Clever Monkeys
Video: Predatory Monkeys

When monkeys left the forest and began living in open grasslands, they had to adapt. Baboons, for example, became more aggressive and predatory. Baboons will move around in groups of about 80 individuals for defense. Often, the larger males will go on offense as well — chasing away predators or taking down a young gazelle.

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.
  • jeff

    There is NO proof that humans and monkeys are related. What is USED to SUGGEST this are only superficial appearances. IF we’re so closely related, why hasn’t someone figured out a way to use an ape for invitro? Similarity does NOT prove relationship.

  • joe

    I thought they used DNA and science to prove this.

  • Joe S

    Humans and every living thing are related, it’s a matter of degree and how long ago we had a common ancestor. Humans and monkeys are not as closely related as humans and great apes. I doubt anyone has tried to use a great ape (ie, mountain gorilla) for invitro. Similarity may not prove relationship, but the lack of using an ape for invitro certainly doesn’t disprove it. On the other hand DNA similarity is pretty much proof positive.

  • Ben@Thirteen

    Want more clever monkey stories? Check out some of the strangest monkey stories in the news online at:

  • Romero

    If we would have evolved from moneys or apes, why are their still apes around. Have the stupid ones left behind, I highly doubt it!

  • Joey

    It’s called divergent evolution Romero. We didn’t evolve directly from, say mountain gorillas for instance, instead we shared a common ancestor. Due to things like geographic seperation (i.e different habitats) we evolved in different ways. Some of that original species evolved into chimps, some into gorillas and some into Humans. Its not something that happens instantaneously, it occurs over the course of millenia.

  • Edward

    God created us… We are not from monkies.

  • Mary Daly

    Holy Lord! If bacteria hadn’t evolved, either, than NOTHING else would be here. There are still PLENTY of bacteria, and algae and other organisms whose evolved relations have moved on…for you to say that there would be no monkeys, or apes, or whatever, if we were evolved relations of them is not only unlearned of the science of evolution, it’s plain ignorant. I understand you might be immediately moved to resist, but at least, please, do the background before you say something as ignorant as “there would be no more apes”!

  • Norman Butchko

    Jeff, there are volumes of evidence that man and apes/monkeys are related. Your ignoring this evidence of this fact does not make your assertion true.
    Edward: There is evidence for evolution; there is no valid evidence for any of the thousands of gods mankind has invented.

  • Paul

    Jeff and Romero,
    Slept through the science classes, didn’t we!

  • T2

    There is probably somewhere else you can debate evolution on your own time (I would start with a book on the matter that has more than 5 letters in the title). And I don’t want you to go and bother “Megabuilders” on the discover channel and explain the perils of building the next “Tower of Babel”, now that would be demonstrably ignorant.

  • Jimbo

    It was interesting that the narrative suggested that when our ancestors moved into the open grass lands we may have started standing upright in order to see over the grasses and this is how we evolved into walking on two legs. As an argument to that. What if we were already walking upright before that? What if we were also advanced predators who hunted in groups and used tools? In that case our move to open grass lands would have given us an advantage over other predators and prey. In other words instead of the open lands forging our evolution, we exploited them?
    Just a thought.

  • T2

    For this video we should concentrate on Language, Compassion, Violence, Learning vs Instinct, Community and Family… Hmm… We can see all these “human” traits and more in the program. Which am I missing?

    The mature nut gathering (after evaluating maturity), drying and waiting, then transport to the rocky cliffs where they had “tools” waiting that they had to have also transported there was the most evidence I’ve seen for what was an immense and intricate learned and intelligent process.

    It was very interesting. Is there more than one of these in the series?

  • steven

    Apoes and humans are definitely related, and extremely closely. No serious scientist says otherwise, and mountains of morphological, geographic, DNA, kinetic, and neurological evidence attest to it. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is dead wrong.

  • Russ

    There are several highly respected scientists who no longer support the theory of evolution. The odds are astronomical that the universe was created from the Big Bang and furthermore, we evolved from apes. Read the book, The
    The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. This book will not only provide evidence this theory is wrong, it also quotes the scientist’s I’ve mentioned.

  • Merdolo

    Yes. I read `The Case for Faith’ by Lee Strobel. I also read `The Case for Christ’ by the same author.

    Strobel’s assertions are based on historical documents (mostly related to Christianity), and Strobel spends serious time trying to prove these as valid, unaltered evidence. In most cases they are, in some cases it is highly arguable.

    Yet, nothing in his books is scientific. His points are mere reiteration of well known creationist arguments. As the title reads: `the case for “FAITH”‘. By definition, and there is nothing Strobel can do to change this fact, FAITH excludes reason.

    In short, this book does not prove anything, certainly does not prove evidence theory wrong.

    And an additional fact for you notes Russ: There isn’t a single FAITHFUL (and reasonable) scientist that disprove evidence theory. They, however, do show that evolution doesn’t exclude a creator.

  • Olefin

    jeff Says:

    There is NO proof that humans and monkeys are related

    That would be badly wrong, Jeff.

