Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...

You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)

Good luck.

Algis Kuliukas

On 4 Aug 2003 19:39:49 -0700, algis@RiverApes.com (Algis
Kuliukas) wrote:

>Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...

Its not really an experiment.

>You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
>which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
>are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
>bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
>contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
>world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)

And condition, OK I'm a chimpanzee running across a glacier
on four legs with my troup, but alas because 2 knuckle
walking chimps fail to see a crevace they fall in. As a
result I decide to walk the rest of the way, seeing numerous
crevices and not falling. Only 2 chimps that preferred
walking survive and all their progeny also prefer walking on
2 legs.

What do I win?
Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
useless philosophical fiction?

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.0308050540.793492cd@posting.google. com>...
> algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0308041839.46761e26@posting.google. com>...
> > Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
> >
> > You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> >
> > Good luck.
>
> This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
> the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.

Huh?
I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
not, instead, try to come with a solution?

Algis Kuliukas

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in message news:<3f306e87.2613678@localhost>...
> On 4 Aug 2003 19:39:49 -0700, algis@RiverApes.com (Algis
> Kuliukas) wrote:
>
> >Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
>
> Its not really an experiment.
>
> >You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> >which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> >are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> >bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> >contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> >world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
>
> And condition, OK I'm a chimpanzee running across a glacier
> on four legs with my troup, but alas because 2 knuckle
> walking chimps fail to see a crevace they fall in. As a
> result I decide to walk the rest of the way, seeing numerous
> crevices and not falling. Only 2 chimps that preferred
> walking survive and all their progeny also prefer walking on
> 2 legs.
>
> What do I win?

Bugger all.

> Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
> useless philosophical fiction?

Who's Wilkins?

Algis Kuliukas

Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:

> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote:
> > On 4 Aug 2003 19:39:49 -0700, algis@RiverApes.com (Algis
> > Kuliukas) wrote:
> >
> > >Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
> >
> > Its not really an experiment.
> >
> > >You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > >which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > >are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > >bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > >contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > >world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> >
> > And condition, OK I'm a chimpanzee running across a glacier
> > on four legs with my troup, but alas because 2 knuckle
> > walking chimps fail to see a crevace they fall in. As a
> > result I decide to walk the rest of the way, seeing numerous
> > crevices and not falling. Only 2 chimps that preferred
> > walking survive and all their progeny also prefer walking on
> > 2 legs.
> >
> > What do I win?
>
> Bugger all.
>
> > Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
> > useless philosophical fiction?
>
> Who's Wilkins?
>
> Algis Kuliukas

Some talk.origins interloper philosopher wannabe. Don't worry about it.
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius

algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0308052018.4a1f7951@posting.google. com>...
> jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.0308050540.793492cd@posting.google. com>...
> > algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0308041839.46761e26@posting.google. com>...
> > > Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
> > >
> > > You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > > which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > > are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > > bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > > contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > > world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> > >
> > > Good luck.
> >
> > This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
> > the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.
>
> Huh?
> I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
> not, instead, try to come with a solution?

It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
Why don't you look into it.

Jim

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0308052142.126f2de6@posting.google.c om...
> pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote in message
news:<3f306e87.2613678@localhost>...
[...]
> > Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
> > useless philosophical fiction?
>
> Who's Wilkins?

Ooops.....

> Algis Kuliukas

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F308349.F4099D26@hotmMOVEail.com>...

Nice try, Rich.

> Give them lots of food but such that they are not permited to eat it there
> but instead carry it away. Like http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo06.jpg

How do you stop them just sitting down and eating it straight away?

> Surround a male with female chimps: http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo13.jpg

How do you stop him copulating with the females? If not, what happens
fifteen seconds later, why should he get back up and display again? Is
he going to be able to do that? Isn't he more likely to just sit down
and rest or go for a second female?

> Keep a female's young just out of reach:
> http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo04.jpg

How are you going to do that? What's to stop the infant getting back
down to mum or the mother climbing up to the infant? Remember no
man-made devices allowed.

> (note: the chimps in these pictures probably spent more time bipedal
> in those activities than the half minute you saw in water)

Not true.

> Optional:
> Put them in a small hole with a predator like a leopard. Put sticks
> in the hole.

How long do you propose such a 'battle' would last?

Thanks, though, for your attempts.

Algis Kuliukas

In article <ac6a5059.0308060143.5fb9dcb7@posting.google.com >,
jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
|>
|> It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
|> Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
|> realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
|> Why don't you look into it.

I have no idea whether he does or not, though I have my suspicions.

However, I must stand up for Lamarckism and point out that it is
making a comeback. In particular, there is a lot of evidence that
c. 50% of our 'intelligence' and manual, communication and similar
abilities are inherited through learning rather than genes.
Lamarckism is precisely about such inheritance.

There is a perfectly good mechanism by which learnt intelligence
and manual abilities can affect genes, through classic Darwinist
evolution. If survival depends on learning, then there is a
selective advantage for the the ability to learn.

Now, if we assume that those two mechanisms operated in tandem to
develop the intelligence and abilities we have today, would you
call the evolution Darwinist or Larmarckian?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 6 Aug 2003 06:39:28 -0700, algis@RiverApes.com (Algis
Kuliukas) wrote:

>Apologies. Didn't mean to be disrespectful. You're not God-Squad, are you?

He's very God squad, so much in fact they call him "God" in
talk.origins.