WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Family may be a missing link

Stardust

How am I still alive
Premium
6,971
4,379
387
Five siblings from Turkey who walk on all fours could provide science with an insight into human evolution, researchers have said.

The four sisters and one brother could yield clues to why our ancestors made the transition from four-legged to two-legged animals, says a UK expert.

But Professor Nicholas Humphrey rejects the idea that there is a "gene" for bipedalism, or upright walking.

A BBC documentary about the family will be shown on Friday 17 March.[/QUOTE]

Coordination problem

Three of the sisters and one brother have only ever walked on two hands and two feet, but another sister alternates between a bipedal and quadrupedal gait. Another brother walks on two feet all the time, but only with difficulty.

Calluses on family member's hands, Image: Nicholas Humphrey
Calluses on the hands show the behaviour is no hoax (Image: Nicholas Humphrey)
The siblings live with their parents and five other brothers and sisters. They were born with what looks like a form of brain damage.

MRI scans seem to show that they have a form of cerebellar ataxia, which affects balance and coordination.

However, scientists are divided on what caused them to revert to quadrupedalism (walking on all fours).

The method of locomotion used by the Turkish children and by our closest relatives chimpanzees and gorillas, differs in a crucial way, said Professor Humphrey.

While gorillas and chimpanzees walk on their knuckles, the Turkish siblings put their weight on the wrists, lifting their fingers off the ground.

Tool use

"What's significant about that is that chimpanzees ruin their fingers walking like that," Professor Humphrey, an evolutionary psychologist, told the BBC News website.

Family member, Passionate Productions/BBC
The five quadrupeds grew up in a remote part of Turkey (Image: Passionate Productions/BBC)
"These kids have kept their fingers very agile, for example, the girls in the family can do crochet and embroidery."

He added that calluses pictured on the hands of one family member demonstrated that the behaviour was not a hoax.

Professor Humphrey said this could be the way that humankind's direct ancestors walked.

Hands which have kept the fingers dextrous would also have been able to manipulate tools, a key development which influenced the evolution of the human body and intelligence.

"I think it's possible that what we are seeing in this family is something that does correspond to a time when we didn't walk like chimpanzees but was an important step between coming down from the trees and becoming fully bipedal," the LSE researcher said.

-------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4782492.stm


wow..:happysad:
 

xcountry

It was this frickin' big!
64
0
0
This story definintely is worth a "wow". But, what are the mental states of these guys??:confused:
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,110
2,332
637
This could do wonders for edging the nasty head of creationism out of our classrooms. :thumbsup:
 

ghim

Ha ha, Nice!
106
0
0
There was another report on this that I read that the reason many people don't buy into it being a missing link type of situation is because all of them are retarded in varying degrees. Also their parents never tried to make them not walk on all fours. To me it just seems like it would be a natural progression from crawling.
 

xcountry

It was this frickin' big!
64
0
0
junglizm said:
This could do wonders for edging the nasty head of creationism out of our classrooms. :thumbsup:
Personally, I'm offended by that. I am a creationist and don't really believe in Darwinism. I'm not the only one, believe me, so please don't go saying bad things about other people's beliefs.
I'm not asking for an apology or anything, so don't get all on my case, I'm just saying.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm always against you, junglizm? heheh:rotflmao: )
 

ghim

Ha ha, Nice!
106
0
0
xcountry said:
Personally, I'm offended by that. I am a creationist and don't really believe in Darwinism. I'm not the only one, believe me, so please don't go saying bad things about other people's beliefs.
I'm not asking for an apology or anything, so don't get all on my case, I'm just saying.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm always against you, junglizm? heheh:rotflmao: )

You don't really believe in Darwinism and I don't really believe in creationism. I have developed my own theory and I stick with it because it ties everything together nicely for me. I don't think that Jung was saying anything bad about other people's beliefs but in his opinion teaching creationism in school isn't the way to go.
 

Tostig

Paradoxasaur
8,339
41
242
xcountry said:
Personally, I'm offended by that. I am a creationist and don't really believe in Darwinism. I'm not the only one, believe me, so please don't go saying bad things about other people's beliefs.
I'm not asking for an apology or anything, so don't get all on my case, I'm just saying.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm always against you, junglizm? heheh:rotflmao: )
if you're offended so easily by someone not liking creationism, you're in the wrong place. try to find a christian or creationist ranting forum so you don't have to be exposed to scientific thought or logic.
 

xcountry

It was this frickin' big!
64
0
0
ghim said:
You don't really believe in Darwinism and I don't really believe in creationism. I have developed my own theory and I stick with it because it ties everything together nicely for me. I don't think that Jung was saying anything bad about other people's beliefs but in his opinion teaching creationism in school isn't the way to go.
you're right, ghim, and I apologize, I didn't say it in the way I meant to. Don't think I'm looking for an excuse, since the fault is my own. I should've said something like not only darwinism but creationism also should be taught in schools. What he called creationism, though, is what I was offended by, like if I said something bad about Darwinism, someone would be offended. Seriously (not just to ghim but anyone) i said that i believe that the beliefs of certain individuals shouldn't be name-called or put down in any way. Well, atleast that is what I was trying to say, although it appears that some of you didn't interpret my words as I intended them to be interpreted as, and that is most likely my fault. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just saying.
 