    We are apes, specifcally we share a common ancestor with the other African apes.

    Have a look at the wiki when you get five minutes

  • D. George

    Try reading Primates IN Question
    The Smithsonian Answer Book, Robert W. Shumaker and Benjamin B. Beck (I think it is an excellent reference.)

  • Ian

    The reason you can have a blood transfusion in safety is because S-C-I-E-N-C-E has shown that there are different blood groups. If anyone is given the wrong (inappropriate) blood type they will die.

    S-C-I-E-N-C-E has also revealed, thanks to Watson and Crick,that ALL animals have DNA. Human DNA is only about half of one percent different from Bonobo chimps; we even have about 65% of our (human) DNA in common with fruit flies (Sarah Palin please note) If you compare the similarities within DNA it is possible to calculate when mankind split from the Apes and then the Monkeys until you reach a COMMON ANCESTOR.

    It has never been suggested, except by the ignorant, the humans evolved from apes. But we do share a common ancestor.

    If you go back far enough we also shared a common ancestor with hedgehogs and also with squirrels (not the same ancestor – just a different one)

    If those who doubt this would accept that they should read books other than their Holy books perhaps the world could move on.

    Just my personal viewpoint – no offence intended.

    BTW the spellings are correct – they’re English.

  • Greg Peterson

    Jeff, grow up. Read, for example, Kluge, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Only a Theory, Your Inner Fish, or any one of scores of accessible, incontrovertible books on evolution. You’re following a ridiculous religious line and it doesn’t make you sound loyal or faithful–just woefully underinformed. If you really want to learn a lot, check out Dawkins’s Ancestor’s Tale. But don’t go spouting kneejerk nonsense just because facts make your particular brand of fundamentalist belief impossible.

  • Dave L

    Goog heavens, Jeff! You’re knocking down strawmen. The assumption of a relationship is not based upone mere similarity of appearance. It’s based upon a massive amount of data from the biological sciences and anthropology.

  • SoapMaiden

    Very well said, and thank you. So often people mistake the words “common ancestor” with A-P-E, or worse, a female named Lucy. There is a huge difference between a possible ‘link’ and a possible ‘common ancestor’.
    I’m more inclined to take stock in the first thing that decided to jump out of the ocean as a possible common ancestor. Little more than a clever precursor to the mudskipper, perhaps? I say inclined, because scientifically based beliefs are always in flux. Good science always admits that up front.
    Let’s face it, if you favor evolution, you could nitpick this issue down to atoms, and then realize that you still aren’t at a common level, not just yet. In this soup of a universe, it may not even be possible.
    And that is the real issue that separates atheists (me) from intelligent designers (not me).
    I am compelled to believe that, just as not ALL humans are destined to micro-evolve within their OWN lifetimes, neither are ALL members of any group, apes & monkeys included. Some individuals in any given group move forward in tiny bursts of evolution in their own lifespan, maybe because they have the will to do so? Others evolve slowly over millions of years, and still others, not at all. I’ll accept just about all of those as honest possibilities.
    Religious folks can & will counter this all they want: they will believe what they feel to be correct, and so will I. I have/will never tell a religious person that they should stop believing what they hold so dear. The only request I make is that they keep their religious laws off my secular body. But they rarely take notice of such respect, even as it is freely given to them. They are too occupied pointing out to me that they know for a fact I am going to burn in hell.
    Talk about never evolving…

  • Kyle K

    Unfortuneately Dave, all of the data you point to is interpreted based upon the assumption that similarites, both in physical structure and genetic makeup,prove that we are related. This is, however, a circular argument. The argument being: we are obviously related because we share genetic similarities,and then the fact that we share genetic similarities is used as proof that we are related. One does not automatically prove the other. It also first assumes that evolution has indeed taken place without first trying to prove it. This is of course a huge disscusion about which much can and indeed needs to be said. Yet, let me point out that the naturalistic position is bankrupt right from the start. It first asserts that logic and reason and, of course, the scientific metod, must be used if we are to come to right conclusions about ourselves and the world in which we live. And yet, according to their own theory, as C.S. Lewis points out,”Reason is simply the unforseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming”. Naturalism first demands that we trust to logic for our answers while at the same time undercutting its reliability. Not to mention the fact that since logic is a universal abstract entity, a naturalistic worldview, which only has room for matter and energy, can’t even begin to account for its existance, let alone demand that it be used as the only grounds for scientific inquiry. But, sadly, this fatal flaw goes entirely unnoticed and the rank and file of modern man simply falls in line and accepts whatever anyong in a white trench coat tells them. May God help us.

  • Bill

    Jeff, I hope no one suggests you and I are related. After all, our opinions are not even superficially related.

  • Victoria

    To respond to Jeff….surely you can agree that all humans are genetically similar to all other humans. We are related, yet not all of us can donate or receive blood from any other human. This does not make us any less related.

    And to Kyle on logic from a human mind being an oxymoron. Logic can be reduced to math. Math can be proven through determining the relationship between variables and following rules of equality. Math like the law of thermodynamics neither creates or destroys concepts, only gives them an infinite range of probabilities.

