Darwinist beliefs in the 7th century Tibet

[Taomeow]

From World Tibet Network News site:

 

A most popular Tibetan origin myth asserts that Tibetan people descended from a male monkey. The monkey, an incarnate of the "Compassionate Spirit" deity Avalokitesvara, met and married a mountain ogress. Eventually, Avalokitesvara and the mountain ogress proudced six offspring. The "hybrid monkeys" resembled Avalokitesvara. Over time, the Tibetan descendants of these six offspring gradually lost any remaining animal features. Tibetan people trace certain characteristics of modern humans to Avalokitesvara and the mountain ogress. People who are "merciful, intelligent, sensitive and do not talk more than necesary" inherited such traits from Avalokitesvara. Meanwhile, those Tibetans that are "red-faced, fond of sinful pursuits, and very stuboorn" resemble the mountain ogress (Shakabpa 5). Adherents to the monkey origin myth rely on ancient documents discovered in a Lhasa temple by Atisha, an Indian scholar. The myth documents claimed to have been written "according to tradition during the reign of Songsten Gampo in the seventh century" by a scholar named Shankara Pati. (Shakabpa 5).

 

My comment:

since Avalokitesvara himself proceeded to incarnate as the female deity Quan Yin in taoism, and according to "Journey to the West" had an epic love-hate relationship with Monkey -- a much less civilized specimen of essentially the same kind -- looks like not just people but at least some of the gods and goddesses as well can trace their origins to monkeys. Which confirms my (and universal shamanic) belief that animals are us -- only better.

[Marblehead]

And then in Korea one of the greatest insults you can offer a person is to say they look like a monkey.

 

But then, yeah, a number of cultures hold the monkey in high regard.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Marblehead

[GrandmasterP]

Monkey Magic was one of the best TV shows ever IMO.

Edited November 28, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[ralis]

Humans evolved from a simian sp. not chimpanzees, but are a related sp.

Edited November 28, 2014 by ralis

[Taomeow]

Well, for one thing, "evolved" as we prefer to think of it presupposes a further development to some "next" or "higher" stage, but humans did not evolve from simians -- they devolved from simians, via a process known as neoteny, a drastic (and not necessarily spontaneous -- this can be induced) developmental halt on a whole lot of genetic programs that results in the adult of the species retaining certain (in our case, numerous) features of the fetal stage, thus creating a new species. That's how we got our big brain, our furless skin, our feckless teeth and claws, and our tailless butt. What we lost -- oh, the losses are incalculable. But the way whereby you can make a human out of a monkey via straightforward neoteny is well understood (though not widely publicized), so both camps are wrong -- those who think we "evolved" (because neoteny is the opposite of evolving) and those who think we didn't, couldn't, descend from a monkey (we absolutely could, genetically speaking -- and the only grey area remaining is, did we do it spontaneously -- as a desperate adaptive move in some dire adversity -- which is the only switch that can spontaneously flip on neoteny in affected species -- or was it done to us.)

Edited November 29, 2014 by Taomeow

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Taomeow]

Sources, Taomeow!

 

"The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal," by Desmond Morris, is a good start.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Taomeow

[PLB]

The book Origins of the Species is a good source. Darwin had the courage to follow the logic of his thinking to tell him what was happening with life forms. He didn't fool around with conceptual work arounds.

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[Taomeow]

The book Origins of the Species is a good source. Darwin had the courage to follow the logic of his thinking to tell him what was happening with life forms. He didn't fool around with conceptual work arounds.

 

Darwin admits over and over again that his theory is a theory, a hypothesis -- and in every case where it falters, he offers what he terms "reason," i.e. speculations as to how the highly impossible could become improbable could become probable. That's a far cry from having "proved" the hypothesis. Here's an example of how he goes about it:

 

From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI--DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY

 

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

Edited November 29, 2014 by Taomeow

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[PLB]

You do not understand the scientific method. Please disregard my request.

 

What part demonstrates a departure from scientific method?

Just stating it as a matter of self evidence is not a demonstration of "science."