xcountry

It was this frickin' big!
64
0
0
Tostig said:
if you're offended so easily by someone not liking creationism, you're in the wrong place. try to find a christian or creationist ranting forum so you don't have to be exposed to scientific thought or logic.
okay, does anywhere on this site does it say that it is a non-Christian, non-creationism, pro-Darwinism website? As far as I've seen, no, and if you can, show me. Please, be my guest and prove me wrong.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,110
2,332
637
xcountry said:
Personally, I'm offended by that. I am a creationist and don't really believe in Darwinism. I'm not the only one, believe me, so please don't go saying bad things about other people's beliefs.
I'm not asking for an apology or anything, so don't get all on my case, I'm just saying.

(Is it just me, or does it seem like I'm always against you, junglizm? heheh:rotflmao: )
Well, that’s great, and you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, religious myth/conjecture/”theory” (sorry, but creationism is NOT a scientific theory) belongs in church, Sunday school or private catholic schools, NOT in science class. If you want your children to learn about the creation mumbo-jumbo of your specific religion, that’s your responsibility as a parent to take care of, NOT the responsibility of our public education system.

In case that still doesn’t make it clear, this is an issue of what is valid science and what is religious dogma dressed up as academic material. When you ask yourself that question, evolution wins out hands down.

Also, Darwinism is a theory with many holes, but there is more to evolution than Darwin’s idea. Evolution is real; it’s observable, demonstrable and has mounds and mounds of supporting evidence. What you choose to beLIEve or disbeLIEve is up to you, but stop pandering your beliefs to our children. They deserve a dogma-free learning environment so they can make their OWN choices, without having religion-specific dogma crammed down their throats in an attempt to appease some snooty fundies.


Also, not specifically directed at you, but I find most people who say “I’m a creationist and don’t believe that Darwinism bullshit” have absolutely no understanding of evolution. Which leads me to believe this whole thing is more of that “rooting for the home team and trying to ‘out-prove the opposition’” stuff I talked about before. How can you “know” something is wrong if you don’t even understand it? Simple - most creationists don’t give evolution a fair chance; they stick their fingers in their ears and act like children. If this does not describe you, then I applaud you for actually doing a bit of research rather than relying on hear-say for your evidence.
 

ghim

Ha ha, Nice!
106
0
0
xcountry said:
you're right, ghim, and I apologize, I didn't say it in the way I meant to. Don't think I'm looking for an excuse, since the fault is my own. I should've said something like not only darwinism but creationism also should be taught in schools. What he called creationism, though, is what I was offended by, like if I said something bad about Darwinism, someone would be offended. Seriously (not just to ghim but anyone) i said that i believe that the beliefs of certain individuals shouldn't be name-called or put down in any way. Well, atleast that is what I was trying to say, although it appears that some of you didn't interpret my words as I intended them to be interpreted as, and that is most likely my fault. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just saying.
No worries. I just wanted to point out that jung's original comments probably weren't meant to offend. I agree that different view points should be presented but when it comes to school it can cause some issues with the education system. That's a discussion for another time though as it strays from the original post.
 

Tostig

Paradoxasaur
8,339
41
242
xcountry said:
okay, does anywhere on this site does it say that it is a non-Christian, non-creationism, pro-Darwinism website? As far as I've seen, no, and if you can, show me. Please, be my guest and prove me wrong.
See, i didn't say it was a non-christian, non-creationism, pro-darwinism website, now did i? please read my post carefully, very carefully.

I said if you're offended by non-creationist ideas, this is the wrong place for you to be. Now read what Jung said and think hard about it. he's got the right idea.
 

ghim

Ha ha, Nice!
106
0
0
I found the original report that I read and this is the portion I was referring to about them possibly just not knowing any differently.
All five are mentally retarded and have problems with language as a result of a form of underdevelopment of the brain known as cerebellar ataxia.

However Humphrey told the Times their behaviour may be partly the result of their parents tolerating the behaviour in childhood.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060307/sc_afp/turkeyhealthscience
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,110
2,332
637
xcountry said:
you're right, ghim, and I apologize, I didn't say it in the way I meant to. Don't think I'm looking for an excuse, since the fault is my own. I should've said something like not only darwinism but creationism also should be taught in schools. What he called creationism, though, is what I was offended by, like if I said something bad about Darwinism, someone would be offended. Seriously (not just to ghim but anyone) i said that i believe that the beliefs of certain individuals shouldn't be name-called or put down in any way. Well, atleast that is what I was trying to say, although it appears that some of you didn't interpret my words as I intended them to be interpreted as, and that is most likely my fault. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just saying.
I referred to creationism in that manner because it's not science, and shouldn't be taught in public schools, or as a required class or even an adage to a required class. I don't see any ministries or churches including evolution in their teachings - probably because the two are explanations of two completely different things - so why should dogmatic concepts be taught in biology class? This is not an "it's only fair" issue, or even a “educate our children on all basis” issue, it’s an "OMG you don't teach science that agrees with our beliefs, therefore you must conform to us because we are right!" issue, and frankly it makes me sick. I can’t help but laugh and grow disgusted at the same time.

