Most in my generation were probably introduced to Dr. Goodall by the National Geographic television program, "Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees” in 1965. I recall it as a big hit. Really got people talking. She even became an instant hit on the late night tv circuit.
I remember watching that program and being impressed by her patience as a committed observer of primate behavior. So many hours/days in the field.
What an impressive life’s work, Dr. Goodall.
Goodall made a big impression on me as a kid, and I’m pretty sure I watched that NG program more than once. She continued to impress me throughout her career.
Ken Ham couldn’t resist complaining about her. He posted it to Youtube soon after her passing.
Her story is a great example of how happenstances here and there lead to major directional changes in ones’ life. Had she not talked to Louis Leakey, what would have happened?
I have felt that she took unnecessary risks, as I understand she would spend a lot of time alone in the forest with chimpanzees. They are not always peaceful, to be sure, even when they are accustomed to a particular human. Males in particular have attacked humans as drives for group dominance and hormones take over.
You people watch Ken Ham orders of magnitude more than I do.
Thanks for letting us know. Just a few minutes ago I was wondering whether BenKissling was watching Ken Ham more or less than others here. Now I know it’s orders of magnitude less.
I think Ken Ham comes up in my Youtube suggested-videos feed because I sometimes watch late-night comedy monologues.
I find it interesting that many MAGA evangelicals are still complaining that any and all comments critical of Charlie Kirk were inappropriate during the morning period after his death—but I’ve been intrigued at how many MAGA evangelicals have been extremely critical of Dr. Goodall. (Ken Ham was very unhappy that Goodall referred to humans as — gasp — “Primates!”)
Lets see …
… relatively large brain, check
… forward-facing eyes with overlapping fields of vision for depth perception, check
… grasping hands and feet with flattened nails instead of claws, check
… opposable thumbs (and big toes in most), check
I once attended a presentation by Ham, and car confirm he meets all the criteria. (Not sure about the opposable big toes).
I wonder if he gets upset when someone refers to humans as mammals or vertebrates.
Doublethink is essential for creationists. One way to go about it is to consider some groups to be merely descriptive while others are (for whatever reason) claims about phylogeny. They can put mammals and vertebrates into the first category while putting primates (and animals) into the second. What they very carefully don’t think about is what makes mammals and vertebrates real-world groups.
There is a more honest breed of creationist, including Todd Wood, that accepts humans as primates and e.g. birds as dinosaurs. Just without the common ancestry part. Those are usually the creationists involved in ‘baraminology’, since that field is literally just phylogeny with a creationist coat of paint slapped on it.
Todd does a more sophisticated and self-consistent version of doublethink. And he also fails to ask why these various groups (within groups!) exist.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
A good scientist, and a good communicator too.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.