  • Kyle K

    I think you’ve misunderstood my point Victoria. I recognize the properties of logic and why and how it works. i’m not suggesting that logic IS an oxymoron coming from a human mind. What I’m saying is that If one has a naturalistic worldview(which I don’t have) rather than a theistic worldview(which I do have) than simply accounting for something that exists only in the abstract is extremely difficult, if not impossible. That would include math as well. Of course we do have logic and math in this universe, the question is then; what kind of a universe is it that we live in? Is it a universe created by God, or one created by itself. Abstract entities make sense in a world created by God, but not in a world composed of nothing but matter and energy.

  • Justin Long

    Absolutely absurd to always incorporate evolutionary theory into a nature program. Can we just watch it for the benefit of watching nature without being brainwashed with this idiotic garbarge. If WE started standing up on our feet, and moved to bipedal position, why don’t the monkeys just do it?

  • Merdolo


    I have to admit: You are a rare exception. I congratulate you for using reason to put forth a theological argument (I do NOT intend sarcasm, I really mean it).

    The answer to your point “Is it a universe created by God, or one created by itself?” is Occam’s Razor. I am sorry if this sounds like a lame reiteration of this well known argument, but really, assuming that God created this universe doesn’t add anything to the equation. Doesn’t help further deduction, doesn’t provide any useful explanation. In fact, assuming a theistic world view, you assume nothing is unknown (God knows it all), nothing is unsolved (God created all), and there is nothing we humans can do about it.

  • Tatarize

    Jeff, appearance alone was once enough to cause a scandal at the London zoo but it does not do for actual scientific evidence. The only work I can recall is The Way Of The Master: Evolution that claim the human-chimp connection is made by appearance alone. There’s genetic, taxonomic, ERVs, skeletal, protein and various other tell tale signs that we are closely related to apes and more aptly stated are apes ourselves. For example no great ape (including humans) can synthesize their own ascorbic acid making the molecule a vitamin (Vitamin C) this is due to a faulty gene which can track down and find the pseudogene (ΨGULO) traces in all the great apes. It does nothing now, but for other mammals it allows them to complete the synthesis and not require a diet with the vitamin.

    Romero, I’ve always wondered, if Australians and Americans are descended from the English, why do the English still exist.

    Ian, I’m not ignorant: we evolved from apes. We share a common ancestor with other apes. We are apes. Pretty much everything hominid evolved from a species we would consider to be an ape and certainly gave rise to the all the apes (including us). Now, if you wanted to suggest that we didn’t evolve from monkeys you might have something. I’m not sure we’d properly classify that primate common ancestor as a monkey. However, apes, yes. Our ape ancestor from 10 million years back was certainly an ape which we evolved from.

    Kyle, presuppositionalism is not impressive. Simply because concepts are not materially existent, does nothing to imply the existence of God. We are to be asked to suppose that the concept of 7 is contingent on the concept of God. Only faulty logic allows for such a conclusion. In reality concepts exist, and though that existence is completely different than, say, a chair exists, it doesn’t imply that concepts require an ethereal mind or do not exist.

  • Kyle K

    Merdolo said, assuming that God created this universe doesn’t add anything to the equation. Doesn’t help further deduction, doesn’t provide any useful explanation.

    I would first like to thank you for your compliment for few who disagree with my postition would do such a thing. The question we must ask ourselves is whether or not we are actually interested in the truth, whatever it happens to be, or whether we are only interested in the answer that best suites us. I say this in part because the portion of your post that I quoted where you say that “assuming God created the universe.. doesn’t provide any useful explanation” seems to me to show that you are interested in a particular kind of explanation right from the start. How, if it is the truth, can the explanation not be useful? It seems to me that one can only claim such things if one already has a particular answer one is trying to get to. As for your last sentence, let me just say that God knowing all has nothing to do with scietific endeavors, at least not if you are suggesting that it makes them pointless. Uncovering the order and complexity in God’s creation for the purpose of knowing him better and for the betterment of human life is indeed the duty we were given in the beggining when we were told to “Take Dominion”. And when we begin by assuming that everything that is here is here for our use and is able to be understood, that can and does guide the way one looks at the world and the conclusions that one comes to through science. Therefor I think it does add something to the equation, it does help further deduction, and it does give a useful, and more importantly, truthful, explanation.

