31. brian; "you hold atheism dear? what is dear about it? it offers no hope.even dawkins"sheer luck" richard,said that humanity has no hope,none"

brian, I and others have addressed this so many times. It's clear you don't read or if you do read, you don't comprehend our posts.

Keep on sharting buddy.

Ryan Anderson at 9:21AM on Apr 21st 2008

32. Chapter Two

The Food Gatherers


“Man’s most human characteristic is not his ability to learn, which he spares with many other species, but his ability to teach and store what others have developed and taught him.”

Margaret Mead (1901-1978) American Cultural Anthropologist



Within the dense emerald forests of eastern Africa, our primate ancestors could consume an area’s food supply within a matter of a few days. Hence they were always on the move looking for readily accessible food and water. Their way of life dictated no less, as they were trapped within a world of where their existence was based upon what Mother Nature could provide them. Surrounded by prowling predators with very little sunlight penetrating the deep layers of vegetation, they formed their own unique roaming communities or rather groups so as to ensure their survival. Comprising of ten to eighty individual apes, these separate groups developed a rigid social hierarchy, very few skills, and literally nothing in terms of economic surpluses. However as a species, they were extremely successful, so long as the forests continued to expand.

While spending the majority of their time among the towering trees, our pre-Australopithecus ancestors weren’t actually bipedal (walking upright) creatures. In fact when they did move around on the ground, it was always in a crouching uncoordinated manner. But they were extremely agile for their size. Standing about four feet tall and weighing close to one hundred pounds, they had a pair of long powerful arms that enabled them to glide through the tallest trees with the greatest of ease. They also possessed a sloping forehead, a large set of ring-shaped ears, a protruding wide jaw, and a pair of feet that were almost as nimble as their hands. Literally covered with a thick coat of dark wiry hair, their bodies were supported by a pair of bowed legs and knobby knees. And much like many other mammals, they were born either left-handed or right-handed, depending upon which side of their brain controlled their motor skills.

As diurnal creatures, they spend approximately thirty percent of the daylight hours on the ground, where they could use both their arms and their legs for propulsion. Under normal circumstances, the males were expected to protect the group at all times, since they were physically bigger and stronger (sexual dimorphism) than their female counterparts. This sexual dimorphism probably arose as a consequence of a species’ sexual selection process, which results in the bigger and stronger males’ monopolizing a group’s mating practices, and thus directly passing on their dominate genetic traits to their sons.

By and large, the forest’s interlocking trees were a convenient refuge for them. Whenever, they felt threatened or unsure of the situation, they could always scurry up a limb within a matter of seconds. Yet it was the ground that provided them with the substances of living. It was not only a place where they could find the most nutritious meals, but it was also a place where they could mate and satisfy their thirst for water. Unfortunately though, it was also a place of immense danger and death. Predators lurked behind almost every tree just waiting to catch one of them out in the open. Thus in order to survive and function on the ground effectively, they had to begin to widen their communication and organizational skills at a very early stage of their development, so as to become a cohesive group.

On any given day, their groups could roam up to eight to ten miles in search for a specific food. But generally speaking, their daily movements were very leisurely and short in range. After breaking up into smaller bands that were composed of three to ten individual apes, they spend their days either lazily grooming each other, mating, or inspecting and tasting the surrounding plant life. Not too surprisingly, they could identify every plant within the forest by its sight, taste, or smell. They even knew what type of food was available and where it could be found during a particular part of the season.

These pre-Australopithecus apes didn’t possess an actual government per se, but their bands were organized into pecking orders. Within each of them, a dominant alpha male ruled over the other apes with the assistance of several beta lieutenants. He wasn’t a supreme ruler in the sense of an absolute leader, but he usually had his own way whenever he so desired it. Since primates emotionally express themselves through their actions and sounds, he communicated with his band in many different ways. At any given moment, he could employ a series of barks, grunts, yelps, and shrieks in order to express his disposition. Also hand gestures, body movements and postures, and facial expressions were used as a way of getting his message across. But whatever the method of communication, the dominant male ruled in accordance with his distinctive personality.

As the leader of the band, his position of authority could be challenged at any time by the other male apes. This challenge was usually carried out between two individuals in the manner of a physical demonstration. Under normal circumstances, the ape that could scream the loudest and demonstrate the longest would be acknowledged by the others as the leader. It was only on rare occasions that these conflicts produced physical harm. However once a new leader had emerged, he usually led the band for about ten years, before eventually being ousted by a much younger, stronger ape. Ranging in ages from thirty to forty years old, the alpha male commanded the trust and respect of the band’s females. It was from his status as the major procreator and protector of the band’s females that he could project his authority over the others. Thus it was only after many years of maturing before the more assertive apes were expected to step forward and fulfill a leadership role.

