July 25, 2008

Why are there still monkeys?
posted by homunculus 16 years ago
  • Ergh. The idea that evolution is somehow synonymous with advancement annoys me to no end. I appreciate this author's attempt dispel that myth.
  • The conflation of scientific and vernacular terms is indeed frustrating.
  • Hmmm, TUM, I thought the article was very readable while still covering things that need jargon to fully explain. Amazingly though, creationists can read that and never process a word written there. 'We're NOT descended from apes--I'm made in God's image!' If so, it scares the livin' hell outta me. Too bad many people can't understand/are not interested in evolution. It's such an elegant explanation, and the new discoveries coming out are so amazing. Mitochondria were once symbiotic bacteria, life originated with a virus, there is no more tree of life, more a Gordon's knot. Fascinating stuff. I'm not a believer in the Prime Mover, but even so, if you are, surely you can see an elegance to this that all the creation tales can't even equal. The real answer to the question "Why are there still monkeys?": Because our viruses haven't killed them yet and our penchant for destroying their habitat isn't completely fulfilled. Just give us time and we will soon have destroyed them all (and maybe ourselves in the process). Unfortunately, I think that Mr. Boomer is right
  • I wasn't saying that such conflation happened in the article - on the contrary, the article is quite plain. I'm speaking more of the "Evolution is just a theory" creationist brigade who seem to think, to paraphrase Asmiov, that a scientific theory is something that just pops into your head after a night of drinking.
  • there is no more tree of life, more a Gordon's knot. Flash Gordon? He'll save every one of us!
  • I thought that meant Gordon from Sesame Street. He too is capable of saving us all, that shiny-headed Maria-grabbing bastard.
  • Why are there still Monkeys? Because the other place is too snarky and 5 bucks is 5 bucks. there's probably lots of bacteria in Gordon's snot
  • Quote post: “the anus-heart would be classified as similar to the thoracic heart in virtue of a similar task.” What *task* ? The heart is supposed to signify LOVE. Consider the Valentine's Day heart with that double-rounded cleft. Now consider adding a tail there - even a heterosexual one. I thought not. Monkeys may be anthropomorphic, but they're not human where it counts. (Offered with a prayer and a hope for a laugh?)
  • I can't believe this stuff still needs explaining (at least in its most basic terms). Fucking retards.
  • One thing you can say about that Gordon; he sure is gay.
  • Dan Folkus wrote: "Monkeys may be anthropomorphic, but they're not human where it counts." In the voting booth? In bed? In academia? In the loo? WHERE, DAN, WHERE? Suspense is killing me! Actually and more seriously: I'd argue that the statement made here is that apes at least are not anthropomorphic, in the terms we commonly use. They are not ascribed human characters that they do not really have; rather, we simply recognize in them the same characters that make us human. Which is why chimps are now classed as Homo, same, as Linnaeus originally intended - you can't anthropomorphize something that is already anthropomorphic. ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), human + μορφή (morphē), shape or form. Human-shaped. Which they are. Or perhaps we ourselves should be thought of as ape-shaped? Pithecomorphic? It's a serious question, actually. We aren't as special as we like to think, and recognition of that will hopefully one day allow us to respect our simian brethren more than we already do. We'd better make friends soon, or else!
  • FROGS have human-shaped legs, more so than apes. Cartoonist Gary Larsen had them wearing tennis shoes when being served up on a plate. But as for the shape of the rear end, so far as I can tell, humans really are unique.
  • OMG! Islander has created the ULTIMATE and COMPLETE tagline: MonkeyFilter: Because the other place is too snarky and 5 bucks is 5 bucks. Damn you trac! That should have been in ! Please rectify
  • So... the person who bought the cow was named Jack, too?