*nochannel *documentaries *brain *science

The channel assignments are tentative - need more info. stephenfryftw definitely raises a valid argument, but apparently he didn't bother to watch the video, as that point is addressed in the last segment. I'm not convinced either way. I'd like to see some peer-reviewed data. If it does turn out that none of this is verifiable, then I'd suggest the current channels plus *-lies.

More generally, though, there is increasing evidence that other great ape species do have at least some of the underlying brain structures found in humans to support language acquisition and production, such as a laterally asymmetric Broca's area. So, this is definitely not worthy of dismissing a priori.

(someone definitely needs to teach them good sound recording techniques.)

Awesome. Chimpanzees are our closest living relative, in fact, it is closer to us than it is to the Gorilla.


And it is NOT a Monkey, it is a Great Ape.

>> ^imstellar28:
i'm defining sentient as an animal which possesses consciousness--i.e. it is "self aware"

Many great apes and cetaceans(dolphins etc) pass the mirror test for self awareness. Unless you mean something else, which is what I am trying to get at, sentient -> conscious -> self-aware -> sentient is still circular unless we define some testable criteria.

If the mirror test is our criteria, adult dolphins, chimps and european magpies qualify, 1yr old human children do not. Is this the criteria you wish to use? If so do you require every individual to pass the test or do we generalize by species? If we generalize do we include pre/post/non-self-aware members of these species, and if so WHEN do we include them ?(conception?)

>> ^imstellar28:
Two animals can either breed or they can't

Mules can VERY rarely breed with horses, and we only know this because we force them to associate in captivity. How do you intend to exhaustively determine if any other great ape species CAN (not does, CAN) breed with humans? What if it's possible with chimps, say 0.003% of pairings, would that mean that chimps must be given full legal rights? If it it does why? If it doesn't why not?

Do you think bipedality is arbitrary?

Bipedal also has gray areas, but even if it did not it could still be arbitrary relative to rights or moral relevance. If you can explain WHY or HOW bipedality is relevant to sentience, then it would not be arbitrary.

There is only one sentient species on earth. Do you argue that?

Yes, you have an A=A argument here. If you define sentient as human, and say humans are sentient it is mathematically valid, it just does not happen to be meaningful. Until you can point out WHY we can call humans (all humans?) sentient, then you have not really said anything.

What makes you morally distinct from a fetus, or koko the gorilla? If you can't answer that question, in a way that works for the general case, your assesmet of who is morally relivant is completely arbitrary, which is fine with me, since that was my point to begin with.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
That doesn't necessarily mean that humans evolved from monkeys, but that some life has evolved.

That humans evolved from "monkeys", or more specifically great apes (not the contemporary ones, but their and our ancestors) is in fact supported by just as much and good "hard evidence" (whatever that's supposed to mean) than the age of the earth/universe. Anyone who doubts one but not the other shows they do not understand how science gets its results and that they simply have been brainwashed to believe in science's contemporary understanding of our world (minus the "evolution from monkey" bit, probably since they were members of a monotheistic religion since their birth or baptize, whichever).

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anywho, these people are idiots.

No, they're criminals. The line between brainwashing and education is very, very fine and they've crossed it by leaps and bounds. "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap [backwards] for humanity."

The concept of a "molecular clock" is not a hard one to grasp, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
While the rate of mutation of speciated DNA varies with the method of analysis, it can be fairly calibrated with the fossil record and, more recently, retroviral DNA insertion. These concepts are the "smoking gun" of common ancestry of modern humans/neanderthals/chimps/great apes. While bones and flesh decay, making the fossil record incomplete, DNA lives on.

MarineGunrock, are you saying that evolution says we descended from apes? That's not what it says. It says humans and the other great apes are both descended from a common ancestor. Something even more primitve than an ape. Get it straight.

.. and since someone has to say this. evolution doesnt claim that man descended from apes. but that the great apes and man share a common ancestor.

That's actually not a monkey. It's a gibbon. They're members of the lesser ape family. Humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas are great apes, and these little guys share the lesser ape category with siamangs.

Monkeys can't hang from limbs like that because they don't have rotating shoulders. Their sockets are like a dog or cat, because they skitter about on TOP of the limbs, rather than hanging from them like the apes who are generally larger.

Wow, Kirk Cameron, now there is a source that I would accept less readily that the Bible.

Claim #1 - Why are humans and apes similar - they have a common "designer"
Response: Perhaps they have a common ancestor, as evolution claims; no need for an additional, non-parsimonious designer.

Claim #2 - Interviewing "believers" in evolution.
Note the sarcastic response of the blonde college student. Why didn't they go to the "experts?" They seem to conclude that because these people don't have detailed answers, therefore evolution is wrong and they believe it on blind faith. I wonder how many people that believe in God could tell you chapter and verse (or even who said) of biblical passages. By that same logic, I suppose we can dismiss the bible, because its believers pretty much know jack about what is in it.

Claim #3 - "Does THIS PROVE that man evolved from apes?"
Response: Only the creationist trying to make claims about the invalidity of evolution claims to believe that man evolved from apes.

"Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html

Claim #4 "Apes aren't our relatives, they are a completely different species" Their evidence, that the orangutan tries to eat their salad ("covets their salad", something the purposefully made different than what the orangutan has. It acts like a "beast untrained").

I suppose small children are also not related to humans, a different species perhaps; they too act like this so called "beast untrained." They "covet" things that they do not have and grab for objects; they do things such as defecate on themselves. They throw things as well; perhaps some training can get their "beast" to make facial experessions mimicking Kirk Cameron.

Interestingly, they also say that the orangutans don't form themselves into orchestras. Neither do children, now without guidance for sure.

Claim #5 - Something is not in the fossil record and "proof" of a claim.
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and certainly the false dichotomy that "evolution is wrong, therefore Biblical creation must be correct" is absurd. Also, scientists do not "prove" something to be true. They provide evidence in favor or against a particular claim.

Claim # 6: "Experts" speculation about evolution as support that evolution is foolish.

Ernst Chain (not ERNEST as they put in the video) and others. Speculation by experts does not make their claim valid. Sir Isaac Newton , clearly a great thinker spent much of his days as an alchemist trying to change lead into gold; just because someone is a 'great thinker' does not mean that all his or her ideas are valid.

Claim # 7 "Man will believe anything as long as its not in the Bible"
Better yet, man will believe anything, period, including that a text which has how many versions and ambiguities in the very words that are used was "divinely inspired!" Why SHOULD man believe the Bible? Because it provides the simplistic "god did it" response? OK, now we can move on and continue making our widgets, all of the necessary knowledge can be summed up in "god did it."



Why don't they tell you who the biologist with the PhD is? Why don't we hear more than what they clip?

Are they trying to be "anti-intellectual?" Yes. They select "proof" of their side (the confirmation bias, clearly unscientific.)

At the end, ahhhh we get to the real point. See, there is no "evidence" presented in this video, just some carefully selected and edited clips.

Kirk Cameron....enough said.