    The truth is, that if we have only our own reason to go by, then the question of whether or not concepts ,like logic or 7, are contingent upon the existance of a higher power is entirely unanswerable. One cannot say that they are contingent conclusively on the basis of human reason alone, nor can he say that they are not. We simply do not have the ability, on the basis of reason alone, to come to a definitve conclusion in either direction on the matter. To that degree you are correct. But, of course, we don’t use reason alone to make decisions, nor can we. That is, we don’t begin on entirely neutral ground, on a blank slate. We must assume things to be true right from the start without being able to prove them. This is because we are finite. We must have material to work with. To suggest that it is otherwise would be like asking someone to build a house without any wood or nails or tools. We must start with something and therefor must make assumptions. It is a simple fact of our existance. The point about this argument is that the materialist is specifically trying to account for the existance of material things in such a way that God is not necessary, yet, the very things he must use to prove that God is not necessary for the existance of the material world are not themselves material, nor can the materialist account for them. So whether or not immaterial concepts are indeed contingent upon the existance of God is irrelavant to a certain degree. The first step is simply recognizing that universal abstract entities, like logic, have no place that can be accounted for in a materialistic universe. The fact that they do exist is what should lead us to the question of whether they are contingent upon the existance of God or not. And I must say that if one isn’t even willing to ask the question, it is most likely because he dislikes the answer he may have to come to. So, at the very foundation of naturalism is an acceptance of certain things on the basis of faith rather than reason. This is due to the fact that the materialist, like the theist, must begin with faith, because, like it or not, we simply cannot begin anywhere else.

  • Tatarize

    Kyle, that’s how far Christianity has fallen. Rather than declaring the literal truth of everything it’s down to word games for questions you claim to be unanswerable and a slow and steady descent into postmodernist garble.

    We can build concepts out of concepts. Concepts don’t exist in the same way chairs do, nor should they. Presuppositionalism is nothing more than declaring that concepts need God. Because, just cuz. Ignoring obvious objections like being full of crap or that God is a concept.

  • Kyle K

    You said,”We can build concepts out of concepts.”

    I heartily agree. However, the question is not about whether you can build a concept on a concept or not, but how a material world can produce immaterial entities. Or, how do we get concepts in the first place? Concepts don’t grow on trees, nor do we dig them from the earth. They themselves exist only in the mind, and yet ,strangely, they are the means by which we understand all that exists outside of our minds. What I am asking you to do is not to tell me that it is so, but why that is so. How does a materialist account for the existence of immaterial things like concepts, logic and reason, when all that he has to work with is material, not immaterial? “They just do” is the only answer you have offered so far, while falsely accusing me of giving a similar answer. Do you have other answers?

  • Tatarize

    You don’t need to build concepts. Simply because something doesn’t exist in the physical world doesn’t mean it’s a concept. We can have concepts of things in the physical world as well as the transcendental abstracts. Math isn’t physical but it isn’t wholly conceptual either. It’s a real thing but you’re not going to find the number 7 floating around.

  • Kyle K

    “Math isn’t physical but it isn’t wholly conceptual either.”

    You continue to dodge the question. I’m beginning to think you have not yet understood the question at all.

    You are absolutely right though if you mean that mathematics has profound application in the real world, or that it deals with things to be found in the world of matter and energy. There is no obection to the fact that in addition to 7 being conceptual that we can indeed have 7 apples in the physical world. But you are still entirely missing the point. How is it that a material world ,by pure dumb luck it would seem, not only came itself to be uniform in its own operation, but managed as well by the same blind chance to produce within you and I an ordered and uniform means for understanding that ordered material world?
    It also matters little whether there do exist conceptual things that are strongly bound to the physical world like much of mathematics is. The fact remains that there are a great many things that are not, and that exist entirely in the abstract. Can awesomeness be measured? Can one have more awesomeness or less awesomeness? No it has an entirely abstract existence.
    Now, if you return to post again I would appreciate it if would would attempt to answer my question: How can a material world produce immaterial entities? Can you account for our ability to conceptualize anything, physical or not?

  • Josh

    People do not argue with those who still fail to understand evolution, it is a waste of time and effort. The people who do not understand evolution today are the same people that thought the Earth was flat or that the universe rotated around Earth

  • arayante

    @Kyle K: Largely ignoring your subsequent divergent posts I’d like to address your initial argument.

    First let me observe the irony of you refuting a scientific theory by attacking its basis in logic while at the same time yourself using logic!

    “…interpreted based upon the assumption that similarites, both in physical structure and genetic makeup,prove that we are related.” Relation is a subjective term, chosen for brevity in favor of a needlessly precise technical definition of what it means to be genetically related. If you have a problem with the use of certain terms used in the layman’s discussion of scientific theory perhaps you would be more at home disecting the technical details of actual scientific papers.

    “It also first assumes that evolution has indeed taken place without first trying to prove it.” Unless my history is misinformed, Darwin did not presuppose evolution while he built his theory. The fact that any contemporary discussion about the theory of evolution comes with an existing knowledge of the theory does not detract from the theory, or the legitimacy of one’s accpetance of the theory when entering a discussion about it.

    “It first asserts that logic and reason and, of course, the scientific metod, must be used if we are to come to right conclusions about ourselves and the world in which we live.” It’s not my impression that the goal of science is to come to the “right conclusions” about anything–only to gain greater understanding through an empirical method for the improvement of the human condition. And if we are not to use logic, reason, and the scientific method to make sense of our world what then should we use? Blind faith and arrogance, such as was used to justify the suppression of literacy, theories of a flat Earth, and the Earth-centric universe? An eloquent quote from a fiction author does nothing to dispel the usefulness of logic.

