree with them, you must supply evidence as to why they are wrong.


Did I miss something? The only link I noticed was to that less-than-comprehensive PBS thing.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Did I miss something? The only link I noticed was to that less-than-comprehensive PBS thing.
Less-than-comprehensive applies to all papers and info; no one paper or book can cover it all. The fact remains, there are certain claims made therein that you have yet to rebut.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Less-than-comprehensive applies to all papers and info; no one paper or book can cover it all. The fact remains, there are certain claims made therein that you have yet to rebut.

Hang on. So you are referring to the PBS thing?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Hang on. So you are referring to the PBS thing?
Not only. Read the original article at the start of this thread.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Not only. Read the original article at the start of this thread.

Sorry, I don't see any links there. And the article doesn't claim the existence of language in the primates.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...I thought Judaism was a religion, not a people. One can convert to a religion, but not change one's race.
Judaism is a religion, but there are also "Ethnic Jews" who may or may not practice Judaism.

Jew as a "race" is a subdivision of semite, although the term race is probably less accurate than "ethnic group."

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Sorry, I don't see any links there. And the article doesn't claim the existence of language in the primates.
From the original article:
As the ape brain evolved, it accumulated the components of a language. By the time the vocal tract could support speech, we were already human. But our brains, according to Iriki, were "language-ready" much earlier. In the monkey, this happened in a more fragmented form. The only reason it did not emerge was that the conditions were never right.
Now, what does that sound like to you?

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
From the original article:

Now, what does that sound like to you?


It sounds like he is not claiming language in monkeys. It sounds like he is claiming the structure of their brains could concievably make it possible, for whatever that is worth.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
It sounds like he is not claiming language in monkeys. It sounds like he is claiming the structure of their brains could concievably make it possible, for whatever that is worth.
I disagree, Robert. It read to me that, because he's got apes mimicking language constructs, he's arguing that the potential for language is hardwired into their brains pace Chomsky; it's just that because the development to fruition of that potential is evolutionarily costly, it's just lain dormant. Consequently, the ability is there; it just needs to be switched on. (Whether this has been done with Koko is a vexed question; see the CSICOP article above for why.)
As fatr as I can see, the anti arguments advanced by Chomsky and others are redolant of speciesism, pace Dawkins et. al; if there are good reasons why apes can't learn higher language (and there may well be good reasons why they can't), then those need to be explicated. Chomsky's "because I don't believe it" doesn't constitute a valid argument. This is why I wrote at the first that to my mind, the jury is still out on this question.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I disagree, Robert. It read to me that, because he's got apes mimicking language constructs, he's arguing that the potential for language is hardwired into their brains pace Chomsky; it's just that because the development to fruition of that potential is evolutionarily costly, it's just lain dormant. Consequently, the ability is there; it just needs to be switched on.


Nice assumption. Based on what? Would you be prepared to claim that koko has acquired ASL? Even the PBS article didn't go so far as to flat out make that claim.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Nice assumption. Based on what? Would you be prepared to claim that koko has acquired ASL? Even the PBS article didn't go so far as to flat out make that claim.
But the academic papers published by those involved DO make that claim. As I said, however, the jury is still out.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But the academic papers published by those involved DO make that claim.


Who has made that rather outrageous claim? I'd like to see a source for that.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Who has made that rather outrageous claim? I'd like to see a source for that.
Try the following to be going on with:
---

Chimp human chit chat. (1969, February). Science Digest, 73-74. (L)

Discourse with an ape. (1969, January). Scientific American, 50. (M)

The education of Sarah. (1970, September 21). Time, 51-52. (L)

Ford, B. (1970, May). How they taught a chimp to talk. Science Digest, 10-17. (L)

Gardener, R.A., & Gardener, B.T. (1969). Teaching sign language to an ape. Science, 165, 664-672.