The band’s authority structure was based upon a patriarchal system. It was a system where the males dominated the females by virtue of their greater strength and size. Still, the females also had their own dominant individual. Similar to the males, this dominant alpha female was usually an older, larger, and more experienced ape. She primarily received her special status by the large number of offspring she had successfully produced and by her overriding temperament. Normally, she could dominate everyone within the band except for the mature males. Yet within her peer group and to the younger beta apes, she was the master of her own surroundings. Unfortunately, the omega females who happened to be barren and small in stature could expect a life of very little attention and even less recognition by the other apes.

Much like the other primates in the forest, the primary group would establish their own particular territory within a certain geographic location, which they continuously marked as a private possession with the scent of their urine trails. Sometimes this territory could cover up to twenty square miles, depending upon the number of apes. In spite of the fact that they were always on the alert for unwanted intruders, these anthropoid apes would stop to leisurely eat a variety of different foods. Insects, nuts, flowers, fruits, bird’s eggs, honey, seeds, bark, roots, stems, leaves, and even meat were all consumed as a part of their diets.

As accomplished food gatherers, their eating habits were based upon what the different seasons of the year had to offer them. Hence many of their annual movements through the forest were inspired by their desire to reach a particular food before it was out of season. Their routine consumption of bark, leaves, berries, nuts, roots, and stems was just a temporary substitute, until the more desirable foods became available. However, once a desirable food had come into season, they gorged themselves as if it was their last meal. This feeding frenzy could last for days on end, because the best tasting foods were hardly available on a year round basis.

On a much darker side, our distant relatives were not only meat-eaters, but they also revealed a tendency towards cannibalism. They probably didn’t start out as consumers of their own flesh. With the slow decline in the size of the enormous forests, they were almost certainly forced to consume any available nutrition during the times of intense hardship. Survival was tough and without question it was rewarded to those who were prepared to change their eating habits.

But whatever the circumstances, it wasn’t beyond them to suddenly attack a small child of their own group and consume it right there on the spot, while the poor mother watched in horror. This type of unimaginable ruthlessness isn’t an oddity within the animal kingdom. Many other mammals like bears, lions, pigs, otters, and opossums will also devour their young, along with many types of birds, insects, and fish. Nonetheless, if one considers the cold, stark nature of survival, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that many species can’t distinguish the difference between eating the flesh of their own species or that of another animal. Within their highly competitive environment, a meal would be considered just another meal.

It should be noted that our primate predecessors also possessed almost every altruistic quality displayed by today’s modern humans. As loving parents and companions, they could exhibit a whole array of behaviors that aren’t all that rare within the animal kingdom. Almost on a daily basis, individual apes could be observed caring for the sick and their children, displaying stalwart loyalty to others, and mourning their dead. And just like many human beings, some of them would forgo their immediate needs to assist others, protect and comfort the weak, or demonstrate the highest quality of all, the sacrificing of their own lives for the sake of their families and companions.

However, there was one particular characteristic our primate ancestors displayed that was handed down to us, which might be a very unique quality among the species of the world. Today’s philosophers and historians have occasionally written about it, but only as an afterthought. In terms of our sheer survival, it is probably the most admirable and instinctual trait that we possess. In essence, we as a group are always at our best, when things are at there worst. It appears that the very noble qualities of self- sacrifice, unselfish cooperation, and the total commitment to others are the most prevalent within our species, whenever we find ourselves in direr straits.

As emotional, curious, and shrewd creatures, our ancestors had the capacity of expressing an astonishing degree of joy or sadness, confidence or uncertainty, loathing or affection, bravery or cowardliness, and deceit or openness. They were capable of crying when they grieved, laughing when they played, and yawning when they got bored. Yet their incredible range of behaviors didn’t stop there. As a member of a group and defined by that group, the individual ape was continuously being judged in their social behavior by the others. Their reliability or untrustworthiness, selflessness or generosity, apathy or curiosity, timidity or assertiveness, and finally their forgivingness or resentment was all character traits noticed and remembered by the other apes. As a matter of fact, it was the frequency and the depth of these individual behavioral traits that helped define their social identity and status within the group. Although, our distant primate relatives could be quite brutal and violent, they were also emotionally vibrant, consciously devoted, and mentally resilient.

Throughout the entire year, the primary group would divide itself into different bands in order to look for food. Since they were a patriarchal community, the male apes usually remained within their own particular band. As individuals, they were expected to assist the alpha male in protecting the band. However, the females were always free to go from one band to another as they pleased. In this manner, the group or the community always remained genetically flexible in spite of the males’ restrictive movements.