    “…while at the same time undercutting its reliability…can’t even begin to account for its existance, let alone demand that it be used as the only grounds for scientific inquiry.” I’m not sure how logic reduces the reliability of anything. Could you explain? Also, as you later point out we must start with some assumptions so why can’t we assume logic without the need to “account for its existence?” By definition it would be unscientific to use an illogical approach to science.

    In answer to your two ending questions in post 34 I answer this: human intelligence. The “why” of intelligence is not the issue here, so I find it to be a more than adequate answer to how we can conceptualize. As Merdolo pointed out, it is irrelevant to explain how or why we are able to use logic. However you care to explain intelligence is irrelevant to its usage.

    You say that all a materialist has to work with is material, but it’s unfair to define someone so narrowly and then apply the strictest definition of that constraint to further your argument, especially when, in fact, the question IS NOT the validity of abstraction or “what kind of universe” in which we live. Rather, to me it seems that the issue for many people here is the validity of the theory of evolution, and you could also include the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, or the theory of special relativity for that matter. All of these are essentially the same, insofar that none of them are absolute truth, and to me that’s the underlying issue. Religious people tend to ignore the fact that theory is not truth, but it’s an important distinction. Science is not about truth, whereas religion is, so it’s unfortunate that so many people miss this point and try to inject religion into science.

  • lorena robertson

    i think that us coming from monkeys is a lie since there is no proof. maybe if there was proof i would believe it

  • Kyle K

    arayante, “First let me observe the irony of you refuting a scientific theory by attacking its basis in logic while at the same time yourself using logic!”

    It seems as though you don’t understand my point. I’m not suggesting that logic is actually absurd or that we should in actuality distrust it. What I am suggesting is that the naturalistic position cannot account for it. And of course the “why” of intelligence is the issue. If someone says, “I’m going to account for our existence without citing a supernatural cause for it”, why is that person exempt from having to explain the tools that he uses to do the explaining? This is exactly the issue.

    “I’m not sure how logic reduces the reliability of anything.”

    I never said that logic reduces the reliability of anything. The point Lewis was making was that if our minds are simply the product of mindless processes, and logic exists only in the mind, having no absolute or independent existence, then we have no reason to trust it. That is, we have no reason to believe that this thing that developed by chance in our minds is actually able rightly asses to the nature of the universe. I, however, do trust it because I do not believe that it is the product of a mindless process. The fact that we both live in a universe that is comprehensible and have the ability to comprehend it is not a fact that should be lightly cast aside. Indeed, the very statement that the universe is comprehensible would be meaningless if not for the fact that there exist beings to comprehend its comprehensibility. Or, perhaps more to the point, the statement would never be made at all.

    “Also, as you later point out we must start with some assumptions so why can’t we assume logic without the need to “account for its existence?””

    Partly, I meant to point to the fact that we cannot begin on entirely neutral or objective ground as many like to think they can. We cannot start from scratch. The reason the materialist cannot just assume logic is because he has employed himself in the business of accounting for things. Why is he then exempt from accounting for the tools that he uses to do the accounting? Mustn’t logic then be the product of naturalistic processes? If he believes that is true then does logic not then require an explanation?

    What it boils down to is that Logic does indeed exist, and that one worldview accounts for it while the other doesn’t. But don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that only those who believe in God are able to use logic, only that, when they use it, they are being consistent with their worldview, whereas the materialist, when he uses logic, is not.

    “You say that all a materialist has to work with is material, but it’s unfair to define someone so narrowly and then apply the strictest definition of that constraint to further your argument, especially when, in fact, the question IS NOT the validity of abstraction or “what kind of universe” in which we live.”

    I’m not entirely certain what you mean by “applying the strictest definition to further your argument”, but, on the whole, it sounds like you are suggesting that it is unfair for me to actually consider a materialist to be a materialist. Someone who wishes to use anything other than material to explain any part of our existence would not, to my mind, be a materialist. What defines someone as a materialist is that they believe that all they have to work with is material,No? And I’m not talking about the validity of abstraction as a whole, only its validity when built on the foundation of Materialism. Also, the kind of universe that we live in is the question. If you aren’t interested in it, that’s fine. But that is ultimately the question that I am dealing with.

    “Science is not about truth, whereas religion is”

    Science is not about truth? I’m guessing that you must define truth differently than I do. What is true is that which corresponds to reality. If science doesn’t deal with that which corresponds to reality then what use is it? Of course science deals with truth. That is the value that it has. The scientific method is a wonderful tool for investigating and describing the world in which we live. If scientists cease to be interested in what is true then the science they do ceases to be valuable. But I’m guessing that you mean something very different when you refer to “truth”. As far as Biblical Christianity goes, you are right to say that it is about truth. It is indeed about that which corresponds to reality. It is about what kind of a universe we live in. And there is no natural or necessary wall between science and religion. The Bible tells us foundationally what kind of a universe we live in, and we use science to discover the details, to understand the physical world more completely. It is part of the “dominion mandate” that God gave man in the very beginning.