Kellog, W.N. (1968). Communication and language in the home-raised chimpanzee. Science, 172, 423-427. (H)

Premack, A.J., & Premack, D. (1971, October). Teaching language to an ape. Scientific American, 92-99. (M)

Premack, D. (1970, September). The education of Sarah. Psychology Today, 54-58. (M)

Premack, D. (1971). Language in a chimpanzee? Science, 172, 808-822. (H)

Sarah language? Learn. (1971, January). Scientific American, 44-45. (M)

Hans, Sherman and Austin (1978, November). Scientific American, 83, 86. (M)

Patterson, F. (1981, December). Koko, the articulate gorilla. Ms., 43-44, 46, 48. (L)

Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S., Rumbaugh, D.M., Smith, S.T., & Lawson, J. (1980). Reference: The linguistic essential. Science, 210, 922-925. (H)

Sherman to Austin: Pass the bananas. (1978, August 19). Science News, 117-118. (M)

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Washi
Who has made that rather outrageous claim? I'd like to see a source for that.
What is it that makes the claim "outrageous"? Why is it so difficult to even admit the possibility of interspecies communication?

Your short, unsupported, comments in this thread lead me to believe that you have pre-judged the issue based on some specieist -- probably psuedoreligious -- grounds.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Try the following to be going on with:
---

Chimp human chit chat. (1969, February). Science Digest, 73-74. (L)

Discourse with an ape. (1969, January). Scientific American, 50. (M)

The education of Sarah. (1970, September 21). Time, 51-52. (L)

Ford, B. (1970, May). How they taught a chimp to talk. Science Digest, 10-17. (L)

Gardener, R.A., & Gardener, B.T. (1969). Teaching sign language to an ape. Science, 165, 664-672.

Kellog, W.N. (1968). Communication and language in the home-raised chimpanzee. Science, 172, 423-427. (H)

Premack, A.J., & Premack, D. (1971, October). Teaching language to an ape. Scientific American, 92-99. (M)

Premack, D. (1970, September). The education of Sarah. Psychology Today, 54-58. (M)

Premack, D. (1971). Language in a chimpanzee? Science, 172, 808-822. (H)

Sarah language? Learn. (1971, January). Scientific American, 44-45. (M)

Hans, Sherman and Austin (1978, November). Scientific American, 83, 86. (M)

Patterson, F. (1981, December). Koko, the articulate gorilla. Ms., 43-44, 46, 48. (L)

Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S., Rumbaugh, D.M., Smith, S.T., & Lawson, J. (1980). Reference: The linguistic essential. Science, 210, 922-925. (H)

Sherman to Austin: Pass the bananas. (1978, August 19). Science News, 117-118. (M)

Before I dust off the old library card, why don't you help me out and tell me which specifically claim that an ape has acquired ASL, and not just a few dozen conditioned responses. Birds can be taught a few dozen words "in English" but I hardly think anyone claims they speak the language. Save me some time if you would.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Brian Owens


Your comments in this thread lead me to believe that you have pre-judged the issue based on some specieist -- probably psuedoreligious -- grounds.


You have read religion into my words? Wow. You are a creative reader.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
What is it that makes the claim "outrageous"? Why is it so difficult to even admit the possibility of interspecies communication?


The same thing that makes it hard for me to believe that a human can flap his arms and fly like a bird, or that this ability exists in humans but we've just never gotten around to developing it.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Before I dust off the old library card, why don't you help me out and tell me which specifically claim that an ape has acquired ASL, and not just a few dozen conditioned responses. Birds can be taught a few dozen words "in English" but I hardly think anyone claims they speak the language. Save me some time if you would.
They all refer specifically to Koko and the ape project. Read them all.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Washi
You have read religion into my words? Wow. You are a creative reader.
I said "psuedoreligious." No creative reading required; you seem to refuse to accept the possibility that humans are not distinct and different in their capacity for intelligence from other animals. And you seem more than willing to make statements to that effect without scientific evidence to back it up. That borders on religious as far as I can see.

And your comparison to humans flying by flapping their wings is ludicrous. That's a tactic used by evangelists.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
I said "psuedoreligious." No creative reading required; you seem to refuse to accept the possibility that humans are not distinct and different in their capacity for intelligence from other animals. And you seem more than willing to make statements to that effect without scientific evidence to back it up. That borders on religious as far as I can see.

