The genius of the ape.

[Ape]

Most of you know this but, chimps are one of the most intelligent things on earth. I am amazed by their intellect that i am starting to think more about evolution. It cannot be dismissed by religious figures.

They, unlike most other animals, remember friends and partners. Some people even think they out do a few aboriginal african and australian groups.

 

[kickz]

Dogs remember people years later as well.

And whatever cadaan is saying they're smarter than some Africans is letting his racism cloud his thought

 

[The alchemist]

Evolution is not a foreign concept in islam. Many religous scholars and polymaths explained this concept long before darwin actually wrote his book, and evolution is not a process that goes against the teachings of islam. This explanation that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist myth created by chriatian priests.

Chimps are complex creatures and this video terrified me

 

[Ape]

Dogs remember people years later as well.

And whatever cadaan is saying they're smarter than some Africans is letting his racism cloud his thought

Intelligence is not a matter of being able to walk and hunt. The great apes are sophisticated and as you can see from the last video, that woman and the gorilla koko, were the first kind to bridge ape and human communication. They literally understood each other word for word with a type of sign language.

I know iq tests arent reliable, but i do belive that certain apes are similar in intelligence to certain human groups

 

[madaxweyne]

Ehhm the titile is wrong it should say Cadan man saying goodbye to his bantu freind

BTW just joking

 

[Ape]

Evolution is not a foreign concept in islam. Many religous scholars and polymaths explained this concept long before darwin actually wrote his book, and evolution is not a process that goes against the teachings of islam. This explanation that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist myth created by chriatian priests.

Chimps are complex creatures and this video terrified me

Indeed evolution in animals is not a myth. Evolution is relevant in animals in islam. But im talking about evolutionary extinct figures like neanderthals or homo erectus. With homo habilis, then homo erectus, then neanderthals denisovans and finally us. I doubt islam accepts those

 

[Ape]

@South Cushitic blud wtf did i do wrong?

 

[South Cushitic]

@South Cushitic blud wtf did i do wrong?

They, unlike most other animals, remember friends and partners. Some people even think they out do a few aboriginal african and australian groups.

Garbage, these simians literally throw their own feces. A plethora of other animals show similar signs of intelligence, some even exceeding chimpanzees. It is insane to even consider the last part, that is just pure racism. Overall, I just generally hate Evolutionary propaganda. This theory is rooted in Freemasonry, and was promoted by Rosicrucians in the British Royal Society.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Bile Huruse]

Dam you really believe certain human groups are less intelligent than chimps?.

 

[The alchemist]

Indeed evolution in animals is not a myth. Evolution is relevant in animals in islam. But im talking about evolutionary extinct figures like neanderthals or homo erectus. With homo habilis, then homo erectus, then neanderthals denisovans and finally us. I doubt islam accepts those

I belive in those too. But i have not found evidence that islam denies that notion, and islam says we should study the secrets and wonders of the world, and science is a objective mechanism that works in that direction. The first man that came up with the scientific method was a muslims, islam made people more more rational, and humans became more intelligent in their thought patterns and used certain teqnuices to explore science to explain the natural world. There is currently no concensus on how compatible it is, but in the islamic community it varies from person to person. I mean, certain elements in darwinian evolution is disputable, but natural selection is a fact. And not all evolutionary biologist is a darwinist, so there is a lot of space to argue on what is true and what is not. But what im definently saying is, if you flat out deny all the parts of evolution, then you are ignoring many facts that has been proven through objective observations and experimentations that corresponds with the first hypothesis.

But there is many aspects of darwinian evolution which are higly questionable, and thus the theory itself is not a perfect scientiffic theory. But there are other evolutionary theories that also explains these phenomenons.

Homology is an assumption that the similarites is due to common descent. If you say that similiarities are due to common descent, and you say "hey, look there exist similarieties", and therefore it is due to common decent. And that is a wrong circular argument. And homology is one of the main thing in darwins theory which is all these similiarieties are due to common decent, but that fundation cannot be proven in of itself. Evolunionary biologist don't really use this argument, but populist do. It is an assumption, which means that the whole theory's fundation are un-proovablen. So we need to divorced evolution and darwinian evolution. It like if i ask, "is there a doctor in the house, we need a doctor" and there is a person that has a PHD in philosphy. It's not the same thing and you can't compare a doctor in medicine to doctor in philosophy. That is a fallacy of equivocation that the darwinist have beein doing. They're saying "look evolution is true, the cells are dividing, they're doing this, bacteria and micro biology, antibiotic medicine" and they use that to extrapolate to human chimp anscetry which is a fallacy of equivocation. The first asumption is naturalism, which says even if we don't find fosils of human link to the chimps, it would still be true due to natrualistic explanation. Second assumption is homology, third asumption is there is only one origin, which means everything has to be put together a dog, a human, a tree and a blade of grass because of the assumption of one origin. And the fourth assumption, even if the three previous assumptions didn't exist, this is the most fundamental assumption and the most challenged: to get from A to Z, we need a mechanism and that is natural selection. If the mechanism fails, the history fails. Imagine there is a bridge, and you've got two structures on the both sides, and you've got a beam across. These structures are the mechanism of natural selection, and the tree of life is the trajecotry (the beam). if these structures break, the tree breaks. The mechanism is being challenged by mainstream academics by other alternatives like evolution by self-organization, neo-mutationism, neo-lamarckism and there is also evolution by natural genetic engineering. These alternative are very fringe theories, but epistemically, something may be fringe, but epistemically equal.