    So, ultimately, we do live in a universe that is comprehensible and we do have the ability to comprehend it. And those facts are accounted for by an intelligent creator, not by mindless matter.

  • Tatrize

    “It also matters little whether there do exist conceptual things that are strongly bound to the physical world like much of mathematics is.”

    Mathematics isn’t conceptual. It isn’t that we have an idea of pi and therefore pi exists. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to it’s diameter really is 3.14159265358979… — It is actual and real. It however, isn’t physically real or conceptually real.

    “How can a material world produce immaterial entities?”

    It can’t and doesn’t. Math isn’t produced by matter. Math is properly employed in ways to coherently describe matter, must as various possible incoherent mathematics systems aren’t.

    “Can you account for our ability to conceptualize anything, physical or not?”

    Yes, our ability to conceptualize evolved.

  • Kyle K

    Tatrize said,
    “Yes, our ability to conceptualize evolved.”

    It seems like you are unaware of the contradiction between your two claims. You first say that immaterial entities aren’t produced by matter, then later say that conceptualization is a product of evolution. So are immaterial things like concepts ultimately produced by matter or not? You seem to want to have it both ways.

    “Mathematics isn’t conceptual. It isn’t that we have an idea of pi and therefore pi exists.”

    What you mean is that mathematics, or pi specifically, has a direct connection to the real physical world and is not ONLY conceptual. But though mathematics mat be used to describe things about, say, a tree, I have never heard of a tree upon which mathematics grew. The point being, you are trying to suggest that simply because mathematics has a connection to the physical world that it is therefore not truly conceptual. Yet without the human mind, without conceptualization, mathematics, for all practical purposes, doesn’t exist. I’m not suggesting that math isn’t “real”, only that it has no physical existence, which is something the materialist cannot account for. As I have said before, the fact that it is immaterial and yet has direct application to the material world is what should give the materialist cause to question his assumptions about the nature of the world in which we live.
    You are obviously a very intelligent person and you seem to see all the parts before you. However, you seem to have trouble putting them together. I want you to know that I harbor no ill will on account of our disagreement and desire nothing but the best for you. I truly hope that one day you will come to know the truth that God is there, and that He is not silent and that we are indeed accountable to Him.

  • JM

    I don’t know what is so difficult to imagine about intelligent designers, we are already intelligent designers ourselves. Pretty arrogant too. God = alien. God Almighty made the alien

  • Tatarize

    Kyle, yes, our ability to conceptualize evolved. That’s not to suggest that there’s some deep or surface laying contradiction there but rather concepts are the products of brains and brains evolved.

    Mathematics and a lot of other real solutions to to things aren’t conceptual nor are they material. They belong to a third group that is neither conceptual or material. Without human minds mathematics does still exist and work. Even if nobody knows a good mathematical proof that pi is normal, it still either is or isn’t independent of conceptualization. The idea that two plus two equals four is predicated on human minds is simply wrong. It is neither a material truth nor contingent on conceptualization, it’s a transcendent. The claim you are making is that since it isn’t material or conceptual it somehow is indicative of a real and existing God, for no reason in particular.

    I’m suggesting such a third transcendental option even as a strict materialist. Solution and limitations of design space or mathematics or logic are neither material nor conceptual and none of that implies even remotely that God exists to explain it. It’s a rather silly and naive notion that suggesting a logical or scientific gap is suggesting that God exists. Such gods are composed entirely out of ignorance and shouldn’t be given any consideration at all. Transcendental truths just happen to exist, even if I couldn’t explain them that doesn’t imply they are magical god evidence.

  • Lis

    I think Jim was born on a different planet.

  • Kyle K

    “The claim you are making is that since it isn’t material or conceptual it somehow is indicative of a real and existing God, for no reason in particular.”

    Actually that is not the claim that I am making at all. I am not at all suggesting that if we approach such matters in an objective manner, which we cannot do in the first place, that the evidence proves God. It is not as though man is actually left entirely to himself to figure things out and God is just the best explanation that one has for the things he sees, though I know that that is what you believe. There are ultimately only two kinds of people in this world: Those who are children of God and those who are not. With that being the case, we all begin our reasoning and interpret the things that we see upon the foundation of one of two premises: a faith in God and His word, or a faith in the autonomous reason of man. And there are many who would call themselves Christians who fall into the latter category rather than the former. God exists independently of whether we believe it or not and He is no mere deduction from evidence, but rather is a living reality. Therefore, my approach is not at all to say, “look, I have found something that can’t be explained but by the existence of God, therefore He exists”. God is not the conclusion, He is the premise. He is the foundation upon which all true knowledge is built, not the conclusion of knowledge gained. My intent is only to seek to expose the foolishness of faith in man’s autonomous reason as the source of all truth. It is not so much to demonstrate that god exists, which all of existence already demonstrates, but rather to show that the atheist/materialist worldview does not explain our existence, as so many would claim that it does.