And your comparison to humans flying by flapping their wings is ludicrous. That's a tactic used by evangelists.


.....?


You seem to have a real obsession with religion. Good luck with that.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
They all refer specifically to Koko and the ape project. Read them all.


Actually, I was being a bit facetious. I happen to know that no legitimate linguist considers what that ape does to indicate any real acquisition of ASL, which is a very complex language. There are some who want to see potential for more as you mentioned earlier, but...



If one were truly interested in making the case for ape language use there are better examples than koko anyway. Not convincing, in my opinion, but better.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
You seem to have a real obsession with religion. Good luck with that.
No, Robert, I'm the one with the obsession with religion, which I consider to be parasitical, antithetical to common sense, and the enemy of progress.
---
The articles I've cited (many of which are online for a subscription fee) are all written by scientists, including some linguists, for peer-reviewed science magazines. So when you say,
I happen to know that no legitimate linguist considers what that ape does to indicate any real acquisition of ASL, which is a very complex language,
you've shot yourself in the foot, because the very existence of said articles proves you wrong.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, Robert, I'm the one with the obsession with religion, which I consider to be parasitical, antithetical to common sense, and the enemy of progress.
---


Well, that's your issue I suppose. Hope it works out for you.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
when you say,

you've shot yourself in the foot, because the very existence of said articles proves you wrong.


Yeah, the thing is I've read dozens and dozens of those articles and no one outside some over-excited naturalists who don't really understand language in general or ASL in particular makes the claim that the ape has acquired the language. All joking aside, the research is obviously interesting, but think about what it means to say that someone (some thing?) has acquired a language.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Well, that's your issue I suppose. Hope it works out for you.
What we need is more and better scienec teaching in schools. The biggest hurdle to rationality is a lack of understanding, and the fact that the scientifically illiterate are an absolute majority.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
[B]What we need is more and better scienec teaching in schools. /B]

Do you think that better "scienec" teaching would somehow diminish religion?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Do you think that better "scienec" teaching would somehow diminish religion?
Forgive the typo.
Yes, I do, because most people mistakenly think you need a god to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that most people don't know that. Similarly, many people ascribe to "divine intervention" what is really no more than chance; if they had a better understanding of probability theory, they would know this. Again, "god" doesn't help out at the craps table or the reoulette wheel; if people had a better knowledge of game theory, they would understand that fact, too. Many people argue the "god of the gaps"; i.e., if science can't explain it yet, then science never can explain it, and it's thus the province of god. They are, however, completely wrong. The things unexplained by science grow fewer all the time. Tus, the space in which the supernatural is hiding is shrinking all the time. The trouble is, again, that people don't know this.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Forgive the typo.
Yes, I do, because most people mistakenly think you need a god to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that most people don't know that. Similarly, many people ascribe to "divine intervention" what is really no more than chance; if they had a better understanding of probability theory, they would know this. Again, "god" doesn't help out at the craps table or the reoulette wheel; if people had a better knowledge of game theory, they would understand that fact, too. Many people argue the "god of the gaps"; i.e., if science can't explain it yet, then science never can explain it, and it's thus the province of god. They are, however, completely wrong. The things unexplained by science grow fewer all the time. Tus, the space in which the supernatural is hiding is shrinking all the time. The trouble is, again, that people don't know this.

Don't worry about the typo. I do it all the tyme myself. However, you did forget to include "in my opinion" in the above statements. Knowledge, reason, and faith are not mutually exclusive ~ in my opinion.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Don't worry about the typo. I do it all the tyme myself. However, you did forget to include "in my opinion" in the above statements. Knowledge, reason, and faith are not mutually exclusive ~ in my opinion.
No, that science can explain the universe is fact. That people don't know enough probability theory is fact. And that faith and reason are mutually exclusive is fact; if you know something by virtue of evidence, you don't need faith, which is the act of believing without evidence--or in the face of the evidence.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And that faith and reason are mutually exclusive is fact;



Well, to me that sounds like you don't understand either one. But hey, I'm not gonna change your 'beliefs' over the internet so I hope it gets you through the day.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Well, to me that sounds like you don't understand either one. But hey, I'm not gonna change your 'beliefs' over the internet so I hope it gets you through the day.
Then you're not keeping up.
Reason is based upon logic and scientific observation.
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or the belief in something that has already been disproven.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Then you're not keeping up.
Reason is based upon logic and scientific observation.
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or the belief in something that has already been disproven.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?


