Ben Stein Expelled

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

...is cannibalism a common behavior for primates? Saw some chimps eating eachother and i cant recall seeing it before.

As far as I know off the top of my head, no it is not common behavior at all and I think it has only been documented two or three times in higher-primates.

Infanticide is much more common.

In some of the lower primate forms (redtail monkey, macaques), infanticide coupled with cannibalism of the young is more common. The work done so far as I think concluded this is a nutritional behavior and not a social one.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

As far as I know off the top of my head, no it is not common behavior at all and I think it has only been documented two or three times in higher-primates.

Infanticide is much more common.

In some of the lower primate forms (redtail monkey, macaques), infanticide coupled with cannibalism of the young is more common.

Ya i thought it was strange. Some form of chimps fighting off another clan. Caught one of their young and ripped it apart and ate it. I thought it was pretty strange.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Ya i thought it was strange. Some form of chimps fighting off another clan. Caught one of their young and ripped it apart and ate it. I thought it was pretty strange.

In that case I am willing to bet the act was purely social and would wager the two groups were in dire need of whatever resources they may have been fighting over. Was this a television show?

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

In that case I am willing to bet the act was purely social and would wager the two groups were in dire need of whatever resources they may have been fighting over. Was this a television show?

I want to say it was on a cd of "Planet Earth" but im not certain.

[Lefazz]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

I want to say it was on a cd of "Planet Earth" but im not certain.

I believe you're right. I remember seeing that too.

[Schatze]

Yeah, when chimps go to war they tend to eat what they kill. They also hunt all sorts of other primates when they can.

[Eomer]

Yeah, pretty sure it was Planet Earth as well, as I have also seen it. One troop basically waged war against another and killed most of the troop, including infants, and then ate them.

[Screamfeeder]

I remember watching all of Planet Earth a while back, and that section must not have stuck with me.

I did however, track down the research that was used to set the stage for that episode of Planet Earth. The document detailing the meat eating of chimps and hypothesis of why is located here.

A more general rundown of the hunting/warring/social habits of the Ngogo chimp community is here.

The gist of the study is that this particular community of chimps (the largest known group), wages war based on the particular costs and benefits of such an action.

This calls into question the true nature of chimpanzee intelligence since it suggests that a large group of higher primates are able to strategize and conduct territorial disputes in social pre-determined groups.

Watts declares the incidents back up a proposal that war is rooted in evolution. This view, called the imbalance of power hypothesis, holds that animals that conduct mutual group violence do so because it helps them win resources and territory. This in turn lets them survive longer and breed more—and all living species, evolutionary theory holds, descend from those that were able best do those things in the past.

The imbalance of power hypothesis states, in other words, that evolution favored humans and chimps who warred when and because they could get away with it. “This makes grisly sense in terms of natural selection,” said Richard Wrangham, a professor of anthropology at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and the author of the hypothesis.

Human and chimp battles differ in major ways, he stressed. Humans seem to be much worse judges of what they can get away with.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

No im saying its clearly evident social creatures of all types organize and impose order without the mythical "fear wielding shaman who is the lynch pin of civilization" that you created.

I dont even really know where to begin. Nobody ever fucking said chimps have morality. But they have social order imposed by genetics...just like humans. And their social behavior is extremely similar to humans. As are a wide variety of other greater apes and other social mammals. And while you are "pretty sure" you have basically dick for knowledge on the topic yet feel the need to talk about it from a position of certainty. The root of civilization and "morality" is the genetic traits of a social animal. Anyone with eyes can easily see this with even casual observation and knowledge of primates.

That you think humanity isnt governed by similar social structures of dominance is pretty amusing tho. Also your use of the word "morality" as if its some objective law and use some behavior of captured animals as a means to support your claims is laughable. I could link endless streams of examples of humanities morality but its wasted breath.

Reserve faith and spiritual belief for topics that arent addressed by better means. Faith need not preclude logic or critical thinking.

Dude, are you trying to not understand what I am saying? Reread your post and mine and see if you can see where you messed up.

Originally Posted by Schatze

Pygmy chimps are extremely hierarchical, and the battles for dominance are violent. Pygmy chimps will also engage in war upon other troops, wars of elimination.