    As I’m sure you well know, one can construct an argument that is logically valid whos conclusion is yet false. The truthfulness of the conclusion is entirely dependent upon the truthfulness of the premises. If our most foundational premise in our search for answers is the sufficiency of human reason to discover truth, then the God of the Bible will never be the conclusion as that conclusion is at odds with the premise. The Bible declares man to be fallen, not just morally, but intellectually as well. You cannot change the mind of a man who does not will to have it changed. This point I think you probably accept, only you believe that it applies to me and all those other stubburn religious folks rather than to yourself. Therefore, what I am saying is that you are a materialist not as the result of your reasoning, but rather were so from the beginning of your reasoning. The same is true of me, only my foundation is different.

    In conclusion, I am not saying that since you, as a materialist, can’t explain it, therefore God exists. Rather I am saying, God exists, therfore you, as a materialist, can’t explain it.

  • Tim

    God exists therefore God exists -kyle. The difference between you and I is that a change in evidence can cause a change in my opinions. Please don’t waste peoples time arguing if you are comfortable using ‘God exists’ as a premise.

  • john s

    “…the atheist/materialist wordview does not explain our existence, as so many claim that it does” – Kyle K
    Neither does a 2000+/- year old piece of fiction written to control people who were in the infancy of modern civilization at the time.

    Nothing explains our existence. That to me is the wonderful part of being alive. It doesn’t scare me at all to believe that we are a wonderful, physical accident in the universe. It is beyond the comprehension of our primitive minds to suppose how we exist or why we exist without the explanation of “God”. Science has not, nor do I think will it ever be able to definitively state why or how we exist; but it is still worth the effort to pursue this truth.

    It appears incredibly easy for those of us who are scared or worried about the concept of existence without resolution to grasp at the straw of creationism.

  • margieB

    Folks, chill out; why are so many of you afraid of accepting the evolving knowledge from scientific proof… that we are actually related to apes? I would consider it a bigger compliment than being related to some of our own who have turned this world into a hell-hole with their ignorance, intolerance, hatred and paranoia.
    after all, maybe Adam and Eve were the branch that evolved off the apes into the human–thus “creating“ the new species, so to speak..did anyone ever consider that possibility?
    you waste too much time arguing and abusing each other about this creationism thing…just live your lives like a decent human being and quit worrying about how we got here–god will still love you.

  • David B

    It’s unfortunate that religious dogma, so deeply ingrained in our brains when we were young, has inhibited many of us from seeing the obvious connections to our evolutionary past, especially, the deeper insights obtained more recently from genetic science. Understanding the universe, with all of its many complexities has been the pursuit of humankind since (and most likely before) our ancestors first came down from the trees. “Science” (and it’s methods) is just a name for the process by which we have come to understand the universe. “Natural Selection”, for example, is simply the process by which life has changed over its 3.5 billion year existence on our planet. Multicellular organisms have only arrived in the last half billion years. The fossil remains in the radioactively dated rock strata have given humans a glimpse into our distance past. The lives of every living creature on our planet today are biologically linked to the ancient microbes that first inhabited our world. This is truly amazing!!! However, this wonderful knowledge, and the process by which we have come to our present understanding of our existence, still does not explain the meaning and purpose for our existence… and this is somewhat unsettling… as we all want our lives to be meaningful. This is human nature.

  • Wolf

    I went to religious schools as a kid and the sciences were always taught as is. I once asked one of the Priests who was also a science teacher how he resolved the apparent conflict between Genesis and Evolution. Without batting an eye he explained that there was no conflict between the two save that which we as men made. I then asked him to elaborate and he said, ‘We being the children of God must first learn as children. When we grow up and gain the capacity to understand, we then learn the true nature of the world. Through science, God allows us to begin to learn how his works are constructed. As we his children grow in understanding (i.e. evolve) he will eventually let us learn why.’ It might seem like a simplistic answer but most that make sense are. Through science I’ve seen but a tiny fraction of the hand of God at work and am in awe that the tiny bit we’ve learned is nothing compared to the whole. Science is not a spiritual pathway. It never has been nor should it ever be. It is a tool by which we learn our place in the Universe. I have no prob with the highly likely possibilty of having a common ancestor with apes, monkeys and any other form of life on Earth. The human race is not a ‘child’ anymore. The veil of our ignorance has been lifted and only ‘adults’ can take the world for what it is and move forward.

  • Kyle K

    Tim, you said,”The difference between you and I is that a change in evidence can cause a change in my opinions. Please don’t waste peoples time arguing if you are comfortable using ‘God exists’ as a premise.”

    Let me first say that I understand your disdain for my approach as it certainly appears to be entirely unreasonable. Yet it seems to me that to begin reasoning from reason itself is an approach that is more riddled with problems then my own. I begin my reasoning with the God of the Bible as my foundational premise because the God of the Bible is the only thing that can make sense of reasoning itself. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, the evolutionist/materialist, in seeking to account for all of existence in terms of naturalistic causes, seems to have forgotten to account for reason itself.

