Could this be a massive discovery?
 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ael040721.html

Is this just a coincidence, or do you think that maybe we should seriously (and safely of course), study this monkey?

Discuss.
edit: please include article text with a post

I think it would be beneficial to run a few CT scans and MRI's, at the very least.

Well, it's just like some people who have "miraculously" been healed or recovered more quickly or better than expected or can't explain how a tumor can just dissapear. People can't seem to fathom that it can happen- even when it does, that's why they claim it to be a miracle.
It's more than mind-power, it's soul-power.

I don't understand what miracle I am supposed to be seeing? What incredible cooincidence needs explaining?

A monkey which once had behavioral patterns A and B, after recovering from (a non-fatal) illness and probably severe brain damage, now only exhibits pattern B.

Maybe it hurts him to walk on all fours. You know how you get a toothache it kinda becomes instinct to chew with the other side of your mouth. Who knows.. I just don't see a Miracle here.

Yeah, I remember when I was about two years old I had a really bad stomach ache and I decided, "This crawling on all fours is for chumps. I'm gonna walk upright from now on."

/sacrasm

My point is that it's really unlikely that this ape's illness is the reason we adopted bipedalism.

i agree with mike. Alan, when a monkey walks hunched over its stomach muscles are cramped a bit, when you u have a stomach ache, you really don't want to cramp and tighten your stomach muscles too much..

besides, maybe she's still having some pains, it could happen.

What makes you come to this conclusion? Why would it be "really unlikely" that a serious illness would result in brain damage (which is known to happen) which would cause a change in behaviour (which also happens)?

Don't be under the impression that the illness "caused" bipedalism. It caused the monkey to be exclusively bipedal. As was stated in the article; " Monkeys usually alternate between upright walking and moving on all fours".

Monkeys are well suited for using all fours. They can move faster that way. Walking bipedally is maladaptive when moving as quickly as possible is necessary for monkeys. I don't think this article means anything for humanity in the least.

Yeah, but what female monkey is going to mate with an exclusively upright freak?

I got this friend named Phil, he'd mate with just about anyting.
Upright or on all fours.

i think this is worth a few neural imaging procedures. is it going to provide any definite answers to the evolution of man? probably not, but science works in small steps. you can't just throw opportunities away. even if this has nothing to do with the original development of bipedalism, it could still help us understand the neurology of monkeys a little better.

Perhaps the human race evolved from a bunch of brain damaged monkeys? :)

Lamarckism is dead.

Im in agreement with CSflim here, i dont get whats the great miracle about it.

If we do find patterens of evaloution, this could really hurt all realigons over the world.

You know what I think is funny in all of this is that the article is insinuating that evolution and its theories have some more backing. Obviuosly, evolutionism says we evolved from monkeys and here is a "magic" happening that could be an insight into how we evolved. Total BS. And I love the part "A zoo veterinarian says he's not sure why she has altered her behaviour, speculating that the illness could have caused brain damage." HAHA. This must mean that if we evolved from monkeys, in order to walk, we must now all have drain bramage!

I don't think this is a massive discovery at all. It's just an injured primate adjusting to its surroundings. If a person had weak legs and was forced to walk around on all fours, we wouldn't call him an animal, would we?

If the monkey breeds and its offspring only walk on 2 legs then coulden't this be proof of evolution?

As CSflim says, this would be evidence (not proof) of Lamarckism, not Darwinism. Lamarck thought that aquired characteristics (such as learning to walk only on hind legs) can be transmitted to offspring. Darwin - who is now generally assumed as correct - came up with that whole genes thing.

Obviously, if we go with Darwin on this, brain damage the monkey suffered won't get passed on genetically.

It's also worth pointing out that human's did not evolve from monkeys.

/first post!

Well Darwin believed that a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics could be used in conjunction with natural selection (mainly due to the fact, that in Darwin's time, there was no understanding of inheritance at all). Darwin did not have the concept of a gene, and not understanding the nature of inheritance was a major problem for Darwin. (It was Mendel who first came up with an atomistic theory of inheritance).

Nowadays we understand how inheritance works (genes made of dna), and we know Lamarckism to be emphatically false.

A sealed copy of Mendel's paper was supposedly found among Darwin's papers after his death. I'll have to look for the reference.

I'm pretty sure that that is just an urban legend. It's pretty unlikely, given how obscure Mendel was at the time.