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[ralis]

Well, for one thing, "evolved" as we prefer to think of it presupposes a further development to some "next" or "higher" stage, but humans did not evolve from simians -- they devolved from simians, via a process known as neoteny, a drastic (and not necessarily spontaneous -- this can be induced) developmental halt on a whole lot of genetic programs that results in the adult of the species retaining certain (in our case, numerous) features of the fetal stage, thus creating a new species. That's how we got our big brain, our furless skin, our feckless teeth and claws, and our tailless butt. What we lost -- oh, the losses are incalculable. But the way whereby you can make a human out of a monkey via straightforward neoteny is well understood (though not widely publicized), so both camps are wrong -- those who think we "evolved" (because neoteny is the opposite of evolving) and those who think we didn't, couldn't, descend from a monkey (we absolutely could, genetically speaking -- and the only grey area remaining is, did we do it spontaneously -- as a desperate adaptive move in some dire adversity -- which is the only switch that can spontaneously flip on neoteny in affected species -- or was it done to us.)

 

Here is a very simple explanation of evolution which is contrary to your post.

 

http://friendsofdarwin.com/misc/faq/why-still-monkeys/

[Taomeow]

Here is a very simple explanation of evolution which is contrary to your post.

 

http://friendsofdarwin.com/misc/faq/why-still-monkeys/

 

Yes, it's very simple, and it does not address neoteny, the main fact offered in my post in support of my opinion. Have you looked into that at all? I read Desmond Morris's book many years ago and it really blew my mind at the time, this particular fact. I felt it should be on the news, like, this very second. Well, that was over twenty years ago, and most people still go, darwin shmarwin, evolution, natural selection, like a broken record, while others believe -- well, whatever, just not the monkeys, chief, not the monkeys!!! But the real picture is way more fascinating -- and disturbing and thought-provoking and... anyway. Look into neoteny, see if it might pique your interest if not blow your mind.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Taomeow

[ralis]

Yes, it's very simple, and it does not address neoteny, the main fact offered in my post in support of my opinion. Have you looked into that at all? I read Desmond Morris's book many years ago and it really blew my mind at the time, this particular fact. I felt it should be on the news, like, this very second. Well, that was over twenty years ago, and most people still go, darwin shmarwin, evolution, natural selection, like a broken record, while others believe -- well, whatever, just not the monkeys, chief, not the monkeys!!! But the real picture is way more fascinating -- and disturbing and thought-provoking and... anyway. Look into neoteny, see if it might pique your interest if not blow your mind.

 

Desmond Morris writes popular science books and are hardly considered serious research. Furthermore, I believe Morris promoted the 'Aquatic Ape Theory' which does not stand in peer review. If you care to post peer reviewed sources that would be acceptable. I am not interested in having my "mind blown" given that approaching scientific research emotionally, taints the results.

Edited November 29, 2014 by ralis

[Taomeow]

Desmond Morris writes popular science books and are hardly considered serious research. Furthermore, I believe Morris promoted the 'Aquatic Ape Theory' which does not stand in peer review. If you care to post peer reviewed sources that would be acceptable. I am not interested in having my "mind blown" given that approaching scientific research emotionally, taints the results.

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein.

 

Left-brain-only science is dead.

 

Desmond Morris was referenced merely because he was the first one to point out to me a mind-blowing phenomenon I wasn't aware of before -- but he writes popular books on top of a solid academic education and credentials, so did Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, so does Antonio Damasio, the world's leading cognitive neuroscientist, so did Charles Darwin, incidentally. But you may have noticed I invited you to look into neoteny, not into Desmond Morris's work specifically. He's not the only one.