    How does a materialist account for an Immaterial, universal, invarient,abstract entity such as the laws of logic? He cannot, nor does he try, he simply asserts it as his foundation for gaining knowledge of truth. In contrast, I assert the God of the Bible as the foundation from which all reasoning must be done as only He can make sense of the nature of reason. That is, we can make sense of, or account for, something that is immaterial yet absolute in terms of a God who is Himself immaterial and absolute.
    Can you prove scientifically that you have things called thoughts in your head(since no one that I know of has ever seen a thought), and that there also exist laws that govern them(since no one that I know of has ever seen a law of logic)? Please understand that I’m not trying to be in any way snide with my comments. I’m only trying to bring some honesty to this issue

    My point, therefore, is that you must recognize that when you look at my assertion of the God of the Bible as the first foundational premise and find it foolish, that you are doing the exact same thing with human reason. You arbitrarily decide before hand that human reason is the foundation from which all kowledge of truth must flow(which assumes that it is capable of it in the first place), though you cannot prove it, and your only answer for how it got here is unobserved, random, directionless, unguided natural processes. So you see that the premise of modern man that” human reason is the only means for gaining truth”, though I would not refer to it as a waste of time, is, at best, on very unstable ground and, at worst, simply mistaken.

  • prasansa99

    Hi everyone this is such a good video

  • Ruthee

    I love watching monkeys and apes hang out and take care of their business, because they look so much like us, it’s incredible to me and it shows me that looking at nature teaches us about how beautiful the world and all it’s creatures are beautiful. just to see the baboons and how their baby are helpless and that they are aggressive and take the babies of those other animals ruthlessly
    One little thing, and if anyone at all is reading these postings here, many might agree, that there is no frikkin way that I am a relative of an ape. Apes are wild animals. I am from the human race.
    Human beings are, by nature. the most compassionate creation. Believe it or not, but it is true. When everything is going “normally”, we don’t really notice each other, but a lot of us smile. There are so many nice people in the world. Unfortunately, sometimes it has to come through tragedy to show the human spirit. I think we are hypnotized into thinking we are evil. In fact, we are the way we are supposed to be. We totally have a choice to chose to be negative about things, just to be hurt more? We can also choose the positive thought, which leads us to joy and self confidence.Well, I will end now. I apologize for ramblin’ on now. But, isn’t that what these posts are for? Peace and blessings, Ruthee

  • audree

    There are really lunatics still out there who don’t believe in evolution?! By ‘ God, ‘ we really are doomed! Why don’t we just do as Paula Poundstone suggested. We won’t teach evolution in school anymore. In fact, we won’t teach anything scientific. We can just take the kids out to a lake and tie them up and put them in burlap sacks. If God thinks they’re a good science student, they’ll float! Frickin’ morons. -__-

  • Teanna Byerts

    Some of us have no trouble believing what Science has shown us, decoded from the raw material of the universe, and organized into the human languages of words and math… and in a Great Mystery behind it all which cannot be scientifically decoded and must be taken on Faith. It’s all part of the same circle…

  • A

    Its sad that baboons have to sometimes eat baby gazzell.

  • Bruce

    It saddens me to hear that you believe that you came from a monkey. The only common ancestor we all have is God. But that does not make us kindred to cows, elephants, apes, or monkeys. It only makes us co-existers of this planet, not siblings.

  • Joanna

    Even when seeing the evidence such as some of these comments I have difficulty believing that there are people out there who are not using the intelligence “God” or “Nature” or whatever has given them to understand that there is a difference between religion and science but they are not mutually exclusive. God may be the prime mover but evolution is the mechanism. How arrogant to not understand that we are part of the web of life, not separate from it, even if we have greater intelligence. Of course not every human chooses to use that intelligence.

  • fifo

    To SoapMaiden: I absolutely agree with your point of view, just one thing, Evolution doesn’t come for the will to do so, but for the NEED to do so, I think it’s called Adaptation. Those better adapted, survive and amazingly transmit genetically, that information to their descendants.

  • George

    Is that a chacma baboon or olive baboon

  • Don

    On both sides of the evolution vs creation argument falling into personal attacks and name calling reduce my respect for both “people of science and people of faith”

    I personally believe that there is a God who created us and all around us but I am not ignorant enough to not have questions – in my case my faith trumps my questions,

    When you make fun of someone who holds an opposing view and ridicule them personally rather than having a rational and reasonable conversation, regardless of your view, it is an indication of the weakness of your argument or your knowledge of it.. You can defend yourself without offending others, try it.

  • Mark

    You guys do realize you’re arguing on the internet, right?

  • Andrea

    Hi, sophmore here. I have a question: If humans evolved from apes, then why don’t we see any humanoids walking around?

  • Dodge

    In the year 1769, Nicholas Jose Cugnot conceived the very first self-propelled street automobile. Ever since that year, the creation and also advancement involving a lot more autos elevated. In 1862, Frenchman Etienne Lenoir got his initial functional petrol motor branded and he made use of in driving an automobile starting from Paris, France to Joinville. Then the first-ever gasoline-powered vehicle was created in 1893 by Charles Duryea and Joe Duryea.

Produced by THIRTEEN    ©2014 THIRTEEN Productions LLC. All rights reserved.

PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.