To say that we evolved from one of the most sensuous and sexually inclined creatures on this planet would be a profound understatement. Similar to today’s humans, they participated in many different types of foreplay or physical intimacy before they actually had intercourse. Kissing, hugging, tickling, teasing, and even the oral fondling of each other were widespread behaviors that heightened the moment and strengthened their mutual pleasure. Undoubtedly, their sexual relationships were an extremely important and time-consuming aspect of their lives.

In fact, our early relatives were probably the only known creatures who had copulated all year round for reasons other than procreation. They routinely mated with each other for a multitude of different reasons. Besides copulating as a form of entertainment, it was quite common for the females to sexually reward a male for grooming them, watching over their children, or for bringing them food. But even more amazingly, their sexual activities were also used to punish an individual out of petty jealousy or even as a form of retribution by excluding him or her as a participant.

As a patriarchal society, the males controlled much of the band’s sexual routines. When the females were in heat, they could expect to be mounted from behind by more than two males per hour, especially during the morning hours. Appearing as an unrestrained orgy at times, the beta males would literally ravage the females that the alpha males hadn’t claimed as their own. The sexual excitement was almost unbearable. For when the males weren’t copulating, they were usually masturbating while awaiting their turn. On occasion during moments of extreme anguish, the males and females would look to their own gender for immediate satisfaction and acceptance. They weren’t really homosexuals in the modern sense of the word, but their behavior could be labeled as such.

This type of sexually hyper-active behavior was consistent with our predecessors’ biological need to reproduce in great numbers. Coinciding with the eventual disappearance of the females’ oestrus, it was one of the reasons why they were able to survive and eventually evolve into Homo sapiens. The males’ desire (libido) to regularly reproduce was imperative for enlarging and maintaining their territory so that they could successfully compete with the other primates. The extinction of any primates within the great forests would have occurred to those species that were incapable of occupying an area with a substantial number of their offspring. Competition was harsh and the most bountiful territories were actually battlefields between those in contention.

Able to move from band to band, the females attracted the other males with their unique scents and body movements. Ovulating every thirty-six days, there was a period of six or seven days in which they were fertile. Due to their hyper-sexual inclination, the majority of the females spend their lives either pregnant or about to be pregnant. Similar to the rest of the females in the animal kingdom, they bore the burden of giving life. Once she had become impregnated, the rest of the apes shielded her from the surrounding dangers. Then seven or eight months later, she would move into the nearby bushes for protection and give birth to her child.

Conceiving a child every three or four years, a female reared her children until they reached the age of six or seven years old. It was during this long period of child rearing that they would form a special relationship. Cradled in the mother’s arms and finding nourishment from her beasts, the child became irreversibly dependent upon her for the needed food, warmth, and protection in order to survive. Until it was time for the child to venture out into the world, they were inseparable. Yet amazingly and unlike many other species, if something happened to the mother and the child became an orphan, the other females within the band would raise the child as their own.

Contrary to popular belief, this deep relationship between the mother and her children isn’t a pair bonding relationship. Instead, it is a maternal relationship based upon their biological/emotional dependency upon one another. The actual forming of a pair bonding relationship between an unrelated male and a female did not exist among our primate ancestors. Though, it would eventually emerge, once we had become true nomads and began to form our family units. But in the beginning, our sexual relationships were basically a cenogamy or rather a fission-fusion arrangement, where the individual was free to breed with any and all available mates within the group. The children didn’t really know or even care, which male had actually fathered them. As long as the mother was present, they were assured a place of warmth and security.

Undeniably, the relationship between a mother and her child is the most powerful relationship that exists between human beings. Biologically inspired and emotionally maintained, a mother and her offspring will find themselves eternally tied to each other. As a result, their relationship is so unique and everlasting for the child that many of today’s psychological theories of behavior are based upon its internal dynamics. Modern children may love and respect their fathers, but under normal circumstances, they will almost always hold a binding devotion and a special place in their hearts for their mothers.

As well as their individual identities, each group of apes possessed their own unique way of life. Call it their cultural traits or call it their unique customs, whatever the description, there were several subtle differences between the groups in how they lived, reacted towards each other, and how they basically functioned. Their choice of foods, their preferred methods of communication, their approach to undertaking certain tasks, and even the way they used tools were all examples of their group differences. Not unlike the wide variety of human cultures that can be viewed in today, the different groups of our ancestral apes were able to establish and maintain their own unique subcultures through the efforts of educating their children towards their own way of life.
For the offspring, their education started as soon as they left their mother’s womb. The maze of jungle plants, wonderful colors, unusual sounds, and unforgettable aromas would come alive and become imprinted upon their very consciousness. Before long, they were able to distinguish between the distinctively different characteristics of sights, sounds, and odors. By observing and adolescent mimicking the other apes around them, they would begin to imitate the different calls, gestures, postures, and most importantly their behaviors. Comparable to all humans, the older apes acted as invaluable mentors or role models for the younger ones in passing along important knowledge.

