CEngelbrecht

It's just too flimsy to keep talking about random good and evil, 'cause that doesn't exist outside the human mind. That's why soldiers are too easy to lure into doing evil, when they're supposed to do good for the benefit of society, 'cause the core problem are ill defined. If you want to fight all that for the balance of society, which is very admirable and cultures have been trying to do so since at least the first city states via religions and standards, you first have to define the actual cause of the problem. This kid was a maniac racist, A) because racism stems from an inherent fear of predators in the human ape, and B) because male human beings are already inherently violent in the fight for the fertile females, and C) BECAUSE THAT BLOODY FLAG IS STILL UP!!! Comparitively, at least the Germans have made all public use of the Swastika illegal, even from local versions of Hollywood movie posters. The Swastika for millenia was just a bloody solar symbol, but now it's an eternal symbol of hate, racism and madness. And so is the stars and bars, keep up already! Otherwise that boy wouldn't have waived with it on that gun-slash-masturbation photo above. That it's hasn't yet been removed from usage after 150 bloody years only sends the message to such a sick boy, that it's okay to still hate random people for no other reason than that of pigment. And it also sends the message, that nigger haters still dominate the corridors of power in the states in question. I have a simple initiative: Anyone sporting the stars and bars in any shape or form should immediately have their private firearms taken away, and none new can be sold to them. Any gun shop having it on the wall must be immediately shut down. 'Cause they are a luring danger to decent society, a powder keg waiting to explode. That'd be a start.

I'm not entirely sure, the parents knew he used the money they gave him to buy a gun. It's been reported differently in the media. That is so grotesque, that the stars and bars is still being used officially. You know where you can stick your babble about state's rights and symbols of "our way of life." Translated, "You will never stop our nigger hating culture, yankees!" It is outrageous that this can actually still happen seven and a half score years overdue. Why don't you just urinate on the dead church goers, it's faster. Take down that American swastika now!!!

Not all of society but in a perfect world the NRA would also stand accused. Or human nature, for that matter. http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2014/11/chimp-vs-chimp-violence-and-insights.html

Can't solve it. Conversely, women's mating needs are to only want to mate with the male dominating the other males (which is very few males, like, one out of 20), and especially when they're young and ovulating. (You got the rich part right, but they don't exactly have to be handsome...) They don't want to have children with any of the many losers, they only want the Alpha. And then of course the boys has to fight to be that Alpha, quite often by blood. I'm sure there's some biological reason for that, but there's no peaceful solution, it's a behavioral paradox. I also think this is why the ol' religions are so anti sex. Because they want peace in society, otherwise the harvest doesn't come in. Some Hebrew 5,000 years ago concluded that sex causes all human bloodshed and concocted a myth about Eve getting humanity kicked out of Paradise, because she was talking to a "snake" (hm! ). And the religions have tried to control our sexuality ever since. But you can't take the ape out of the human. 'Cause the rulers is that ape themselves and equally governed by their genitals, whether they want it to or not. But you can't say that to people, who has their loved ones gunned down in a temple. "He didn't get laid in time." Just like you can't tell the parents of child getting eaten by a shark that "It's just hungry, it's not evil, 'cause good and evil doesn't exist beyond the human mind."

Do you have a girlfriend or wife? If not, get rid of them as fast as possible, especially if you're under 25. And if she, heaven forbid, should break up with you, also get rid of them as fast as possible.