You zealots all sound the same to me. :rolleyes: Different church, same old song.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
You zealots all sound the same to me. :rolleyes: Different church, same old song.
Atheism is NOT a church; it is the absence of one. Why can't you get that? :rolleyes:

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Atheism is NOT a church; it is the absence of one. Why can't you get that? :rolleyes:


No, I don't want to buy any flowers or read your literature. Thanks anyway (sheeeeeesh)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
No, I don't want to buy any flowers or read your literature. Thanks anyway (sheeeeeesh)
We don't have any flowers, but I defintely recommend the following literature (all available at Amazon: (www.amazon.com)
The Blind Watchmaker
Climbing Mount Improbable
A Devil's Chaplain
Why People Believe Weird Things
Asimov's Guide to the Bible
---
Read those, and see if your opinion doesn't change.

[Washi]

Ugh. You missionary types never quit, do ya?


Sorry, no koolaide today.

[renfield_kuroda]

When Kimpatsu is accused of being religious for his obviously atheist, scientific standing, the world really has gone insane.
Kimpatsu is the essence of atheism:
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Regards,
r e n

[Gene Williams]

I think what they are saying is that Tony is "religious" in his "belief" in the "tenets" of atheism:D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Ugh. You missionary types never quit, do ya?

I'm not a missionary. I am, however, zealous about the truth.
Why are you not?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
I think what they are saying is that Tony is "religious" in his "belief" in the "tenets" of atheism:D
This sentence makes no sense. :rolleyes:

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'm not a missionary. I am, however, zealous about the truth.
Why are you not?


Yes, yes. You have the truth. The disbelievers are evil! There is only one path to salvation, and things to that effect.


You are exactly the same as every other















extremist









































Try to resist the urge to strap explosives to your belly, ok?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Yes, yes. You have the truth. The disbelievers are evil! There is only one path to salvation, and things to that effect.
There is no such thing as "salvation".
Interesting that you consider the truth to be "extreme".

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by renfield_kuroda
When Kimpatsu is accused of being religious for his obviously atheist, scientific standing, the world really has gone insane.
Kimpatsu is the essence of atheism:
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Atheistic and areligious are not synonymous; and atheist and religious are not mutually exclusive.

re·li·gious adj.
1: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2: Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3: Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3: Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.[/i]
That's a layman's term, though, Brian; in anthropology, "religion" means "an appeal to the supernatural", and the colloquial definition of "religion" given above is called "ritual".

[Mrose]

Hmmmm...this WAS an interesting thread. somewhere it turned into some kind of "are too" "am not" squabble that my 3rd grade students get into when we're trying to have a decent game of kick ball. If you have a point, make it. If some one asks for an explanation do your best to explain rather than antagonizing...Jeez, see what you did? Now I actually SOUND like an elementary school teacher. :mad:

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
There is no such thing as "salvation".
Interesting that you consider the truth to be "extreme".


You really can't see how textbook your fanaticism is, can you?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
You really can't see how textbook your fanaticism is, can you?
I say again, interesting that you consider the pursuit of the truth to be fanaticism.
You might want to read both this (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09-18misguidedmissiles.shtml) and then this, (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml) however.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I say again, interesting that you consider the pursuit of the truth to be fanaticism.


That is exactly what every fanatic I've ever met has said.


Every one.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
That is exactly what every fanatic I've ever met has said.
Every one.
I'm sure you meet a lot of fanatics, Robert. How many suicide bombers have you met, exactly?
You don't know the meaning of fanatic.
I admit to being partial to Liverpool FC, though.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'm sure you meet a lot of fanatics, Robert.
You don't know the meaning of fanatic.

Thanks for tell me what I don't know. That's big of you.

I've met quite a few fanatics. One more, including you.