Associating the different visual and auditory sensations with their daily encounters, their physical and social environments soon became familiar landmarks as they began to learn how to communicate with the others. Along with successfully expressing their own needs, these youngsters were quite capable of recognizing their mothers’ moods, signals, routines, and different calls. Thus it wouldn’t take long before they became accustomed to the limits of their behaviors. While participating in the customary activities with the other apes, they were constantly learning which behaviors were permissible and which ones were not. Naturally, the rewards and punishments handed out to them by the adults were a significant part of their everyday lives.

As they slowly ventured farther and farther away from their mother’s protection, they learned how to recognize and deal with the different circumstances through trial and error. In many situations, it wasn’t out of the ordinary for them to learn from their initial failures and mistakes. The hazards of scaling a brittle tree, wandering away from the band, or attempting to play with a dangerous animal were invaluable moments in their early years for acquiring needed information. Throughout their adolescence, they were taught the many different needed skills for survival. The building of a nest, the wrestling with their peers, the observing of what type of plants to eat, and the mimicking of the grown ups in their behavioral patterns were all experiences that eventually helped them form their own unique personalities.

Our primate ancestors didn’t possess the higher cognitive skills of modern humans, but much like the present day chimpanzees, they still displayed a surprisingly rich and diverse mental capacity. In addition to the ability to remember and classify objects according to their properties (e.g. size, color, smell, and shape), they could also recall and learn from their past experiences by reacting to a similar situation in a completely different fashion. For instance, they could actually come up with a totally different plan or strategy for overcoming a particular type of prey or for fording a raising stream. Furthermore, they even understood the medicinal value of certain plants; whereas they would eat a specific plant in order to treat a particular illness. But most astonishingly of all, the children not only played with toys, but they also devised and then played games. This incredible aptitude for remembering earlier events and images, classifying data, planning strategies, creating activities, and learning from their past mistakes was indicative of their ability to solve problems.
Without question, this fundamental problem solving ability was directly related to the growing use of their hands and legs. As a way to adapt to their changing environment, they were physically capable of stretching their imaginations. Along with their increased consumption of animal protein, which helped nourished the brain; their unique set of physical abilities had over time helped them develop their complex reasoning skills. In effect, the more animal protein they consumed, the more they were incline to use their arms and legs to obtain that protein.

Ultimately all the necessary mental, physical, and dietary ingredients for eventually learning how to synthesize and analyze information were present within our earliest kin. Therefore, it was just a matter of time before we began to utilize a logical and sequential approach to any particular problem. However being highly emotional and credulous creatures, sometimes those emotions would interfere with our ability to clearly reason.

These early primates weren’t actually the makers of tools. They didn’t construct an assortment of different objects into another type of instrument (e.g. spears, axes, etc.), nor did they construct a tool with another tool. But in the beginning, they did use the surrounding branches, leaves, and rocks, to their own benefit. With the development of their hands, they were able to actually seek out other sources of food. Thus they could be called the users of nature’s tools.

As they searched for food among the thick jungles, it was quite common for them to strip the leaves from a small twig and use it to catch insects. This was accomplished by poking a bare twig into the hole of an ant or termite mound, until the insects had become sufficiently aroused. Aggravated by the intrusion, the insects would then begin to crawl up the twig into the ape’s possession. However, they soon discovered that the most rewarding method for using a stick was when they employed it to dig into the ground, so as to obtain the plentiful and nutritious larvae, worms, and insects. It wasn’t a hardy meal by any means, but it did provide them with a way of supplementing their diets.

Besides trapping and digging for insects, they also used a variety of leaves and branches to construct their own temporary nests or beds. Usually, these beds could be found high in the trees, supported by the sturdy branches. Due to the height of the trees, these beds weren’t just haphazardly thrown together. Instead, they were constructed in such a fashion as to ensure that the apes didn’t fall through them or roll off the edges during a sleep-filled night. Undoubtedly, the construction of these temporary havens was well thought out beforehand, which was indicative of their growing intelligence.

