Jump to content

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Not since school l got that info a few years ago from a TV program and then used that as a lead to look this up on-line.

What do you think about my Daynes prejudiciality comment?

Hm. In regards to your Daynes comment, im sort of indifferent to how artists depict things like emotion. Im more interested in the bones than if the being had a nice smile or not.

"The prejudicial pre-conception that hominids must look ape like."

For this, i would ask, what would you think early hominids look like, if not partially or somewhat ape like?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Hm. In regards to your Daynes comment, im sort of indifferent to ...

"The prejudicial pre-conception that hominids must look ape like."

For this, i would ask, what would you think early hominids look like, if not partially or somewhat ape like?

 

Kinda "moon faced" like the skull fragments show.

But here is a suggestive question: since, allegedly, the fossil record shows "our evolutionary linage" to be traceable to lemur-like, then why didn't pre-man have snouts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Kinda "moon faced" like the skull fragments show.

But here is a suggestive question: since, allegedly, the fossil record shows "our evolutionary linage" to be traceable to lemur-like, then why didn't pre-man have snouts? 

Not sure if youre asking a question related to fossils and morphology (a quantitative kind of thing morphology vs time), or if your question is more a question of "why" people do not have snouts, or a sort of theoretical question (why did mankind lose the long nose?).

Regarding sahelanthropus, the skull does appear to have a slightly elongated snout, and those who have published on it, claim the same.

But, regardless of what I or anyone else might think about sahelanthropus, "lemur like" to me, implies that you're referring to something like Ida.  But Ida has been dated at, according to a quick google search, 47 million years old. Im not familiar with the leanage between fossils like Ida (47 million years ago), and fossils like Sahelanthropus (6-7 million years ago). So, for all I know, the use of a snout and its morphological presence, may have been predominantly lost by the time pre historic mankind (sahelanthropus) appeared (im about certain this is what would be found if looking into the topic). So the snout would have been predominantly lost, in a "gradual" sense, between 47 mya to 6 mya.

Doing a quick google search now. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Early_evolution_of_primates

Of the fossils listed in the early evolution of primates (pre sahelanthropus), there are a number of primate skeletons that appear to have more "snout" length than sahelanthropus, but less than something like Ida (these fossils are post Ida)..

So pre man between Ida (that has a snout) and sahelanthropus (a bit more than we do but not much of a snout compared to Ida) may have had a relatively longer snout than sahelanthropus (see " Proconsul, Rangwapithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius, Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, all from East Africa. ").  Pre man after sahelanthropus may have had a relatively shorter snout to the point of no snout.

So quantitatively, thats how I would answer.

If the question was more..."abstract"...why our ancestors lost our long noses? I dont know. Regarding our feet, it makes sense to me that when we began walking upright, we were walking on ground, and therefore didnt need long toes to grab branches anymore.  The loss of our long noses also may have just been a product of us not needing them.  Our vision became better, as far as im aware, the current idea is that we gained color vision in post Ida times (theres actually a cool video on youtube about gene therapy and giving lemurs colored vision).  Perhaps color vision took priority in what was significant in our lives (like finding bright colorful fruit that cannot be smelled), over the use of our noses. Whereas back in Ida times, use of our nose may have taken priority over non colored or blurred vision.

But, i dont study primates or primate evolution, so these are just ideas. Morphologically, we can see things with some clarity.  Why features develop, is always hypothetical. We can only guess at why a feature became beneficial or was "selected" back in those times.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCambrian  Your use of "loss of nose" for loss-of-snout is a physical non sequitor.

Some of the listed primates in the article provided have snout-like protrusions, some ape like and some without -like modern humans.

This shows why l am skeptical of most evolutionary models: too much speculating. As you wrote, "The loss of our long noses may also just been a product of us not needing them."  Then why do we still have them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

@iCambrian  Your use of "loss of nose" for loss-of-snout is a physical non sequitor.

Some of the listed primates in the article provided have snout-like protrusions, some ape like and some without -like modern humans.

This shows why l am skeptical of most evolutionary models: too much speculating. As you wrote, "The loss of our long noses may also just been a product of us not needing them."  Then why do we still have them?

I took the question as one about the length of our nose, not as a question of if we still have one or not.

Presumably we still have our nose because we use it. Though we arent dependent upon it like say, a mouse, hence the lack of protrusion and our lack of enhanced smelling senses in comparison to other animals (our ability to smell isnt particularly good). Smelling not being of a critical need for our survival, turns to its gradual disappearance.

Either way, its nice to ponder these questions. Like you said, there is certainly a lot of speculation involved with why things changed through time into the way that they did.  You bringing up the marsupials and dogs is interesting, because we could ask why they ended up taking a similar form or looking similar. Same with some antelopes and deer. Why would convergent evolution occur between any two species?

Something, certainly does appear to guide why we turn out the way we do. And our environment does appear to play a role.  Are our morphological changes limited to those driven by the environment?

A series of "random walks" comes to mind, where morphological changes in species trend in different directions at different times. The word "Random" only being used because we really dont know what was driving or turning that direction of the particular species.  All good questions and thoughts.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCambrian ^^^^^

l read an article a few years ago which described RNA + gene expression, lt had enzymes in there also. Showed a picture of a snake with tiny legs induced by activating genes. In the biological sense, the "guide" is these activated expressions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • No matter how much Shia try to blend in, Muharram/Azadari will always expose them.( Its one of its purpose)
    • Yes they are considered Muslims but not Mo'mins. Surah Al-Insan, Verse 8:
      وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive:
      (English - Shakir) Surah Al-Insan, Verse 9:
      إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks:
      (English - Shakir) A true mo'min always act to seek the nearness (qurbat) of Allah because he loves Allah (s.w.t).  In the same chapter, you will find a verse mentioning people who love this worldly life: Surah Al-Insan, Verse 27:
      إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ يُحِبُّونَ الْعَاجِلَةَ وَيَذَرُونَ وَرَاءَهُمْ يَوْمًا ثَقِيلًا Surely these love the transitory and neglect a grievous day before them.
      (English - Shakir) @hasanhh, @Chaotic Muslem
    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
×