The Naked Ape

[metis]

About three decades ago, a British biologist by the name of Desmond Morris raised some eyebrows (and some ire) when he referred to humans as "The Naked Ape" in his book by the same name.  Do you consider that offensive?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Nope.

It's an interesting book too.

all

[metis]

It's an interesting book too.

 I agree.  BTW, do you remember the controversy and outcry it created?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

LOL!

I'm not sure I was even born when it came out.

I was born in 77.

 

all

[metis]

I was born in 77.

Then that means you're now in the "don't trust anyone over 30" category (hippy talk from the 60's and 70's).  Congratulations! 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Yeah, the worst part is now I can't even trust myself!

 

[piglet]

Do you consider that offensive?

No. i consider it as stupid as Evolution Theory.
How do you consider it ?

[Acumen]

This ought to get interesting as soon as Metis and Gluadys show up.

[gluadys]

"The Naked Ape" was a good book as I recall.  Very interesting, but it was a long time ago that I read it.

Anyone read the more recent book (not by the same author) called "The Third Chimpanzee"? 

[metis]

"The Naked Ape" was a good book as I recall.  Very interesting, but it was a long time ago that I read it.

Anyone read the more recent book (not by the same author) called "The Third Chimpanzee"? 

Yes, and I think it's quite good. 

[metis]

No. i consider it as stupid as Evolution Theory.
How do you consider it ?

I guess this officially ends the Age of Reason. 

[jacknky]

I'm afraid reason isn't a virtue for many in our population.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

If there are any fans of Futurama here, I prefer the label that they used for our time.

"the Stupid ages"

 

all

[piglet]

Hence stupid

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Such an intellectual refutation of the flaws in evolution as relates to evolutionary theory.  I'm surprised it hasn't been overturned using the "stupid clause" yet.

 

all

[piglet]

Such an intellectual refutation of the flaws in evolution as relates to evolutionary theory.   I'm surprised it hasn't been overturned using the "stupid clause" yet

Speaking of stupid and "overturning," it's Evolution that purports to explain life diversity. Yet the geniuses, eg immediately above, place the burden of evidence, to say nothing of burden of proof, completely backwards.

As if Evolution, even according to the (ridiculous) theory itself, were observable either in nature or in any history or record of nature

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Speaking of stupid and "overturning," it's Evolution that purports to explain life diversity. Yet the geniuses, eg immediately above, place the burden of evidence, to say nothing of burden of proof, completely backwards.

Care to explain?

As if Evolution, even according to the (ridiculous) theory itself, were observable either in nature or in any history or record of nature

Each of evolutions 4 postulates are observable in nature. 

all

[piglet]

Each of evolutions 4 postulates are observable in nature. all

What postulates?
That species reproduce, or eventually reproduce, different species ?
Precisely the opposite, and only the opposite, is observable in nature.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

1.  Individuals within species are variable
2.  Some of these variations are passed on to offspring
3.  In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive
4.  Survival and reproduction are not random:  The individuals that survive and go on to reproduce, or who reproduce the most, are those with the favorable variations. They are naturally selected.

[piglet]

1.  Individuals within species are variable

In other words individuals within species are individuals ?
They grow ?
This fact neither evidences nor 'contributes' anything to Evolution theory.
In fact, since Evolution is merely theory, and poor theory at that, this self-obvious fact has nothing to do with Evolution, doesn't depend on Evolution, and is completely independent of Evolution.

2.  Some of these variations are passed on to offspring

In other words reproduction isn't cloning ?
This fact too is a "postulate" of God's creation.
Merely labelling a fact, any fact, a "postulate" of Evolution theory does nothing for Evolution theory, nor does it make that fact Evolution nor Evolution evidenced in the slightest.
Since Evolution theory is that all life is reproduced biologically from one form of life.
I.e. that species reproduce different species, as well as their own.

3.  In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive

Meaning that death exists ?
That infant death exists ?
This "postulate" of Evolution likewise evidences nothing of Evolution/Evolution theory.

4.  Survival and reproduction are not random:

Meaning, i suppose, that life and reproduction aren't accidents/accidental ?
This is the primary postulate of Creationism. That God (Life) deliberately created life.
After life's many kinds. And one life after its Maker's image.

This also negates Evolution Theory's equally patently absurd 'cousin': Abiogenesis.

The individuals that survive and go on to reproduce, or who reproduce the most, are those with the favorable variations. They are naturally selected.

To the contrary per history and observation: often the weak or 'unfavorable' survive, eg catastrophes, as well as the strong. Simply depending on the location of a given catastrophe. Which hurricane or earthquake or terroritst attack might equally as well trap or destroy a body-builder as a paraplegic.

In any case, 'natural selection,' that stronger or more flexible or adaptable or healthier individuals might survive (then reproduce) more than weaker etc ones, also itself fails to evidence in the slightest the Evolutionary Theory that one species can, or ever has, reproduced another species.

In other words a self-evident fact that stronger individuals often (though not always) survive longer than weaker ones, isn't evidence, much less any proof in the slightest, or species reproducing different species