But the most important and intriguing skill that they possessed was their ability to open fruits and nuts by beating them with a rock or a piece of wood. Oddly enough, it was this simple skill that would enable our early ancestors to change their economy and eventually revolutionize our species’ evolution. Because once they had learned to use a hand-held rock to obtain food from the surrounding plants, it not only ignited their imaginations on the possibilities of using it for other purposes, but it also gave them the means to become scavengers. Employed as our first known tool, the rock would additionally become our first and most reliable weapon. Of course later as nomads, the rock would evolve into the hand-held axe or cleaver, but in the beginning our ancestors used it as a hand-held missile. And without the use of weapons, we could have never moved from continent to continent.

In terms of our physical evolution, these anthropoid apes had already developed a bowed spine, bend knees, collarbones, and a set of grasping hands and feet. In time, their later descendants would develop a broad pelvis, locking knee joints, elongated heel bones, and a lengthened set of big toes. Some of these characteristics evolved as a consequence of them living in the trees, while the others would come about as a result from them living on the ground. Thus one of the main differences between our ancestral apes and the other apes in the forest was that our hominid kin began to progressively move towards the ground and eventually learn how to dwell there with the other animals. This simple shift towards living on the ground had a profound impact upon our evolution. For it not only helped us to become more erect in our posture, while freeing up our hands for other uses, but it also assisted us in becoming more carnivorous in our feeding habits.

After organizing themselves into small bands, our ancestors actually consumed an assortment of different kinds of animals. Of course, they weren’t capable of hunting the larger game, but they did kill and eat a variety of baboons, wild hogs, bushbucks, and monkeys. During the actual kill, the tactics that they employed were very unique within the animal kingdom. As a close-knit band of unlikely meat-eaters, they didn’t resort to hunting down and directly attacking the intended prey. Instead, they sat in the trees and waited for an animal to stumble into a prearranged ambush. It was an ambush unlike any other in the animal kingdom. In terms of psychologically confusing a particular victim, it was an uncommonly effective and devious method.

When an animal did happen to walk into their trap, one band of apes would start screaming at the top of their lungs as they were shaking the branches of the surrounding trees, thus producing a very chaotic situation. By creating a frightful scene of total mayhem, it was their intention to confuse the unfortunate animal, until the ambush was completely set. Meanwhile, another band of apes had already moved onto the ground and began dancing around the prey in circles. During all of this commotion, a couple of the circling apes would start running directly at the animal, only to slightly nudge it as a prelude to the real attack. Then at the very moment the prey had become paralyzed with fear and bewilderment, several of the larger apes would suddenly and terrifyingly pounce upon it, thus tearing it apart from limb to limb. Almost immediately afterwards, the meat was divided on the basis of their unique social hierarchy, whereas the males were expected to eat first and the females and their children last.

The strangest aspect about their mode of hunting was that before the anticipated encounter with each prey, they all quietly sat in the trees for hours on end in a “silent display.” During this solemn prelude, some of their facial expressions were especially menacing and foreboding, while many others displayed a resolute disposition. Much like a modern soldier praying before going into battle, it was almost as if they were mentally and emotionally preparing themselves for the upcoming kill.

Amid the abundant plant life, our ancestors did more than just run from the predators, kill their intended prey, or cared for their young. They actually came to rely upon the other animals around them for their survival. After concluding a feeding frenzy, several types of species (e.g. birds, monkeys, squirrels, and small carnivores) would begin to feed upon the scraps left behind by the different bands of apes. Forming a mutual relationship, these animals not only became dependent upon those scraps of food, but also upon the security provided by the band itself. Within the dark confines of the jungle, they routinely followed the band from area to area in much the same manner as our domesticated pets follow us around the house today. As a consequence, our ancestors quickly became aware of the many benefits of living along side the other creatures of the world.

Living in a state of constant danger, these birds, monkeys, squirrels, and other smaller animals exhibited certain behaviors or emitted various sounds as a form of communication. Used as an early warning system, our pre-human ancestors made it a habit to listen and to watch them for any signs of unusual sounds or behavior. Employing a series of barks, chirps, screams, shrills, or becoming overly restless, these companions of the forests would alert the band of any approaching dangers, such as predators, forest fires or overflowing rivers. What’s more, our ancestors soon discovered that by observing the animals, many of them could be used as a form of direction finder in locating water or certain desirable plants. What the band didn’t know about a particular area, the other animals could help them discover it. In fact, some creatures became so accustomed to the individual apes that they would actually lie down among them and clean the parasites off of their bodies, thus forming an inseparable bond of companionship.

While our ancestral apes were still living in the tropical forests of eastern Africa, they initiated the close relationships that we enjoy today with our domesticated pets. Other animals have formed mutual bonds between each other, but not nearly as profoundly as we have bonded with them. The reasons for this are quite simple. We learned very early in our evolution that animals can be feared, hated, ignored, or even eaten --- but that they can also be life savers, good companions, and very beneficial to our welfare. Due to this special bond that was established between our earlier ancestors and the other animals in the forests, it is by no mere coincidence that we were able to emulate their hunting skills as nomads and even domesticate several of them at a later date. At that point, it had already become second nature with us to seek out their company and employ their talents.

As territorial and aggressive creatures, it wasn’t uncommon for our early ancestors to invade and then occupy another group of ape’s territory. Nor was it unusual for them to actively defend their part of the forest. Sometimes, this situation would lead to an agreed buffer zone between the two communities, much like a modern day demilitarized zone.

Of course, this unwanted intrusion into another’s territory wasn’t accomplished peacefully. Due to social pressures brought about by either the disappearance of their food supply or by their overpopulation, several bands of males along with the more aggressive females would enter another group’s territory in attempt to alleviate their hunger. But instead of directly attacking another band of apes in one big confrontation, the intruders would attempt to individually ambush the male apes in the hopes of either slowly killing them off or by intimidating them enough to leave their territory. Sometimes, it would take days for them to set up a proper ambush, depending upon the layout of the terrain. However, once the ambush had been sprung, the intruders would pounce upon the lone ape by jumping up and down upon him with such force that the victim was either horribly hurt or killed within a few minutes.

Astonishingly once the attack had concluded, the intruders would perform an ecstatic victory dance around the corpse. Forming a semi-circle, they would beat their chests and make strange guttural sounds, while dancing to the beat of some inner cadence. Easing the physical and mental tension created by the violent encounter, the dance probably signified a combination of personal exaltation for overcoming a foe and the relief of surviving the fight.

This bloody scenario would occur almost daily, until the intruders had systematic killed off the larger males or at least forced the disheartened and defeated band to move to another territory. Afterwards, the victors would move their main group of apes from their old territory and into the new one, and thus enjoy the fruits of their aggression.

Many modern scientists and scholars believe that this is where the human race propensity towards warfare first showed its ugly head. And there isn’t any doubt that our latter-day nomadic, agrarian, and industrial societies have also exhibited the same inclination towards conquering their neighbors over any number of territorial, political, religious, ethnic, and economic reasons.

Nevertheless, this early type of warfare along with the warfare of today was based upon a group’s economic imperatives, instead of their genetic makeup or their social norms. We aren’t the only creatures on earth that will forcibly invade our own species’ territory in an effort to occupy a richer area. Species of fish, birds, insects, and other mammals will also attack their neighbors, all in the name of territorial and economic necessity. Throughout time, the act of war by a species has always been a distinctive alternative to starvation and the possibility of extinction, which has made it almost instinctual in regards to our own behavior.

As an economy, food gathering was very limited in its scope and depth. Yet it was an economy that eventually helped physically and culturally mode us into the species we are today. While developing the use of our arms and legs and increasing their animal protein consumption, our ancestral apes would begin to further develop their physical and mental capabilities to the point where they could eventually move out into the barren savannas. It was during this time that they also began to culturally change from a semi-organized tree creature to a highly organized ground creature.
Still, those physical and cultural changes were able to come about because of how they had initially developed in the deep forests of Africa. In a very real sense, we can look upon the towering trees around us as not only our first shelters, but also as the birthplace of our species.

It should also be noted that in some of the most remote parts of the world, food gathering remains to this day a viable economy. In fact, the people who live along the many isolated river systems of central Africa, Asia, and South America have always gathered food for a living. Moreover, the natives who inhabit the islands among the world’s oceans still continue to reap the rewards of nature’s bounty. From generation to generation, food gatherers have fished the oceans and rivers, hunted the small game, collected the fruits and nuts from the forests and jungles, gathered eggs, or dug for roots to satisfy their daily nourishment. Besides being the first human economy, it is also the only human economy that hasn’t significantly changed in the last several million years.

gshort3011 at 9:25AM on Apr 21st 2008

33. Ray; this is an interesting theory as well.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/07/0317223

Speaking of evolution, watching a fetus develop in the womb really seems to support evolution. It starts out as a cell, becomes very "fish" like for a while, has a tail, then is covered in hair, then loses the tail, then loses the hair then is born a human baby. Seems to retrace our evolutional journey over the course of 9 months.

Can someone with a more scientific mind than my own let me know if this is valid.

Ryan Anderson at 9:26AM on Apr 21st 2008

34. One more thing to point out about hanging your belief in God(s) on the present uncertainty about the origin of life... what if it were shown that life could and/or did originate in the conditions of the early Earth? Would that undermine your faith?

In the late 1700's, as scientists started getting a handle on electricity, they realized that lightning was electrical, and should respond in the same ways as the electricity they generated in their labs. Lightning rods were proposed, and the officials of various churches vociferously denounced them. After all, they knew that lightning was a direct expression of Divine fury, and it was hubristic to attempt to interfere with that.

Of course, since God wouldn't strike a church with lightning, very often people would store explosives in the local church (the tallest building in town, with ungrounded metal on top). After the Church of San Nazaro in Brescia, Italy was struck by lightning in 1769, and 3,000 people were killed when 100 tons of gunpowder stored there exploded, those objections began to die out.

Now, even before the 1700's, was it reasonable to say that God (or Thor, or the Thunderbirds, or Zeus, or Seth, or what have you) caused lightning? No, the proper response to "What causes lighting?" was "Darn if I, or anyone else, knows."

We don't know how life originated right now. Be careful if you assume that means that we won't ever know.

Ray Ingles at 9:26AM on Apr 21st 2008

35. Ryan, embryological development *does* offer good evidence for evolution, but not exactly in that way. It used to be thought that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - that developing embryos re-enacted evolution as they formed. That's not true.

However, embryonic development is a sensitive process and modifications to it are complex and generally conservative. Major changes are usually fatal so most changes tend to be as small as possible. So you *can* see echoes of past structures as the process runs. The gill slits that form and then disappear as humans develop is a case in point.

It's a more complex relationship than a simple "recapitulation" but it *is* strong evidence for evolution.

Ray Ingles at 9:37AM on Apr 21st 2008

36. every time i hear that god created life, i have to ask what created god. where did god come from? isn't it better to admit we don't know? so why does dinesh seem to feel that his diatribes will lead us to his god? and why must we give better answers as atheists than he does as a god-ist?

abbot at 10:00AM on Apr 21st 2008

37. Ray; thanks for the information. When I "saw" the gills during an ultrasound, that was the first thing I thought of.

Abbot; It's funny that the creationist are the first to use the "something had to create the universe" argument, but when pressed about God, he's just "eternal with no beginning or end".

If you are willing to believe god is eternal, why can't you believe the universe is eternal?

Ryan Anderson at 10:04AM on Apr 21st 2008

38. I wonder just how firmly Dawkins tongue was planted in his check when he suggested that ET may have been one of the many ways life began on Earth. Are you absolutely sure that he was not having some fun with Ben Stein.

Also Dinesh’s own doubts are on exhibit: “He knows how INFINITESIMAL are the odds of random chemicals simply mixing together to produce, say, the first cell.”

It was not lost on me that Dinesh wrote “infinitesimal” rather than “IMPOSSIBLE”. This is a tell, So much for Dinesh's faith.

The earlier responses to this post are rather interesting and deserve a reply if only to disabuse certain respondents of some of the ridiculous ideas they have about atheists.

I do not harbor Hindu, Islamic, Satanic or Wiccan beliefs but at this point in our history in America with Christians in the majority, we are not in danger of waking up to a government controlled by any other religion. We do however have hundreds of organizations who’s main focus is the establishment of a Christian hegemony. If this ever changes and lets say Buddhist become the threat to the separation of church and state then we will focus on Buddhist and I’m sure many of these same hegemonic Christians will suddenly find the separation of church and state to be a good thing.

The notion that religion is the sole provenance of morality and ethics can only mean that were it not for the fear of God many of you would be out there raping and pillaging, that you need some kind of cosmic cop to keep you in line rather than rationally coming to the realization that such behavior is abhorrent and ultimately detrimental not only to our survival as a species but also to any kind of high quality of life.

Not all atheists are completely hostile to religion or the religious. I personally do not believe that anyone has he right to tell anyone what they can or cannot believe in. We just don’t want religion shove down our throats, we want no erosion of the separation of church and state, and before any of you even thinks of saying that the first amendment does not guarantee such a thing let me state that the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular (who authored the Constitution) left more than enough written evidence stating that was the intention.

I Doubt that “The God Delusion” would have been such a bestseller ten years ago so why is it a bestseller now? Two reasons:

1: We have an inept self described born again Christian in the Whitehouse who wasted no time in establishing an office of faith based initiatives in which religions other than Christianity are nearly absent and allowing basing important policy decisions on his beleifs rather than what's best for the country.

2: A particular political party decided to court the extreme religious right emboldening their worst elements and ultimately endangering the spirit of the first amendment, a state of affairs that even many mainstream Christians found alarming.

Dinesh is a polite and well mannered but he is every inch the hater that Ann Coulter is and I have one question for him.