I can offer you a potential answer. Random guess about the (suspected) perpetrator ... he couldn't find a girlfriend. 'Cause that's the mutual trait for 95+ percent of all terrorists or school shooters or any maniac picking up a weapon and drawing blood; they don't have a mate. It's also the predominant reason why any young male want to join armed forces around the world, which explains the high number of rapes following any armed conflict. (There was that rape and killing of a 16 year-old girl plus her family in Iraq some years back perpetrated by US GI's.) On some Freudian-slash-Darwinian level, particularly young human males will turn to brutal violence, in a subconscious effort to better their chances of finding a mate, often (aparently) by killing off other males. Psychologists have offered an analogy of similar violent behavior in male chimps. There are already a host of analogies between human behavior and chimp behavior; both are pack animals, both form close friendships, both have a complex social structure of the pack; and they're the only known two species on planet earth, that conduct actual warfare against its own species, in both cases almost exclusively perpetrated by males. This is also visible in chimp males dominating females aggressively, which unfortunately seems to increase their chances of siring. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/18/chimpanzees-are-natural-born-killers-study-says-and-they-prefer-mob-violence/ http://www.livescience.com/48743-aggressive-chimps-reproduce-more.html It makes all the sense in the world to consider analogies between human and chimps in terms of e.g. violent behavior in what ever form; humans and chimps are already each other's closest cousins in the mammalian clade; chimps are genetically closer related to humans than they are to gorillas. Why wouldn't their violence have a mutual ethological origin, in some common ancestor 5-7 million years old? Also because it seems to be inherent and predictable. The natural violence of chimp males is sometimes suffered by zoo keepers and the like who walk in to the same male chimp they've known since birth, and suddenly they are mauled quite ferosciously, because now this male chimp has become sexually active. There are stories (1 2) of people not having faces or genitals now, because they were attacked by male chimps in the fertile age. Aparently, this brutal violence is natural in these otherwise cute chimpanzees, our nearest biological cousins. And I'm sorry to say, but it would offer a very likely cause of all human violence. That's it's about sex (or lack of it), if not only on a subconscious level. Of course, the human perpetrators always dig up some random excuse for turning to blood, whether it's racism or religion or politics or (if you're Ted Kaczinsky) ecology! I say no. It's about sex. Always about sex. All in the name of procreation, which is a very strong survival instinct in all life. To further one's genes by any means necessary. 'Cause our subconscious knows we're gonna die and that there is no afterlife, so we have to multiply. This (suspected) kid might as well have gunned down a school, or shot up a political meeting (1 2), or bombed random people he blamed for his personal problems, but instead his subconscious dug up excuses for killing another ethnicity daring to have a better life than himself. Basically because they got laid, and he didn't. And it's now just the highly publicised acts of grusome violence; you can't go clubbing in any major city in the dancing world without risiking being shived by some random yahoo (that is, if anything, the cultural scene for human mating behavior, innit?); you still can't go to a soccer game in many European countries without risking the wrong end of a Stanley, either. And I'm also sorry to say, that sometimes it actually seems to work for violent male human beings, in terms of landing females after the blood. 80 year old Charles Manson still attracks females with wedding proposals from behind the prison walls; that's his reward for instigating the gutting of a pregnant Hollywood actress, 'cause "then we'll be famous!" and then aparently "Score!" Adolf Hitler preached racist hate and madness, as his excuse for coming home from the war and not finding a mate in the 1920s; that landed him a 19 year old Eva Braun (after he twittled his niece, so she shot herself, incidentally). London girls (in the fertile age) recently left their families to become wives of ISIL psychos. And recently, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attracts teenage girls as well, "Yes, but he's been on the cover of Rolling Stone, Mama!"; that's his reward for bombing a marathon race, killing e.g. an eight year old boy in the process. This shouldn't be possible, should it? These types of people shouldn't be attracting any females, should they? But all these males must've had their reptilian brain telling them the same subconscious message as in violent male chimps: "If I draw blood, I'll increase my chances of gettin' some." And sadly, that theory seems to pan out. There are two parties in this problem, I have to say. This seems to be buried in human mating behavior, for whatever sick biological reason. This is why we'll get World War III.

