Gorilla story

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody who knows anything about evolutionary science believes human beings "evolved from apes".
Evolution is probably the least understood of the sciences.

Evolution does not mean that ape-like mammals learned how to be humanoid just by watching and learning. It's an extremely complex process involving trial and error, life, death, adaptation, and survival.

Over the last 5 million, or so, years, there were a lot of our ancestors who failed to adapt to the environment, thus eliminating them from the gene pool. Those which survived, along with their genetic make up, were the ones who survived the tests and trials of adaptability in the environment, survival among rivals, and learning what worked and what did not.

At some point the ape-like mammals no longer resembled "Lucy". Traveling distances required bipedal movement, and moving with knuckles dragging was not economical or efficient. Those who could travel efficiently were the ones who signaled the departure from the ape "families". And as time and distance grew, the differences became more pronounced.

Reproduction evolved the same way. Reproduction eventually became a face-to-face interaction. When it did, society also changed. Mankind did become more of what we perceive to be "civilized".

Evolution takes millennia, and things like eyes started to develop in ocean life probably billions of years ago. Some animal needing to avoid being prey to the predator, probably found some sensitivity to light, and its survival insured the reproduction of that DNA sequence. Survival of that DNA sequence lead over millions of years to development of eyes and the rest of our senses. Genetic mutations survive, or not. Did the no-eyed creature have a genetic mutation in which a certain light sensitivity caused vision to develop? That's what happens today. We can't fathom the amount of time needed for these changes to happen.

The same happens to cancer. If a person is given a certain chemical therapy, there will be cancer DNA which isn't killed. That DNA mutates, then survives. Subsequent treatment by the same chemical doesn't work, requiring changes in the drug's structure.
 
"Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years."

What part of "apeLIKE" don't you understand? That does not say that humans descended (nor evolved FROM) apes. Darwin did NOT say man descended (nor evolved from) apes=merely that we shared a common ancestor.

This is the problem when people with little or no knowledge of science try to interpret science for the masses=they always get it wrong!

Sorry, a pet peeve!
 
Dennis: the eye is a bad example because it appears to be aberrant in that it didn't (doesn't) appear to have followed the rules of evolution. While in grad school, I was privileged to listen to (and meet, after the lecture) Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, who talked about evolution of the eye-a great mystery. BTW: Eyes as we know them appear to have evolved at least three times: most vertebrates, octopi (and squid) and snakes (who had eyes, lost them, and they re-evolved).

The greatest extinction was actually when oxygen developed as a free gas. It is believed that 2 microbes started out as a host/parasite and developed into modern cells. That's why most cells have 2 sets of DNA=one in the mitochondria and one in the nucleus. Nuclear DNA comes from both parents and mitochondrial DNA comes only from the mother (and the matriarchal lineage)
 
"Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years."

What part of "apeLIKE" don't you understand? That does not say that humans descended (nor evolved FROM) apes. Darwin did NOT say man descended (nor evolved from) apes=merely that we shared a common ancestor.

This is the problem when people with little or no knowledge of science try to interpret science for the masses=they always get it wrong!

Sorry, a pet peeve!

I understand that "ape like" is more ape than human. As for the part I don't understand....I graduated from Ga State University with a BS in biology with a minor in chemistry...I understand the whole theory, I just don't believe it.
 
Last edited:
This is the problem when people with little or no knowledge of science try to interpret science for the masses=they always get it wrong!

Sorry, a pet peeve!

You mean people like AlGore?

To a layman such as myself, differentiating between "ape" and "apelike" sounds like mincing words. Regarding your statement that I quoted, real scientists are as much to blame as are those with little or no knowledge simply because they have done such a piss-poor job of making themselves clear.
 
all gone....

The poachers kill them in Africa and we kill 'em here...
soon there will be nothing to fret about, they
will be gone!
 
Dennis: the eye is a bad example because it appears to be aberrant in that it didn't (doesn't) appear to have followed the rules of evolution. While in grad school, I was privileged to listen to (and meet, after the lecture) Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, who talked about evolution of the eye-a great mystery. BTW: Eyes as we know them appear to have evolved at least three times: most vertebrates, octopi (and squid) and snakes (who had eyes, lost them, and they re-evolved).