[Gene Williams]

Tony is not a fanatic, he is the 27th incarnation of the god Zrrglbek from the planet Zort, which is in the galaxy Rectumus Maximus. He has been sent here to enlighten us regarding our bleak ignorance and improper communications while we crawl here in the muck of our planet which, compared to Zort, is like a primeval slime.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Thanks for tell me what I don't know. That's big of you.
You seem to need it.
Originally posted by Washi
I've met quite a few fanatics. One more, including you.
If I'm a fanatic, how do you define suicide bombers?
I notice also that you didn't answer my earlier question as to how many suicide bombers you've met.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You seem to need it.


Of course. Your ilk always seems to feel that way.

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
you didn't answer my earlier question as to how many suicide bombers you've met.

I'm really hoping you will be the first.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
I'm really hoping you will be the first.
Why do you want me to blow myself up?

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Why do you want me to blow myself up?

To put an end to this pointless merry-go-round discussion.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
To put an end to this pointless merry-go-round discussion.
Then why don't youj commit suicide? That would be of greater benefit to mankind. :D

[Kaoru]

Ok you two... Enough. This has degenerated into Kindergarten arguing.

Both of you go sit in the corner facing the wall. You Tony on one side, you Washi, on the opposite side of the room. See my point? This is getting stupid. Sigh... Please get along.

To end this argument, I saw a documentary video of Koko on PBS. It was quite clear she knew how to ask for something abstract using ASL. When her kitten died, she made it clear she was sad about it using sign language. Koko knew what she wanted, and she also could talk in simple sentences about different things besides food. Yes, they can aquire language. But, their vocal chords are not made for speaking, therefore, ASL must be used. Keep in mind, Koko was a gorilla, not an ape. But, apes have shown the ability to be able to aquire language and understanding at the level of a small child. Each primate will have different intellectual abilities as humans do. Some will be more intelligent than others. Therefore, what one can do, the next will be able to do or not do, depending on their level of intelligence.

Having an open mind and not thinking humans are the only smart thing on this planet is a better way to think, IMHO.

Oh yes. Unless you are an animal scientist/researcher in that field, you shouldn't make statements like you did several posts back, Washi-san.

Anyway, please stop arguing over religion and etc. You guys are never going to agree. So, shake hands and be friends! :)

[Kimpatsu]

Let's both gang up on Carolyn, Robert.
:D

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Let's both gang up on Carolyn, Robert.
:D

Now you're talking!

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kaoru
Oh yes. Unless you are an animal scientist/researcher in that field, you shouldn't make statements like you did several posts back, Washi-san.

I am a linguist who has studied this subject at length. Hope that is enough.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
I am a linguist who has studied this subject at length. Hope that is enough.
When you say "linguist", do you mean someone who has studied linguistics? Or do you mean no moer than that you've studied languages(s) other than your mother tongue? If so, which? And how well do you speak them?
---
Carolyn: We're coming for you...

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
When you say "linguist", do you mean someone who has studied linguistics?


Right.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
Right.
To what extent? BSc., MSc, D.Phil...?

[Kaoru]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Let's both gang up on Carolyn, Robert.
:D

For what? :D I was just trying to seperate you two. :D

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
To what extent? BSc., MSc, D.Phil...?


MA

S.T.U.D:D

[Washi]

Prairie Dogs Have Own Language, Researcher Claims
By TANIA SOUSSAN, AP

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Dec. 3) - Prairie dogs, those little pups popping in and out of holes on vacant lots and rural rangeland, are talking up a storm. They have different "words" for tall human in yellow shirt, short human in green shirt, coyote, deer, red-tailed hawk and many other creatures.

They can even coin new terms for things they've never seen before, independently coming up with the same calls or words, according to Con Slobodchikoff, a Northern Arizona University biology professor and prairie dog linguist.

Prairie dogs of the Gunnison's species, which Slobodchikoff has studied, speak different dialects in Grants and Taos, N.M.; Flagstaff, Ariz.; and Monarch Pass, Colo., but they would likely understand one another, the professor says.