The data that we have in front of us, can be interpreted in a range of different ways, and if we want to stick to the more fine structure of darwininan evolution, then we would want to create a line of best fit, you would actually see many dots on the scatter graph, it would not be a straight line. So the darwinian evolution has many recalcitrant facts, which is facts that resist the theory. We have recalcitrant facts in genetics, the fosil records on punctuated equilibrium, saltation evolution and random mutations in terms of natural genetic engineering, which means that the darwinist theory is not the only theory that is congruence. So you can come up with other theories besides that.

The darwinian evolution is a valid scientiffic theory and paradigm, but people often conflate science with truth. Science gives you workable models about reality, wich are falsified. It does not give you truth, but it keeps changing, it keeps evolving as we get new data. The same data can thus point to multiple conclusions. As a muslim i would believe it to be a valid theory, plausible theory, im not saying it's impossible, but it is not absolutely true.

 

[TekNiKo]

Elephants can remember things from 50 years ago did we evolve from Dumbo?

 

[Ape]

I belive in those too. But i have not found evidence that islam denies that notion, and islam says we should study the secrets and wonders of the world, and science is a objective mechanism that works in that direction. The first man that came up with the scientific method was a muslims, islam made people more more rational, and humans became more intelligent in their thought patterns and used certain teqnuices to explore science to explain the natural world. There is currently no concensus on how compatible it is, but in the islamic community it varies from person to person. I mean, certain elements in darwinian evolution is disputable, but natural selection is a fact. And not all evolutionary biologist is a darwinist, so there is a lot of space to argue on what is true and what is not. But what im definently saying is, if you flat out deny all the parts of evolution, then you are ignoring many facts that has been proven through objective observations and experimentations that corresponds with the first hypothesis.

But there is many aspects of darwinian evolution which are higly questionable, and thus the theory itself is not a perfect scientiffic theory. But there are other evolutionary theories that also explains these phenomenons.

Homology is an assumption that the similarites is due to common descent. If you say that similiarities are due to common descent, and you say "hey, look there exist similarieties", and therefore it is due to common decent. And that is a wrong circular argument. And homology is one of the main thing in darwins theory which is all these similiarieties are due to common decent, but that fundation cannot be proven in of itself. Evolunionary biologist don't really use this argument, but populist do. It is an assumption, which means that the whole theory's fundation are un-proovablen. So we need to divorced evolution and darwinian evolution. It like if i ask, "is there a doctor in the house, we need a doctor" and there is a person that has a PHD in philosphy. It's not the same thing and you can't compare a doctor in medicine to doctor in philosophy. That is a fallacy of equivocation that the darwinist have beein doing. They're saying "look evolution is true, the cells are dividing, they're doing this, bacteria and micro biology, antibiotic medicine" and they use that to extrapolate to human chimp anscetry which is a fallacy of equivocation. The first asumption is naturalism, which says even if we don't find fosils of human link to the chimps, it would still be true due to natrualistic explanation. Second assumption is homology, third asumption is there is only one origin, which means everything has to be put together a dog, a human, a tree and a blade of grass because of the assumption of one origin. And the fourth assumption, even if the three previous assumptions didn't exist, this is the most fundamental assumption and the most challenged: to get from A to Z, we need a mechanism and that is natural selection. If the mechanism fails, the history fails. Imagine there is a bridge, and you've got two structures on the both sides, and you've got a beam across. These structures are the mechanism of natural selection, and the tree of life is the trajecotry (the beam). if these structures break, the tree breaks. The mechanism is being challenged by mainstream academics by other alternatives like evolution by self-organization, neo-mutationism, neo-lamarckism and there is also evolution by natural genetic engineering. These alternative are very fringe theories, but epistemically, something may be fringe, but epistemically equal.