 

The aquatic ape theory as I recall was offered by him without much pressure, as a possibility -- it looked very plausible, but he neither had, nor pretended he had, any decisive proof, so he left it at that. Incidentally, if you believe -- well, you said you don't, but I do, and so did Einstein -- that emotions, such as are implicated in a passionate quest for truth, meaning, harmony, or such as curiosity, fascination, a sense of mystery, etc. -- are the hallmark of real science rather than the desiccated kind that may withstand "peer reviews" (one hand washes another) but not the test of time --

 

you may find your way from a popular book that ignites your imagination to hardcore scientific sources because you might feel you're on fire or thirsting or frustrated -- whatever -- but you want to, you must, know more. Not for the academic career. For the pure thrill of it -- that's the best thing humans have, the sense of a thrill of discovery of something other than what promotes their "natural selection" opportunities. This is how Tesla describes the beginning of his interest in science -- he read a novel... and he credits it with dynamiting the idle, dreamy inertia of his thoughts and giving them purpose and focus -- a scientific one.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Taomeow

[ralis]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein.

 

Left-brain-only science is dead.

 

Desmond Morris was referenced merely because he was the first one to point out to me a mind-blowing phenomenon I wasn't aware of before -- but he writes popular books on top of a solid academic education and credentials, so did Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, so does Antonio Damasio, the world's leading cognitive neuroscientist, so did Charles Darwin, incidentally. But you may have noticed I invited you to look into neoteny, not into Desmond Morris's work specifically. He's not the only one.

 

The aquatic ape theory as I recall was offered by him without much pressure, as a possibility -- it looked very plausible, but he neither had, nor pretended he had, any decisive proof, so he left it at that. Incidentally, if you believe -- well, you said you don't, but I do, and so did Einstein -- that emotions, such as are implicated in a passionate quest for truth, meaning, harmony, or such as curiosity, fascination, a sense of mystery, etc. -- are the hallmark of real science rather than the desiccated kind that may withstand "peer reviews" (one hand washes another) but not the test of time --

 

you may find your way from a popular book that ignites your imagination to hardcore scientific sources because you might feel you're on fire or thirsting or frustrated -- whatever -- but you want to, you must, know more. Not for the academic career. For the pure thrill of it -- that's the best thing humans have, the sense of a thrill of discovery of something other than what promotes their "natural selection" opportunities. This is how Tesla describes the beginning of his interest in science -- he read a novel... and he credits it with dynamiting the idle, dreamy inertia of his thoughts and giving them purpose and focus -- a scientific one.

 

There is much debate on neoteny and how it plays a role in human evolution. BTW, I don't disable my imagination. I believe you did not understand my remarks regarding emotion.

[dust]

What a conversation!

 

I'd like to butt in. Clear a couple of things up definition-wise.

 

Evolution means development. Usually from more simple to more complex, but this is not necessarily the case: in the case of the evolution of life, evolution simply refers to the change of genetic characteristics over time (in response to environmental factors, generally).

 

There is no 'opposite' to the evolution of life, because by definition it can only go one way. It's a process. Like frying an egg: there's no 'opposite' to frying an egg; one can't unfry an egg (without resorting to extreme measures!), one can only continue the process (eat the egg; throw it away; whatever).

 

Neoteny is simply a name we've got for a curious way we've identified by which life evolves. We might retain certain juvenile characteristics, and we might develop new characteristics; any traits that survive are an adaptation. If we started to develop gills and flippers, we wouldn't be devolving or "evolving back" into fish, but evolving characteristics similar to those of fish.

 

The idea that evolution is "progress" or "advancement" is nonsense. There is no progress. "Advancement" is a very human concept designed by us to make ourselves believe that the silly things we do are 'good'. In evolutionary terms, there is only survival.

 

All this to say: the argument's a bit pointless, seems to me. Pretty much everyone agrees that life develops over time; this is evolution, as opposed to life having always existed in the state it exists (which is clearly absurd). What one believes we have inherited and not inherited from tortoises or chimps or the missing link is entirely up for debate, and I'd urge y'all to see that it's not worth insulting each other over.

[dawei]

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Thread cleanup... Let's stay on topic or let it die

 

 

 

Added: The removed posts are in the PIT

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Marblehead]

BTW Humans did not evolve from the monkey. Humans evolved from the ape line. There was an earlier split that created the two different lines; the monkeys and the apes.

[Taomeow]

What a conversation!