Infanticide within the troop is nothing I've ever heard of. It doesn't even make sense as the sub-dominants mate all the time with the females behind the dominants back. It's not like lions where when one male takes over a pride, he kills the kittens so the females go back into estrus and therefore bare his children.

Never heard about infanticide within troops. Actually, chimps adopt infants whose mothers die. They babysit for each other, groom, etc.

What you're probably thinking of when a new male gets introduced into a troop it gets its ass kicked for hours as the whole dominance setting goes down.

But actually pygmy chimps in my opinion embody a lot of the best and worst traits of man. From the hierarchy, to the violence, tribalism, to the gentleness. Looking at a troop of chimps I have no problem seeing so many commonalities with myself, and everyone around me. Their "morality" is based on biological imperatives, as are ours. They just don't have fancy abstract minds and verbal abilities to rationalize their impulses, nor to build upon them.

You seem to have quite a bit more knowledge than I do on this subject so I defer to your expertise. The behavior I see is in a bit of an artificial environment since they are in enclosures and the animals are rescues. If some of you haven't seen Escape to Chimp Eden I suggest you check it out.

However, I still think that my point of civilization induced by religion is valid. Even before the Fertile Crescent was cultivated, there is evidence that primitive man buried their dead along with trinkets. This indicates even nomadic tribes had some concept of spirituality.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

However, I still think that my point of civilization induced by religion is valid. Even before the Fertile Crescent was cultivated, there is evidence that primitive man buried their dead along with trinkets. This indicates even nomadic tribes had some concept of spirituality.

Well on the bright side, at least you appear to believe that the Earth is more than ~5000 years old, unlike most creationists.

[Laladilya]

Hmmm speaking of primitive man. How does creationism explain their existence exactly? Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals? Did they come around after them and die out in the flood or something? The car insurance joke is tempting but I'll spare it since I am interested in an answer. ;/

[Lefazz]

Originally Posted by Laladilya

Hmmm speaking of primitive man. How does creationism explain their existence exactly? Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals? Did they come around after them and die out in the flood or something? The car insurance joke is tempting but I'll spare it since I am interested in an answer. ;/

I have a friend who is a creationist and I believe they feel that there were no Neanderthals -- what we're seeing in the fossil record are horribly disfigured people.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

However, I still think that my point of civilization induced by religion is valid. Even before the Fertile Crescent was cultivated, there is evidence that primitive man buried their dead along with trinkets. This indicates even nomadic tribes had some concept of spirituality.

early religions were mythopoeic which hindered the development of reason and logic. many historians would look at history only trying to interpret the will of god.

early man believed in animism and would paint corpses, fold arms over the chest and leave pendants, necklaces, richly carved tools and/or weapons in graves.

religion was needed as a foundation to unite people and to serve as an explanation to the world. i dont believe its religion that as evil as much as i believe that man is evil. we needed more than just religion to get to civilization but, yes, religion was a big part of it.

Originally Posted by Laladilya

Hmmm speaking of primitive man. How does creationism explain their existence exactly? Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals? Did they come around after them and die out in the flood or something?

They believe man has always been as we are today. Believing in neanderthals might actually mean in some sort of evolution taking place.
Neanderthals bones might be viewed as the work of the devil, or really disfigured persons. My favorite was after the found lucy many creationists said it wasnt a human head but it was a monkey head that got lopped off by a tiger and fell right into place atop the skeleton. The theory didnt hold much water after they found more and more of the same skeletons.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Dude, are you trying to not understand what I am saying? Reread your post and mine and see if you can see where you messed up.

That spirituality is the glue that holds social animals together? Ya i understand what you are saying...its just stupid.

However, I still think that my point of civilization induced by religion is valid. Even before the Fertile Crescent was cultivated, there is evidence that primitive man buried their dead along with trinkets. This indicates even nomadic tribes had some concept of spirituality.

I guess if "validity" is determined by ones ability to spew an opinion then yes. Otherwise id have to say no. How does one go from "a concept of spirituality" to that concept being the integral factor that you have stated is REQUIRED for society to exist. Which seems really odd since creatures without spirituality let alone religion (as far as we can determine) have society.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Xakk

.religion was needed as a foundation to unite people and to serve as an explanation to the world. i dont believe its religion that as evil as much as i believe that man is evil. we needed more than just religion to get to civilization but, yes, religion was a big part of it.

Translation please.