"So far, I think we are showing the most sophisticated communication system that anyone has shown in animals," Slobodchikoff said.

Slobodchikoff has spent the last two decades studying prairie dogs and their calls, mostly in Arizona, but also in New Mexico and Colorado.

Prairie dog chatter is variously described by observers as a series of yips, high-pitched barks or eeks. And most scientists think prairie dogs simply make sounds that reflect their inner condition. That means all they're saying are things like "ouch" or "hungry" or "eek."

But Slobodchikoff believes prairie dogs are communicating detailed information to one another about what animals are showing up in their colonies, and maybe even gossiping.

Linguists have set five criteria that must be met for something to qualify as language: It must contain words with abstract meanings; possess syntax in which the order of words is part of their meaning; have the ability to coin new words; be composed of smaller elements; and use words separated in space and time from what they represent.

"I've been chipping away at all of these," Slobodchikoff said.

He and his students have done work in the field and in a laboratory. With digital recorders, they record the calls prairie dogs make as they see different people, dogs of different sizes and with different coat colors, hawks, elk. They analyze the sounds using a computer that dissects the underlying structure and creates a sonogram, or visual representation of the sound. Computer analysis later identifies the similarities and differences.

The prairie dogs have calls for various predators but also for elk, deer, antelope and cows.

"It's as if they're trying to inform one another what's out there," Slobodchikoff said.

So far, he has recorded at least 20 different "words."

Some of those words or calls were created by the prairie dogs when they saw something for the first time. Four prairie dogs in Slobodchikoff's lab were shown a great-horned owl and European ferret, two animals they had likely not seen before, if only because the owls are mostly nocturnal and this kind of ferret is foreign. The prairie dogs independently came up with the same new calls.

In the field, black plywood cutouts showing the silhouette of a coyote, a skunk and an oval shape were randomly run along a wire through the prairie dog colony.

"There are no black ovals running around out there and yet they all had the same word for black oval," Slobodchikoff said.

He guesses the prairie dogs are genetically programmed with some vocabulary and the ability to describe things.

Slobodchikoff has also played back a recorded prairie dog alarm call for coyote in a prairie dog colony when no coyote was around. The prairie dogs had the same escape response as they did when the predator was really there.

"There's no coyote present, but the prairie dogs hear this and they say, 'Oh, coyote. Better hide,"' Slobodchikoff said.

Computer analysis has been able to break down some prairie dog calls into different components, suggesting the critters have yet another element of a real language.

"We're chipping away with this at the idea that animals don't have language," Slobodchikoff said.


12/03/04 20:55 EST

[Kaoru]

Originally posted by Washi
I am a linguist who has studied this subject at length. Hope that is enough.

I see. But, you would also need to study animals and animal comunication to make a complete and accurate academic observation on this subject. It's not the exact same thing as human linguistics, you know. Lingistics, as far as I am aware, is the study of language and the evolution/origin of language and languages in humans. And, that area of study by itself, does not involve studying primates and other animals and/or the study of their ability to learn and use language and to develope higher language skills, as far as I know.

[Kaoru]

Originally posted by Washi
Prairie Dogs Have Own Language, Researcher Claims
By TANIA SOUSSAN, AP

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Dec. 3) - Prairie dogs, those little pups popping in and out of holes on vacant lots and rural rangeland, are talking up a storm. They have different "words" for tall human in yellow shirt, short human in green shirt, coyote, deer, red-tailed hawk and many other creatures.
12/03/04 20:55 EST


I heard of this a long time ago. It's not new. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple primal language of sorts. No, there won't be syntax as we know it in such primal language, but if they can communicate something to another, then it is a very basic form of commuication.

Hey... I forgot to ask in my other post. Are there different fields(areas of specialisation) of Linguistics? Which did you study if there are? :)

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kaoru
Hey... I forgot to ask in my other post. Are there different fields(areas of specialisation) of Linguistics? Which did you study if there are? :)

There are quite a few areas of specialization, including animal communication.

My focus was comparative and applied linguistics.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
MA

S.T.U.D:D
My Arse!
Stupid Turd Under Drugs!
:D

[Washi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
My Arse!
Stupid Turd Under Drugs!
:D

.......................


:D :p

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Washi
.......................
Lost for words, Robert? :D :moon:

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kaoru
...Keep in mind, Koko was a gorilla, not an ape....
Uh, Carolyn, gorillas are apes.

The apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Uh, Carolyn, gorillas are apes.
The apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons.
And homo sapiens, Brian.
Humans are African apes.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And homo sapiens, Brian.
Humans are African apes.
Can you show me an authoritative reference that classifies humans as apes?

Humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs are all primates, but they're not all apes.

Homo sapiens are the only (known) extant members of the Hominidae, while the Old World apes and monkeys belong to the Simiadae.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Can you show me an authoritative reference that classifies humans as apes?

Humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs are all primates, but they're not all apes.

Homo sapiens are the only (known) extant members of the Hominidae, while the Old World apes and monkeys belong to the Simiadae.
Richard Dawkins disagrees with you, (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml) as does the Great Ape Project. (http://www.greatapeproject.org/)

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Richard Dawkins disagrees with you, (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml) as does the Great Ape Project. (http://www.greatapeproject.org/)
I said "an authoritiative reference" ya big ape.

When Dawkins says thing like "If you walked up the line like an inspecting general--past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis--and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity" he looses all credibility with me. He assumes that there must be ape intermediates without proof, because his belief sctructure requires there to be. That is faith pretending to be science.

As for The Great Ape Project (which is based right here in Seattle, BTW), their core principle is "...a multi-faceted argument against the unthinking denial of fundamental rights to beings who are not members of our own species, but who quite evidently possess many of the characteristics that we consider morally important."

Tony Kehoe caught in a spurious appeal to authority?! Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!

[Kaoru]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Uh, Carolyn, gorillas are apes.

The apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons.


Ahahaha, Ooops!! Thank you for reminding me that is this so. I have NO idea how I managed that.

Well, I know now I am an idiot for not thinking while writing! *conks self on head* :smash:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
I said "an authoritiative reference" ya big ape.
When Dawkins says thing like "If you walked up the line like an inspecting general--past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis--and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity" he looses all credibility with me. He assumes that there must be ape intermediates without proof, because his belief sctructure requires there to be. That is faith pretending to be science.
Rubbish, that's not a faith statement; it's deductive reasoning. And there are no more expert (not authoratitive, note!) references than Dawkins.
Do you have any idea how rare fossils are? We are lucky to have them at all. Even so, to say that no fossils have been found is crap. What about Lucy? Peking man (homo habilis)? And all the other fossils that HAVE been found? Why do you ignore those?

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...to say that no fossils have been found is crap. What about Lucy? Peking man (homo habilis)? And all the other fossils that HAVE been found? Why do you ignore those?
Tony, read my post again.

Dawkins said no fossils had been found. It's part of the quote from his site.

You also clearly misunderstood what was written, because he said that no fossils had been found of ape intermediates. Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. are Hominids.

I am, however, glad that we agree that Dawkins is full of crap.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Tony, read my post again.

Dawkins said no fossils had been found. It's part of the quote from his site.

You also clearly misunderstood what was written, because he said that no fossils had been found of ape intermediates. Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. are Hominids.

I am, however, glad that we agree that Dawkins is full of crap.
Dawkins is not full of crap; Dawkins is my hero.
The notion of an ape intermediate is farcical; it's the product of a discontinuous mind. Evolution is not discrete packets, it is analogue. Each evolutionary step is close enough to its parents to be almost indistiguishable. The problem arises because the rules of taxonomy require that each and every species be pigeon-holed in one category or another.
Which is precisely what Dawkins was warning against.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Dawkins is not full of crap...
Then why did you say he was?

Dawkins said, "The intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found."

You said, "Even so, to say that no fossils have been found is crap."

Now you're "dissin" him again when you say, "The notion of an ape intermediate is farcical; it's the product of a discontinuous mind." After all, he said, "The intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed..." He did not say there are no intermediates.


Not to be seen as defending Dawkins, I must nevertheless say that the notion of intermediates is not a sign of a discontinuous mind.