 

I'd like to butt in. Clear a couple of things up definition-wise.

 

Evolution means development. Usually from more simple to more complex, but this is not necessarily the case: in the case of the evolution of life, evolution simply refers to the change of genetic characteristics over time (in response to environmental factors, generally).

 

There is no 'opposite' to the evolution of life, because by definition it can only go one way. It's a process. Like frying an egg: there's no 'opposite' to frying an egg; one can't unfry an egg (without resorting to extreme measures!), one can only continue the process (eat the egg; throw it away; whatever).

 

Neoteny is simply a name we've got for a curious way we've identified by which life evolves. We might retain certain juvenile characteristics, and we might develop new characteristics; any traits that survive are an adaptation. If we started to develop gills and flippers, we wouldn't be devolving or "evolving back" into fish, but evolving characteristics similar to those of fish.

 

The idea that evolution is "progress" or "advancement" is nonsense. There is no progress. "Advancement" is a very human concept designed by us to make ourselves believe that the silly things we do are 'good'. In evolutionary terms, there is only survival.

 

All this to say: the argument's a bit pointless, seems to me. Pretty much everyone agrees that life develops over time; this is evolution, as opposed to life having always existed in the state it exists (which is clearly absurd). What one believes we have inherited and not inherited from tortoises or chimps or the missing link is entirely up for debate, and I'd urge y'all to see that it's not worth insulting each other over.

 

The fried egg is a dead egg. You can't unfry it means you can't unkill it. Devolve it, however, while it's still alive -- yes you can. This is done by blocking certain newer programs in the evolutionary development of birds and unblocking certain earlier programs that were operational before reptiles evolved into birds. The proverbial chicken with teeth -- that was actually created by geneticists via removing the Sir2P blocking rings off the genes that keep those genes for pterodactyl teeth inactive in a warm-blooded modern bird. That's the opposite of evolution. I'm not saying reptiles are lower and birds are higher, I'm talking timeline of development -- something came earlier, whatever came later as a species splitting off it "evolved," but whatever evolved and then went back to the earlier stage "devolved." A chicken with teeth equals the devolving from fully chicken traits to chicken plus pterodactyl traits. So, my point is not that humans are "lower" than simians, or higher, but that in order to get a human, to devolve a simian by way of neoteny is both necessary and sufficient. But it's not an ordinary happening, contrary to what you seem to believe. Neoteny of this depth and scale is extraordinary and without precedent.

 

It blows my mind still that the fact blows so few minds still.

 

Buddhists came up with this metaphor for an overactive mind, "like a monkey in a cage," but I don't know if they noticed that the key word is "cage." Let it out of the comfort-zone common-denominator cage and it's in infinity of possibilities and eternity of wonders -- without any special techniques, mind you. Why so few ever try this... well, if a monkey is born in a cage and spends all his life in a cage, and you come and open the cage, he will stay put -- comfort zone... Forever restless, frustrated, bored -- but willing to tolerate this state rather than venture into the scary infinity of the unknown outside the cage... OK, don't let me metaphorize too much.

[Taomeow]

Of course there's far more attractive origin myths out there...

 

[Nungali]

BTW Humans did not evolve from the monkey. Humans evolved from the ape line. There was an earlier split that created the two different lines; the monkeys and the apes.

 

 

At last , someone got it ! ( re; my post # .... my post# ....

 

Hey ! Its gone !

 

I pointed that out on page 1 and someone wiped it out

 

its at the core of the mistaken assumption of this whole topic .... hmmmmmmmm

 

 

 

I mean if it was an invalid comment yours should be removed too

 

And my song post got wiped off ... which was relevant comment on Neoteny and social implications relating to it .

 

Hmmm ... perhaps i need to be less cryptic when I visit here ?

 

 

< thinks .... >

 

Hey Marbles ... have people been thinking I just post random silly stuff ...

 

and not insightful cryptic multi-level puns relating to what they have written ?

[Nungali]

Ahhh ... I see ... it went to the pit ....

 

< chases it >