The data that we have in front of us, can be interpreted in a range of different ways, and if we want to stick to the more fine structure of darwininan evolution, then we would want to create a line of best fit, you would actually see many dots on the scatter graph, it would not be a straight line. So the darwinian evolution has many recalcitrant facts, which is facts that resist the theory. We have recalcitrant facts in genetics, the fosil records on punctuated equilibrium, saltation evolution and random mutations in terms of natural genetic engineering, which means that the darwinist theory is not the only theory that is congruence. So you can come up with other theories besides that.

The darwinian evolution is a valid scientiffic theory and paradigm, but people often conflate science with truth. Science gives you workable models about reality, wich are falsified. It does not give you truth, but it keeps changing, it keeps evolving as we get new data. The same data can thus point to multiple conclusions. As a muslim i would believe it to be a valid theory, plausible theory, im not saying it's impossible, but it is not absolutely true.

True sxb. An immediate dismissal is unnecessary. For example, Zakir Naik is not 100% accurate in his lecture about homonid evolution. He funnily enough kept on saying ‘its just a theory’ and the non muslim audience were probably amuses by his sheer ignorance.

 

[Ape]

Elephants can remember things from 50 years ago did we evolve from Dumbo?

But apes form complicated social hierarchy and use tools. Their intelligence is also really high compared to elephants

 

[Pastoralite]

 

[The alchemist]

True sxb. An immediate dismissal is unnecessary. For example, Zakir Naik is not 100% accurate in his lecture about homonid evolution. He funnily enough kept on saying ‘its just a theory’ and the non muslim audience were probably amuses by his sheer ignorance.

I know man."It's just a theory" is not a real argument, and can literally be used selectively to dissmiss every scientiffic explanation on every field you don't like. It is a very unhealthy way of looking at things. I think it would be better to engage in an discussion and create a safe space for people to explore things and expand their understanding and knowledge. If you go back to to bagdad or persia, and north africa in the muslim golden age, they produced the most scholars in the world. Now if you look at the nobel price winners and those that has been nominated, none of these countries produces any candidates. And i believe it is because of this dismissive fundamental worldview that stops us from even considering anything else outside it. I think if we tweaked our culture a bit, then much of the problems in our country would be solved much quicker.

 

[Ape]

I know man."It's just a theory" is not a real argument, and can literally be used selectively to dissmiss every scientiffic explanation on every field you don't like. It is a very unhealthy way of looking at things. I think it would be better to engage in an discussion and create a safe space for people to explore things and expand their understanding and knowledge. If you go back to to bagdad or persia, and north africa in the muslim golden age, they produced the most scholars in the world. Now if you look at the nobel price winners and those that has been nominated, none of these countries produces any candidates. And i believe it is because of this dismissive fundamental worldview that stops us from even considering anything else outside it. I think if we tweaked our culture a bit, then much of the problems in our country would be solved much quicker.

Youve got to learn from your enemy. If you will achieve success, you must be as deceptive as possible ( Sun Tzu’s, ‘The Art Of War’).

What Naik did does not fit in with modern thinking. To prove against something, you must show your proof. Put forward what you have. Somalis are still stuck in Grandads Thinking. We are outdated and act to dopy. The problem is our culture. In my opinion, somalia and its people are a different subject. We arent like the syrians or yemenis who arent divided by clanship. Instead, we are the doomed 20 million who are suffering through the darkest hour. As once put forward by Churchill, ‘A pessimist sees devastation and downfall, an opportunist sees power and courage’.


Even in our Darkest Hour, when all has come against us, when the heroes and mighty have fallen, we hold still. The dark shadow shall no longer hold you down, a dark shadow will be countered. For those of the suffering, you must seen no shame and worry, instead, see anger and fury.

 

[Basra]

Ape

it is well documented in the bible, & i think Quran that there are a people who annoyed God and were turned into Apes. The people of Israel i believe. Usually the act that caused them to be turned into monkeys was they thought they could outsmart God by using a loophole to circumvent any prohibitions. ie the prohibitions of not fishing/working on Sabbath day, Sunday. What the Israels would do was, put a a net on Saturday evening and grab the trapped fish on Monday. They were turned into monkeys. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of prime mates is the cleverness that is apparent in them. Ape, this is what impresses you. So what u r looking at is not an "evolution" at play, but a devolution that happened as a result of Gods Curse.

 

[Ape]

Ape

it is well documented in the bible, & i think Quran that there are a people who annoyed God and were turned into Apes. The people of Israel i believe. Usually the act that caused them to be turned into monkeys was they thought they could outsmart God by using a loophole to circumvent any prohibitions. ie the prohibitions of not fishing/working on Sabbath day, Sunday. What the Israels would do was, put a a net on Saturday evening and grab the trapped fish on Monday. They were turned into monkeys. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of prime mates is the cleverness that is apparent in them. Ape, this is what impresses you. So what u r looking at is not an "evolution" at play, but a devolution that happened as a result of Gods Curse.

I see. Just taking some notes