I don't see anybody aquatically inclined questioning that DNA consensus at all. Yes, Homo sapiens with extreme likelyhood emerged in Africa, as other hominoids and hominins before it. The waterside concept just entails, that sapiens (and erectus two million years prior) would've migrated out of Africa following coastlines of Asia, not across land masses. Which seems confirmed by archeological evidence showing early sapiens migration routes out of Africa along the Yemen coasts, as opposed to across a land bridge through e.g. the Levant. Which also goes to explain why sapiens is evident in coastal Australia before riperian China or Europe. It was the shorter route along the coasts of Southern Asia. Because ethologically, they would've been beach combers, not grassland trekkers or even woodland dwellers. I sense you (like many seem to do) misunderstand these ideas completely and think they somehow argue, that humans would've had a recent origin frolicking in the open seas 24-7-365, on par with cetaceans or sirenia. I don't see that argued anywhere in the key sources, from e.g. Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan, Carsten Nimitz, Philip Tobias, Marc Verhaegen (posting above), Stephen Munro, Algis Kuliukas, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, Nicole and Renato Bender, Erika Schagatay, Michel Odent, to name a few off the top of my head. Primarily because, no, that doesn't make a farthing sense what so ever. Not since we were fish 390 million years ago, were we fully aquatic, but it's not being argued, either. Nobody informed is arguing for the existence of mermaids or Aquaman or any such hogwash. Those few that have done this, don't know what they're talking about, either. This phrasing started the whole thing in 1960: This is still at the core of the waterside consensus, as posited by the above people. Anything crazy in this? So we'd be ol' beach apes, so what? Hell, Hardy's idea may somehow be wrong or at the last not the full story, but it doesn't have the scientific problems, the majority for some damned reason assume it has. What it does have is a sociological problem, that leaves is stigmatized.

I'd like to see a chimp or a gorilla manage even a fraction of this:

I'm not really in favor of that criticism of the role of selection, I think maybe the authors focus too much on rival mechanisms like genetic drift, that would otherwise supplement selection, not replace it. (Plus, I always see wolves in the pope's clothing whenever people critizise Darwin.) Just understand, that AAH is not contrary to natural selection. I have seen detractors of AAH claim such, and for the like of me I can't see how.

I've experienced a flood of misunderstanding and prejudice about this topic, which I have to say still baffles me. English is not my native language, but aparently the nomer "aquatic" would give off a notion about a being with as high a water existence as that of e.g. cetaceans. I've read a lot of the sources on this topic, and I never got any other impression than what was being posited being that of a "beach ape" of sorts. The latter in my opinion is the one likely scenario that could've served as a selective pressure over 2-7 million years of evolution for those traits in modern humans, that defer substantiously from our ape cousins, especially when you couple it with our behavioral traits, e.g. afinity for bathing. The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) suffers from focusing much on soft tissue features, e.g. lack of fur cover, which is hard to make testable via e.g. the hominin fossil archive. Debating more or less entirely from the physical bones is very much the standard in the traditional anthropological debate, so much so that trying to debate human origin from a strict comparative analysis of physiology (which is conversely very much the standard in evolutionary biology) is traditionally frowned upon amongst anthropologists. Or at least so it seems to me. AAH also suffers heavily from having been proponed for some forty years by an amateur writer, Elaine Morgan who died recently, which in my opinion was eligible for the Darwin-Wallace medal despite her true academic shortcomings. Her being an amateur I sense exacurbated a range of prejudices from professional anthropologists, which made them stigmatize the entire topic around water and human evolution. I have to say, and this is obviously my complete personal opinion, that some aquatic pressure during recent human evolution is the one remaining notion that makes any sense in terms of best explaining our unique origin as a species, if envisioning us being indeed a result largely of selective pressure, as laid out by e.g. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither the savannah or the jungles can explain the traits that make us stand out amongst the apes, at least nowhere near as well as the watersides. In my opinion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598 A comment on the idea's reception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis This article has a series of problems, but it goes to show the level of the debate. At least it presents some of the many arguments posited in this debate. This is the range of aquatic arguments illustrated. Some arguments are better than others. Click on image for access to higher resolution: