[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 59 KB, 600x312, header_image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15499408 No.15499408 [Reply] [Original]

Prior to Charles Darwin and the discovery of evolution, surely people noticed the obvious similarities between humans and primates, right? What were the explanations people had?

>> No.15499419

>>15499408
Carl Linnaeus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus#Human_taxonomy
>It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',[note 8] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.[note 9] I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
Letter dated 1747 concerning criticisms of taxonomically placing humans within an order shared by other primates. Even before evolution, simply by taxonomic classification it was self evident the animal kingdom had such similarity. Not knowing why that was didn't change the fact. Same goes for Darwin not knowing the mechanism (genetics) for descent with inherited modification (evolution) at the time, but that didn't change the self evident fact of it either.

>> No.15499548

>>15499408
yeah no shit they just didn't care because they realized it was pointless to study and more important to farm and fuck which is why we are all losing our minds, making up logical systems for something with 5 billion years of logic on your puny brain that it created

>> No.15499565

>>15499408
Yes. It's well recorded in African cultures that they considered Chimpanzees uncomfortably close to humans, same thing in Asia with other apes. This is a big reason why you rarely see references to apes in any world culture.

Prior to the age of discovery I don't even think any European had seen an ape since the Roman period.

>> No.15499609

>>15499565
Orangutan translates to "forest person."

>> No.15499612
File: 2.97 MB, 266x200, 1639655847556.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15499612

>>15499419

>> No.15499633

How can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory?(a guess)

>> No.15499641

>>15499565
Aren't there monkeys native to Gibraltar? And there have to be many examples of rich kings with private zoos getting exotic beasts.

>> No.15499649

>>15499419
Imagine if most posts on this site were this good and concise.

>> No.15499678

>>15499609
In what language?

>> No.15499699

>>15499565
>It's well recorded in African cultures that they considered Chimpanzees uncomfortably close to humans
They interbreed with them frequently.

>> No.15499700

>>15499408
>what were the explanation
IWho cares? I`t neither proves evolution nor god, intelligent desgn or whatever. This is a no argument for anything.

>> No.15499718
File: 52 KB, 413x311, ape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15499718

>>15499408
Aristotle

>> No.15499763

>>15499678
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan
>The name "orangutan" (also written orang-utan, orang utan, orangutang, and ourang-outang[1]) is derived from the Malay words orang, meaning "person", and hutan, meaning "forest".

>>15499408
Am >>15499565
Cultures have always done their best to ignore apes. Ex
>While some communities hunted them for food and decoration, others placed taboos on such practices. In central Borneo, some traditional folk beliefs consider it bad luck to look an orangutan in the face.
So yes, any culture which had to be around apes were acutely aware that they were similar to humans. As for their beliefs as to how apes were related to us? We don't really know. It's unclear, since they're almost never depicted in any art, writings, etc.

>> No.15499799

>>15499649
thanks. Sometimes it can be concise, sometimes it can't be. Depends on how specialized the topic. I try tho

>> No.15499800

>>15499763
> Malay
Lol no such thing. Malaysia is like Key West. There's no "Key West" language and there's no "Malay" bahasa.

>> No.15499808

>>15499800
It's from Old Javanese IIRC.

>> No.15499836

>>15499808
It's not. If you trace back your sources you'll arrive at Sastrawan who's some sort of Franco-Australian activist. Nothing like that exists in the Kamus Besar.

>> No.15499881

>>15499808
Javanese nuts

>> No.15499956

>>15499836
>>15499808
nta but https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347469311
Seems pretty convincing though predating old javanese. Shows up in old javanese texts as an inherited compound word and and things you can compare in other languages like the ramayana. It does not originate in old javanese but does seem to predate european influence.

Don't know if the right character will come through but I'll try, the old javanese for "forest person" would be "wwaŋ alas" (ŋ being Voiced velar nasal in case it didn't come through). Old javanese borrowed it from old malay, and it seems even old malay borrowed it from another in the same language family. Loooong way for a word to travel lol neat read

>> No.15499973

>>15499956
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347469311
Lol. You literally arrived at Sastrawan, which is the same Franco-Australian activist I told you you'd arrive at.
> "researchgate.net"
Thanks for admitting you're a "google scholar." Next time, just link to the article https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26944937.pdf it's free because no one would pay to read it.

>> No.15499975

>>15499973
The link includes a free pdf? Did for me? I went to the person you mentioned and she makes a very good argument. Also menions it isnt native to old javanese which you also mentioned. What?

>> No.15499986

Do any other female mammals profusely bleed out of their cunts for days every month besides homo sapiens? Don't remember ever seeing any do that on nature shows.

>> No.15499994

>>15499975
And you misgender him. I don't understand why you would even post an opinion about something you know so little (nothing) about.

>> No.15500001

>>15499881
Got em

>> No.15500005

>>15499986
It's uniquely human. There's some interesting stuff on how this caused us to have very low sexual dimorphism.

>> No.15500007

>>15499994
>And you misgender him. I don't understand why you would even post an opinion about something you know so little (nothing) about.
Sorry if I did, guessed wrong based on misreading the name. I don't know anything about the subject, that's why I looked up specifically the author you were talking about. Why so hostile? You said it wasn't old Javanese, Sastrawan agrees. What's the problem?

>> No.15500029

>>15500007
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26944937.pdf
Read the article. For example:
> I show that it most probably originated from the Malayic expres- sion *uraŋ hutan (‘forest person’, semantically extended to ‘ape of the Pongo genus’)
There is no such thing as "Malayic." Malaysia is a piece of Indonesia that built its own airport 30 years ago.

>> No.15500031

>>15500029
>There is no such thing as "Malayic."
Anon I haven't the foggiest what you're on about it's a whole language family? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayic_languages

>> No.15500039

>>15500031
Yes, like Keywestian is the language family of English.

>> No.15500044

>>15500039
You have a bad understanding of this which I assume is because you're from Indonesia and don't speak English. Austronesian to Malayic is as Germanic to English.

>> No.15500049

>>15500039
>Yes, like Keywestian is the language family of English.
I don't get it. Are you rejecting classification of language families? What are you even arguing?

>> No.15500055

>>15500044
>>15500049
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayic_languages
From your link:
> The term "Malayic" was first coined by Dyen (1965) in his lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages.
Yes, a term first coined in 1965.

>> No.15500057

>>15500055
>Yes, a term first coined in 1965.
...And still represents a language family? Do you not like the label or are you disagreeing with classification?

>> No.15500059

>>15500057
See my first post here >>15499800
There is no Malay. It's like naming English for Key West islands.

>> No.15500061

>>15500055
Uh, yeah ok? They named the linguistic group Malayic at that time. It's a subgroup of the Austronesian languages.

>> No.15500062

>>15500059
>It's like naming English for Key West islands.
It's like... Naming English after the Germanic Angle tribe, even though the majority of its speakers are Britons. Who cares?

>> No.15500063

>>15500061
So tear it down. What is your point here? You live somewhere that isn't SE Asia but you like to sound smart about SE Asia?

>> No.15500064

>>15500062
I do.

>> No.15500066

>>15500063
So they're right that Orangutan is a Malayic Austronesian word meaning forest-man, but you're pissy that you dislike it being called Malayic in the first place. How about you cry about it somewhere else?

>> No.15500070

>>15500059
>There is no Malay. It's like naming English for Key West islands.
Well that's what it was named at the time. Probably given how taxonomy works because that's where the speakers of the subfamilies ended up still speaking it if I were to guess. Haven't read the 1965 paper.

What else would you call it? That was the name of the nation of that group at the time, which the other languages descended from. Your not liking the label doesn't mean anything about the arguments made about Oranguang's etymology.

Seriously. What the hell are you even arguing?

>> No.15500074

>>15500066
I hope that isn't the actual reason because for fuck sake I seriously misread his complaint then. I was hoping to ask where my plain reading went wrong about the veracity of the linguistic argument not a pissy toddler tantrum just because that's the label given in English to the language family

>> No.15500078

>>15500074
What else can you expect from Southeast Asians? They chimp out like this about the slightest thing.

>> No.15500086

>>15500066
>>15500070
No, see >>15499836
I defend the dictionary. It is not a real etymology. Take a picture of your Kamus Besar, the printed paper, and show me.

>> No.15500089

>>15500078
That's hardly a fair anon.
>>15500086
>I defend the dictionary. It is not a real etymology. Take a picture of your Kamus Besar, the printed paper, and show me.
What the hell does a dictionary have to do with language classifications or the literary sources found all the way back to the 10th century and prior? Or the linguistics for that matter?

Anon you're acting like a modern English dictionary refutes the etymology of the word from Old Norse. That has nothing to do with anything. What are you even talking about? Is this some cultural thing?

>> No.15500091

>>15500089
>That's hardly a fair anon.
I call it like I see it. His reply just after mine proves he's got some petty islander bugbear about this topic.

>> No.15500093

>>15500091
Feuds is one thing but everyone and every culture has feuds. Just a matter of degree. The unfair part is just blaming all of them because some people take that feud real seriously. Religions do that too. It isn't a petty islander thing it's a petty human thing.

That's assuming that's what this is though I keep admitting I don't know, and I'm trying to figure out what the hell his thinking on this even is.

>> No.15500102

>>15500089
What do you know about it? Good night

>> No.15500103

>>15500102
>What do you know about it? Good night
I don't. That's why I am trying to find out. But all you did was say "I don't like the label" you didn't explain any of the arguments. Anon if you can't even explain to someone ASKING TO KNOW what does that say about why you're upset about it? Does that mean you have a GOOD reason or a BAD reason?

>> No.15500187

>>15500066
>So they're right that Orangutan is a Malayic Austronesian word meaning forest-man
Nitpick but "originally meaning", not currently meaning, from two words not one word. If I read the author right? I know it's all a side tangent but I got roped into reading this soooo... hope you enjoy it too?
>[...] either in Proto-Malayic itself or in some of its descendant Malayic languages, the root '*uraŋ hutan' ‘forest person’ under- went a semantic extension to ‘Pongo ape’. This innovation seems to have been specific to the Malayic languages. Reflexes of *uraŋ hutan are found in several members of the Malayic subgrouping [...]
>In contrast to their prevalence among the Malayic languages, reflexes of *uraŋ hutan are rare in non-Malayic languages, even in places where the apes are common. [...]
>Proto-Malayic is believed to have descended from pwi, but it either did not inherit or else lost the pwi lexeme *kəRiw (Smith2017:616). The semantic extension of *uraŋ hutan from ‘forest person’ to include ‘Pongo ape’ may thus have been innovated in Malayic languages to fulfil the role that is played by *kəRiw reflexes in non-Malayic languages.

Author argues, given the region, Old Javanese borrowed it from Old Malay which applied it to apes due to loss of PWI lexemes describing said apes. So two words, "*uRaŋ qutan", which originally meant "outsider person", coming to mean "forest person", and applied to organgutans because it's just the nearest fitting phrase.

Now I don't know aaaanything about these languages, but the inferences are pretty standard in linguistics. I lack any related expertise in the languages but it seems pretty typical for linguistics. Just seems like bog standard phonetic and definitional reconstruction from surviving languages and recorded languages, where you can track definition and sound drifts geographically with all kinds of evidence.

I'm fun at parties (:

>> No.15500260

>>15499419
Fpbp. They were aware of apes and humans being similar because every human being who ever saw one in the history of the planet has been aware of it. They just didn't have a working knowledge as to how. They understood evolution at a basic level from animal husbandry but it's pretty fucking hard to connect the dots in a meaningful way when you don't have knowledge of DNA or any way to even perceive of studying such a thing. That Darwin even managed to come up with his family in the time that he did is actually impressive.

>> No.15500319

>>15500260
It's haunting how close Darwin came to knowledge as to mechanism in his lifetime. Hypothesized due to his dismissal of mathematics for use in biology, possibly due to his inability to use or understand it
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/102/8/587/1598792
Though he later wrote in his autobiography regret about that,
>During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Maybe he suffered some degree of dyscalculia, driving such a frustration, and it's a real damn shame if that's the case.
>Even if Darwin did not receive a reprint he had yet other chances to read of Mendel's work in the early 1870s. Hermann Hoffman, a Professor of Botany at Giessen had written a little book on plant hybrids in 1869 and on page 52 was a long excerpt from Mendel's paper of 1865. On Darwin's copy of the book (now preserved in the Cambridge University Library) are hand written notes in the margins by Darwin on pages 50, 51, 53 (facing page 52), 54 and 55. These are close to the citation of Mendel's paper but it may be that Darwin skipped over this passage or did not appreciate its significance.
He had the book, a page with a large excerpt, and just... SKIPPED right over it.

Hardly the first author to write about this bizarre and frustrating series of events, but one that's publicly accessible.