The greatest extinction was actually when oxygen developed as a free gas. It is believed that 2 microbes started out as a host/parasite and developed into modern cells. That's why most cells have 2 sets of DNA=one in the mitochondria and one in the nucleus. Nuclear DNA comes from both parents and mitochondrial DNA comes only from the mother (and the matriarchal lineage)
I didn't mean to imply that evolution was a single development, and that once eyes developed, for example, that creatures always had them. From what I've learned, the history of our planet is full of starts, stops, restarts, etc.; that nothing happens in a straight line or permanently.

A few months ago, I read a fascinating book by Matt Ridley, "The Evolution of Everything; How New Ideas Emerge". Not only does he discuss the science of evolution, but he also makes a good case for why we should eliminate most patent protection.
 
To a layman such as myself, differentiating between "ape" and "apelike" sounds like mincing words. Regarding your statement that I quoted, real scientists are as much to blame as are those with little or no knowledge simply because they have done such a piss-poor job of making themselves clear.

I agree. There is a movement among scientists to explain ourselves better. However, (and no reflection on you) there will always be those who consider "ape" and "apelike" as "splitting hairs". I have to write to the 8th grade level for our management, who are more political than scientific. Judges and attorneys require even lower standards.

There are always those who say they understand evolution but I don't and I can guarantee I've spent more time in grad school discussing these than most people spent in college. As a biologist, we cannot even decide what a "species" is. Is evolution a curvilinear progression, a linear progression or a punctuated equilibrium? Or just a series of "hopeful monsters"?
Where does God figure into the equation? Or, does he?

I am a Freemason and, to become a Brother, I had to profess to a belief in an Almighty Great Architect (whether you call him Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, or Joe!). You can believe in evolution (a process, not a Divinity) or not=that's up to you.
 
...
Where does God figure into the equation? Or, does he?

I am a Freemason and, to become a Brother, I had to profess to a belief in an Almighty Great Architect (whether you call him Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, or Joe!). You can believe in evolution (a process, not a Divinity) or not=that's up to you.
In my previous post, I mentioned Mike Ridley's book on evolution of ideas.

He also makes a great case for the absence of God. He relates that religions arose as an answer for unanswered scientific questions; that belief in a deity is a "sky hook" for those posers, and that "intelligent design" doesn't exist. The evidence of evolution denies the existence of a "supervisor", and who supervises the supervisor.
 
In my previous post, I mentioned Mike Ridley's book on evolution of ideas.

He also makes a great case for the absence of God. He relates that religions arose as an answer for unanswered scientific questions; that belief in a deity is a "sky hook" for those posers, and that "intelligent design" doesn't exist. The evidence of evolution denies the existence of a "supervisor", and who supervises the supervisor.

Cases have been made for and against the existence of God for millennia. My grad professor said belief without proof is Faith, which comes from the heart and the other is Thought which comes from the mind. Both can exist without exclusion of the other.
 
Not one of the posts here has mentioned this male gorilla grabbing the child by his leg and then dragging him at a super fast speed thru the shallow water for over 50 feet!
This gorilla did this not thinking of a child's safety.
This was an intruder!
This gorilla could very easily just pull an arm off,,,just like that.
So, killing the gorilla to save a human being was exactly the right call.
No time for a sit-down negotiation.
Can't call SWAT.
Immediate order to kill was mandatory.
 
Wonder what those 100,000 petitioners would be saying if the zoo had done nothing and let the gorilla kill the child?

Seems like there is a lot of ignorant posturing on both sides.

One side thinks the gorilla is a martyr.

The other wants to prosecute the mom, as if she threw the kid in. I guess they have never made a mistake (if it even was a mistake). Kids have free will too. I wonder if these are also the same people who love to ridicule overprotective parents for making their kids wear bicycle helmets.
 
From a post on facebook by
Amanda O'Donoughue


I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes.

Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about. Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd.

Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid!

They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've have drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well.

.

In my little brain this excerpt from post #31 is the justification for killing the animal. The only scenario where the Gorilla could have survived is if he lost interest, dropped the kid, moved off 50 ft. and took a nap. If they darted the Gorilla and he keeled over in the water he probably would have drown. If he ripped the kids arm off or bashed his brains out and ate him (after all the only thing normally thrown in his enclosure is food) the Gorilla would have been euthanized.
If karma was fair, moron mom would be shipped to Scull Island and sacrificed to Kong.
 
Accountability,has to come in play here.due process of elimination start with the Gorilla and the child.That leave the Zoo or parents to be accountable for the Gorilla's death.I say the parents are at fault,being they were responsible for the child care, and it's really that simple of the matter. My opinion!
 
