Monkeys' Grooming Habits provide new clues to How We Socialize

Yes. It makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930175731.htm

For all those who can’t understand why people make the monkey – man connection. This puts a damper on the common ancestor idea. The needle on my Speculation Meter is in the Danger zone.

Peace,
Ed

I’m interested-- what exactly about this article doesn’t make sense to you? I ask because I actually do learning and memory research with pigeons, monkeys and humans, including comparative research between the species… it’s very interesting (to me at least) to see what similarities and differences arise given the different level of similarity in brain architecture (monkeys = higher amount of similarity, pigeons = lower amount of similarity) to our own. The research in this lab (and others) has shown that these animals are actually capable of abstract learning, which was previously thought to be impossible for the ‘lower’ species… What exactly animals learn in these experiments is definitely up for debate, especially among scientists, but nonetheless I find it to be an extremely fascinating field :slight_smile:

What I find hard to believe is the casual connection being made between monkeys and man, as if to say: Look. That’s us! Monkeys have been called our evolutionary cousins. An earlier report referred to their handling of rocks and was titled, A Stone’s Throw Away, clearly gving the impression that a relatively short evolutionary distance separates the two of us. I’m not denying certain similarities, only pointing out a clear bias in the media and some scientific circles. I find it doubtful than man and monkeys are related as some claim.

Peace,
Ed

There’s a lot more to it, but when newspapers or magazines try to publish somethings scientific for a lay audience, they often water it down so much that it begins to become fluff. For example, if you ever hear anything about ‘the anger gene’ or something like that, it’s wrong! Verrryyyyy few diseases/symptoms/etc. can be traced to one gene, it is always a bigger story.
I don’t know all the details about what makes monkeys and humans considered to be evolutionarily related, but it has largely to do with the amount of the genome we share in common and, in particular importance for the research I’m involved in, the architecture of their brain, what neural structures we do (and don’t) share with them.
I fully support being skeptical if there’s not a lot of evidence to back up a claim, as scientific articles written for the public tend to be that way. Even within the scientific community, there is a lot of scrutiny for any claim, as there should be, so that any finding is robust and appropriately nuanced (at least in theory/ideally).

My BS meter just broke.

I saw nothing in the article that related at all to what the headline claims.

Here’s the powerful conclusion:

Our neocortex is three times larger than that of other monkeys and apes, and this allows us to manage larger, more dispersed social groups as a result.

Our brains are larger than monkeys so we’re able to manage more things than they are.
Great research – and extremely useful! :slight_smile:

Well, reporters don’t get to write headlines.

The article is interesting & I don’t think it’s claiming more than the data it reports, just that social ability relates to cortex size among our fellow primates.

That is certainly grounds for speculation – nothing wrong with that so long as it is labeled as such. One of the more interesting speculations I’ve heard lately is that co-operation evolved as groups had to band together to fight each other.

The idea of humans evolving from monkeys is CONTRADICTORY to the Catholic faith:

Look at what the Church teaches as DOGMA concerning Mary:

Mary is The Immaculate Conception.

Notice the word “the.”

To refer to Mary as THE Immaculate Conception implies there was only ONE immaculate conception.

Now, look at Adam (The Church teaches infallibly that Adam was real). Adam was immaculate before the Fall.
However, he was not conceived. IF he was conceived (from an earlier human or an ape) Mary would only be “an” Immaculate Conception,
**which would be a **contradiction to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception!!!

For the first man to have been conceived would be a contradiction of revealed Dogma!

It is pretty clear that the idea of man having evolved from a lesser creature in simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Animals have instincts. Men can train them to do certain things but that’s it. I don’t think behaviors evolve. Man is more than an animal. We can operate outside of our environment and outside of any genetic predispositions we may have.

Peace,
Ed

i find it stupid to compare human behavior to animals. first, we have concious thought and free will, something animals don’t have. if we think we act in a certain way because other animals do, then that only tells us we’re less humans than we think. the reason why we’re humans is because we can think and act, not just follow our impulses.

i’ve heard reasoning for same sex relationships that some animals do it as well, therefore its natural. hhhhmmm… some animals eat their young, do you think we should ask our governments to make it legal for moms to eat their children? :shrug:

Perhaps that is the point.
We have to explain our behavior somehow, and they don’t want to look up (to God).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.