Dinesh, when you and Ann Coulter had sex, did you flip a coin to determine who was going to be the man that night or was she always the man?

rabidmccain at 10:05AM on Apr 21st 2008

39. Can someone with a more scientific mind than my own let me know if this is valid.

Ryan Anderson at 9:26AM on Apr 21st

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is a capsule statement describing the fact that embryonic development (of all living animals, not just humans) follows the evolutionary development of the embryo's species. Darwin had very limited knowledge of this fact, but it has always been one of the strongest supporting scientific observations for the basic validity of evolutionary theory. As our knowledge of both embryologic development and of the fossil record's ever increasing support for similar historic development of various modern species has increased, so has the obvious correlation of the statement "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Harvey at 10:11AM on Apr 21st 2008

40. Whoo Hoo!!! It's a brand-new week and the radicals are rabid! Why don't you all get off this blog and do something before your godless corpos and god-fear inducing theologos destroy the miracle you are arguing so vehemently about! Truth is, we, quite simply, ARE. How? Dunno. Why? Might have an idea, but won't cast my pearls before argumentative swine. So, off I go to share my (as Linda noted on a previous blog) Sci-fi Fantasy of Everything, with people who care, and are open to a really far-out version of Everything. Live long and prosper, for the Force is with you!

Robert at 10:14AM on Apr 21st 2008

41. Ray Ingles wrote:
Lightning rods were proposed, and the officials of various churches vociferously denounced them. After all, they knew that lightning was a direct expression of Divine fury, and it was hubristic to attempt to interfere with that.

Himself
One often hears this fable repeated; but never with any empirical evidence. It seems to be accepted on faith. Specific names, times, and places would be useful. So would actual knowledge of motivation.

Ray Ingles wrote:
Of course, since God wouldn't strike a church with lightning, very often people would store explosives in the local church (the tallest building in town, with ungrounded metal on top). After the Church of San Nazaro in Brescia, Italy was struck by lightning in 1769, and 3,000 people were killed when 100 tons of gunpowder stored there exploded, those objections began to die out.

Himself
Of course, churches had been struck by lightning repeatedly, so it is unlikely that anyone would actually believe this.

It would also be useful to cite other cases, if people "very often" stored gunpowder in churches, claims of "Pap" Taylor and the Know Nothings notwithstanding. Naturally, in the Age of Reason, the authorities saw no problem in using churches for secular purposes; but the rationale was surely more geared to large storage spaces in the vaults. Churches were not the only places used as depots.

Mike at 10:38AM on Apr 21st 2008

42. Sorry, couldn't resist..."Once Upon A Time, in a World Filled with a gelatinous muck- Something Happened!!!" Okay...so now what are we going to do about it?

Robert at 10:17AM on Apr 21st 2008

43. way to say it robert! nice to know there are others out there with the joy of sheer unknowing and the wonder of discovering what's out there.
the god in Andre Norton's book was an uncaring mass of power. hmmm. would dinesh like that god?

abbot at 10:40AM on Apr 21st 2008

44. I'm not a scholar. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but I didn't educate myself as much as I would have liked. Still, I managed to easily be open minded enough to see the basis for the theory of evolution and the threat it poses to fundamental Christians.

brian has constantly thrown poo at the atheists that post on here and occasionally he finds that some of them throw it back, but more out of frustration that he refuses to recognize the ignorance of his own words. I take this as a good example of evolution at work. It clearly shows the slow process of change as even some of the "more evolved" responders revert back to aggressive and primitive behavior that brian consistently expresses.

I'll address you directly brian, but I do not want you to go on and on about how I'm spewing hate, etc, etc. I don't hate you, brian. I am sad for you. I am truly saddened that you are so far buried in theistic propaganda that you can not even have a rational discussion with atheists. Now, I'm not blind to the fact that many of them do insult you and respond just as condescending and some times ignorantly as you often do. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do not see the tone in your written words, but even that doubt would lead me to the same conclusion: you are blinded by the illusion of enlightenment.

Let me assure you that no one needs a god to watch over them to make them behave. Let me assure you that the evidence of the Jesus in the bible doesn't prove that this man rose from the dead. Had he actually been the messiah as was claimed... I believe there would be no more Judaism. The reason this didn't happen is because it took a Roman Emperor to spread Christianity. Not disciples or even Jesus. It was a politically motivated move. That is well documented historically brian. So try using something other than a bible as a history lesson.

Tom at 10:33AM on Apr 21st 2008

45. Dinesh: "or even if you're an atheist with masochistic tendencies"


Who the hell have you been talking to? Not that many people know that about me.

But, I'm not that extreme about it, so no, I'm not going to your debate.

FL Chick at 10:31AM on Apr 21st 2008