I understand that "ape like" is more ape than human. As for the part I don't understand....I graduated from Ga State University with a BS in biology with a minor in chemistry...I understand the whole theory, I just don't believe it.

You are of course free to believe whatever you want. However, the link you posted as your justification does NOT echo your words; "evolved from apes". As I said before, nobody who understands evolutionary science believes we are "evolved from apes". It may be a subtle distinction for you, and perhaps the notion that apes and man both evolved from some common ancestor is disturbing somehow. Is the notion that your lapdog and the wolves that roam the forest both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither wolf nor dog equally disturbing? If not, what makes us so special?
 
I think this sums it up well. A tragedy all around.

Thank you for your opinions folks.


From a post on facebook by
Amanda O'Donoughue

I am going to try to clear up a few things that have been weighing on me about Harambe and the Cinci Zoo since I read the news this afternoon.

I have worked with Gorillas as a zookeeper while in my twenties (before children) and they are my favorite animal (out of dozens) that I have ever worked closely with. I am gonna go ahead and list a few facts, thoughts and opinions for those of you that aren't familiar with the species itself, or how a zoo operates in emergency situations.

Now Gorillas are considered 'gentle giants' at least when compared with their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzee, but a 400+ pound male in his prime is as strong as roughly 10 adult humans. What can you bench press? OK, now multiply that number by ten. An adult male silverback gorilla has one job, to protect his group. He does this by bluffing or intimidating anything that he feels threatened by.

Gorillas are considered a Class 1 mammal, the most dangerous class of mammals in the animal kingdom, again, merely due to their size and strength. They are grouped in with other apes, tigers, lions, bears, etc.

While working in an AZA accredited zoo with Apes, keepers DO NOT work in contact with them. Meaning they do NOT go in with these animals. There is always a welded mesh barrier between the animal and the humans.

In more recent decades, zoos have begun to redesign enclosures, removing all obvious caging and attempting to create a seamless view of the animals for the visitor to enjoy watching animals in a more natural looking habitat. *this is great until little children begin falling into exhibits* which of course can happen to anyone, especially in a crowded zoo-like setting.

I have watched this video over again, and with the silverback's postering, and tight lips, it's pretty much the stuff of any keeper's nightmares, and I have had MANY while working with them. This job is not for the complacent. Gorillas are kind, curious, and sometimes silly, but they are also very large, very strong animals. I always brought my OCD to work with me. checking and rechecking locks to make sure my animals and I remained separated before entering to clean.

I keep hearing that the Gorilla was trying to protect the boy. I do not find this to be true. Harambe reaches for the boys hands and arms, but only to position the child better for his own displaying purposes.

Males do very elaborate displays when highly agitated, slamming and dragging things about. Typically they would drag large branches, barrels and heavy weighted balls around to make as much noise as possible. Not in an effort to hurt anyone or anything (usually) but just to intimidate. It was clear to me that he was reacting to the screams coming from the gathering crowd.

Harambe was most likely not going to separate himself from that child without seriously hurting him first (again due to mere size and strength, not malicious intent) Why didn't they use treats? well, they attempted to call them off exhibit (which animals hate), the females in the group came in, but Harambe did not. What better treat for a captive animal than a real live kid!

They didn't use Tranquilizers for a few reasons, A. Harambe would've taken too long to become immobilized, and could have really injured the child in the process as the drugs used may not work quickly enough depending on the stress of the situation and the dose B. Harambe would've have drowned in the moat if immobilized in the water, and possibly fallen on the boy trapping him and drowning him as well.

Many zoos have the protocol to call on their expertly trained dart team in the event of an animal escape or in the event that a human is trapped with a dangerous animal. They will evaluate the scene as quickly and as safely as possible, and will make the most informed decision as how they will handle the animal.

I can't point fingers at anyone in this situation, but we need to really evaluate the safety of the animal enclosures from the visitor side. Not impeding that view is a tough one, but their should be no way that someone can find themselves inside of an animal's exhibit.

I know one thing for sure, those keepers lost a beautiful, and I mean gorgeous silverback and friend. I feel their loss with them this week. As educators and conservators of endangered species, all we can do is shine a light on the beauty and majesty of these animals in hopes to spark a love and a need to keep them from vanishing from our planet. Child killers, they are not. It's unfortunate for the conservation of the species, and the loss of revenue a beautiful zoo such as Cinci will lose. tragedy all around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top