Think of the scale of tones from black to white. It is a continuous scale. And yet anywhere along the scale we could pick a tone that is an intermediate shade, neither black nor white. A discontinuous mind might conceive of black, white, and gray as separate, which is incorrect, but any shade of gray is an intermediate tone.

The same is true of the evolutionary scale. It may be true that in the progression from early Hominids to modern man "Each evolutionary step is close enough to its parents to be almost indistinguishable," but, as the fossil record shows, there were intermediates.

By your standards, even Dawkins has a discontinuous mind. After all, he said, "We are great apes. All the great apes that have ever lived, including ourselves, are linked to one another by an unbroken chain of parent-child bonds. The same is true of all animals and plants that have ever lived, but there the distances involved are much greater." So by saying, "we are apes," rather than, "we are primordial ooze" he has chosen to draw an arbitrary line at some point in time at which to say, "This is the line of demarcation."

The difference between him and more mainstream anthropologists and zoologists is where he draws the line.

I draw the line by saying that man and ape may have shared a common ancestor, but we are Hominids not Simians.

[Kimpatsu]

Humans may be hominods and not simians, but we are still apes, as Dawkins's illustration is. There are fossils that demonstrate the common ancestry. In the online version, unfortunately, they're not included, but there are diagrams that accompany the essay by Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain. Bear in mind that the essay has been updated over the years as new discoveries have been made.
Our cousinship to the apes is so clearly written in our DNA, so close to the chimps in fact the difference is less than 1%. How can you deny our apeness?

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...How can you deny our apeness?
Because "ape" is a designation for a group of simians.

Humans are hominids, which is a type of primate, which is a type of mammal, which is a type of vertebrate, blah, blah, blah.

Apes are simians, which is a type of primate, which is a type of mammal, which is a type of vertebrate, blah, blah, blah.

We're cousins, not brothers.

The difference in DNA between man and many other animals is very small. But we draw lines and devise catagories, and man is not in the same catagory as apes.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Because "ape" is a designation for a group of simians.
No it isn't. Ever hear of the naked ape, the human ape, etc?

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No it isn't. Ever hear of the naked ape, the human ape, etc?
Yes. Those are colloquialisms (sp?).

When I reminded Carolyn that gorrillas are apes, and listed the members of the ape family, I was not speaking colloquially, and when you said "So are humans" I did not think you were either.

Frankly, I am now bored with this topic. If you must, you may carry on your discussion without me.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Yes. Those are colloquialisms (sp?).

When I reminded Carolyn that gorrillas are apes, and listed the members of the ape family, I was not speaking colloquially, and when you said "So are humans" I did not think you were either.

Frankly, I am now bored with this topic. If you must, you may carry on your discussion without me.
No, I don't regard them as colloquialisms; as the diagram in the Dawkins essay describes, we are apes; our common ancestor with the African apes is younger than the ancestor between the African and Asian apes, so excluding us from the ape family tree leaves a rather strange gap.
Please don't quit on my accou8nt.
Regards,

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...Please don't quit on my accou8nt.
Oh, it's not you. You're as engaging as ever. It's me.

I am very interested in "News From Japan" and moderately interested in stories about people playing Dr. Doolittle. (Loved the movie with Rex Harrison, didn't like the one with Eddy Murphy.)

But playing Dr. Leakey isn't keeping me motivated. Too many other things going on right now.

Thanks for the debate while it lasted, though.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Brian Owens
Oh, it's not you. You're as engaging as ever. It's me.
Thank you; I feared for a moment that I'd offended you.
Originally posted by Brian Owens
I am very interested in "News From Japan" and moderately interested in stories about people playing Dr. Doolittle. (Loved the movie with Rex Harrison, didn't like the one with Eddy Murphy.)
I totally agree; I hate this current Hollywood vogue for remaking classic movies. 12 Angry Men, Solaris, The Italian Job, Psycho, The Birds...
Leave well enough alone, I say.
Originally posted by Brian Owens
Thanks for the debate while it lasted, though.
You're welcome. I had fun, too.