You're very welcome to believe anything you wish, but regardless of what you believe spiritually, science is the only thing that should be ever taught in science class. I really don't care how offended or perturbed people are at that, because it's completely logical and sound.

What's more is that the creationism movement isn't all it’s cracked up to be. Its purpose is not to teach an alternative explanation to evolution for the purpose of educating students; its purpose is to push Christina agenda to impressionable children. I’ve yet to see creationism give mention to any other religions – this shows an obvious bias. SO unless you want to sound like a hypocrite, you need to push for ALL major religion, and any minor ones, as well as cults, to have a fair share of time to pander these alternatives. This begs the question of how much time do you devote in a SCIENCE CLASS for this nonsense? The only logical answer is none; parent’s need to take responsibility for these faith issues.

I will truly be a sad day for freedom and democracy if we allow any religion to control what gets taught in our public schools. I’m sorry, but your beliefs are NOT important enough to dictate what others are forced to learn.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
57
142
When the Vatican, under the control of one of the most conservative Popes in recent history, can come out and say that Creationism is NOT science, does not belong in the public education system and should be taught by the church or at home, it takes a LOT of wind out of the sails of that argument.

Even if you are a Protestant, losing the Catholic Churche's support on the issue casts a serious doubt as to the validity of the cause.

Creationism is a RELIGIOUS theory. It does not qualify for the term Scientific theory. And unless you're going to start teaching theology in public schools it just has no place. To make it fit you have to redefine science, which was recently done. And as has already been stated, you can not go around randomly redefining words to make your theories fit.

And if you are going to teach theology are you going to be comfortable teaching Bhudism along side the rest of Christianity? And what about covering the Muslim faith? No, religion and it's theories belong entirely in the hands of the parents and the religious institution they're comfy with.
 

ghim

Ha ha, Nice!
106
0
0
junglizm said:
I referred to creationism in that manner because it's not science, and shouldn't be taught in public schools, or as a required class or even an adage to a required class. I don't see any ministries or churches including evolution in their teachings - probably because the two are explanations of two completely different things - so why should dogmatic concepts be taught in biology class? This is not an "it's only fair" issue, or even a “educate our children on all basis” issue, it’s an "OMG you don't teach science that agrees with our beliefs, therefore you must conform to us because we are right!" issue, and frankly it makes me sick. I can’t help but laugh and grow disgusted at the same time.

You're very welcome to believe anything you wish, but regardless of what you believe spiritually, science is the only thing that should be ever taught in science class. I really don't care how offended or perturbed people are at that, because it's completely logical and sound.

What's more is that the creationism movement isn't all it’s cracked up to be. Its purpose is not to teach an alternative explanation to evolution for the purpose of educating students; its purpose is to push Christina agenda to impressionable children. I’ve yet to see creationism give mention to any other religions – this shows an obvious bias. SO unless you want to sound like a hypocrite, you need to push for ALL major religion, and any minor ones, as well as cults, to have a fair share of time to pander these alternatives. This begs the question of how much time do you devote in a SCIENCE CLASS for this nonsense? The only logical answer is none; parent’s need to take responsibility for these faith issues.

I will truly be a sad day for freedom and democracy if we allow any religion to control what gets taught in our public schools. I’m sorry, but your beliefs are NOT important enough to dictate what others are forced to learn.
I think I love you
 

GUYINTHECHAIR

Egalitarian Automaton
17
0
0
xcountry said:
Personally, I'm offended by that. I am a creationist and don't really believe in Darwinism. I'm not the only one, believe me, so please don't go saying bad things about other people's beliefs.
Evolution isn't a "belief", it's a theory, and a tool... a way to learn about past and possibly future organisms in our ever-changing environment.

UberSkippy and junglizm said:
"Creationism is a RELIGIOUS theory."

"Christian agenda"
Does the bible not profess to be nothing but the exact and infallable truth? Then that would mean the creation story AS TOLD IN GENESIS 1 would be the EXACT truth... but creationists don't believe in that creation story, so they aren't really Christians..? Anyone else see what I'm getting at?

mmm...cheese said:
They aren't the "missing link," but are in fact a group of retards who lack the skills necesary to stand on two legs efficiently.
Exactly, I saw a program on Discovery I think about that sort of thing. http://www.feralchildren.com/

Plus, who knows what kind of developmental problems they had besides being born mentally retarded, with retards for parents.