To demonstrate this process, Gates cites the interactions found in African American narrative poetry between the trickster, the Signifying Monkey, and his oppressor, the Lion.[7]

According to Gates, the "Signifying Monkey" is the "New World figuration" and "functional equivalent" of the Eshu trickster figure of African Yoruba mythology.[8] The Lion functions as the authoritative figure in his classical role of "King of the Jungle."[9] He is the one who commands the Signifying Monkey’s movements. Yet the Monkey is able to outwit the Lion continually in these narratives through his usage of figurative language.

According to Gates, "[T]he Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion because the Lion does not understand the Monkey’s discourse…The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly…"[9] In this way, the Monkey uses the same language as the Lion, but he uses it on a level that the Lion cannot comprehend. This usually leads to the Lion’s "trounc[ing]" at the hands of a third-party, the Elephant.[7]

The net effect of all of this is "the reversal of [the Lion’s] status as the King of the Jungle."[9] In this way, the "master’s house" is dismantled when his own tools are turned against him.

Abiogenesis is a very active field of research. It is based on the presumption that life arose from a serendipitous conjunction of chemical reactions [non-living matter]. If one rejects blind faith in fantasy, myth, ghosts and demons then abiogenesis is for you.

As to naming the very first life form on Earth.....if science could identify such a phenomenon then a name would have been devised. We may never know exactly when and where this event occurred but I have confidence that only science will be the tool that reveals the mystery, if at all. Your inane insistence that it respond to pointless questions certainly will not move science one whit. It may be a traumatic experience for you but your priorities are of immense indifference to science. Do you honestly think you are the first and only person to raise such a question? Are we all to be enthralled and genuflect before your stunning insight? If science has no answer for your puerile question yet is that "proof" for you that a god exists?

Having then advised you that science has no answer to your question yet, let me lay one or two simple ones upon you.

[1] Did the chimpanzee f#*k the pig or did the pig f*^k the chimpanzee?

[2] Given that the pig has been on the scene for several million years prior to the appearance of humans what other genera of mammals might have been the cynosure of porcine promiscuity?

[3] Several hundred thousand years ago, when all this miscegenation was at a peak of orgiastic license with pigs and chimps locked in carnal embrace everywhere it is an inescapable fact that all pigs boasted thick furry coats. There were no "naked" cherubic pink pigs. A simple Google will confirm this. Therefore the loss of all that hair is a real and present mystery. One is prompted to speculate why there are no naked chimps as well.

Cut out the idiotic resort to capitalisation , it impresses no one. You've shown yourself capable of putting sentences together with reasonable ease. Please continue to do s

Just to correct you on a very basic error..........

YES YOU WIL.. RECALL THE THESIS..OF YOUR SIDE =..
IE/THAT..WE CAme from apes...

NO! The "thesis" of my side is no such thing. You should know better.
Any further stupidity/deliberate misrepresentation like this will be dealt with severely.

<<Are self-replicating molecules alive or is their activity caused by simple chemical reactions? The sciences are very active in investigating these questions>>

That's very news to me:

I thought that the sciences only research the objective side of reality - while life is a subjective experience.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 February 2014 3:51:42 PM

Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of LIFE is not a legitimate field of scientific research......especially its origins? I'm on safe ground here when I assure you that a large number of scientists disagree with you. But I'm certain a minor detail like this won't divert you.

WHEN..i type..the caps shift
when i quote.,.its spelled proper
THEN AS I EDIT GREAT CHUNKS DISAPPEAR..[FOR WHAT?]

this ancestor is named the COMMON PIG..[Sus scrofa,]
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html

WHEN WE RESEARCH THE hairless detail..WE FIND A SIMPLY PROTEIN EVOLVED
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Sus+scrofa%2C+HAIRLESS&ie

im not that much INTO ..looking further into it...because of the attitude ..of those like yourself..WHO CONSIDER THe concept so absurd..yet dont read the links.

but ass i have waited..i will reply

the geneticist theorizes ..THAT it..was a female ape
[my theory is it was a female sow]..

I GO with the sow as it has the numbers to have a f1 mating..produce a concentration OF Recessives..that by them self simply refine..into humanity..[from nests in the ground to nest in caves etc]

i have long been suss on taxonomic..arbitrary CLASSIFICATION
as he mentions in that section
http://www.macroevolution.net/dubious-assumptions.html

damm editing/..do the DAMM RESEARCH

the geneticist..[specializing in aviaN hybreds]
HAS A THEORY..JUST AS YOU HAVE A THEORY..HIS THEORY EXPLAINS THE INCONSISTENCIES[SEE THE DAMM GREEN LIST TO THE RIGHT OF THE LINK

BUT..you admit..science dont know first life..ETC ETC
this GIVES..THE GODLESS..an easy out..
its a shame you teach kids its a signed sealed surety

WHen the science proof..SIMPLY DONT EXIST..[full stop]
you got a theory..i see your theory and name names

[THE CASE..for believing loki [or god]..dun it
takes as much faith...as the faith IN SCIENCE/in a fraud/theory.

IF YOU CANT REPLICATE..its not science
cheating kids with fraud/out of god..is fair/till science actual can REPEAT ITS DOING..ie

till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith.

LOOK THE RELIGIOUS..AS MUCH AS THE GODLESS
DONT LIKE THE PIG THEORY..that at least all can agree on lol

[incorrectly]

i love..the silence
thus i give you the same gift
i found the links...been reading them..i see its science..

I SEE ITS TRUTH..[the Truth HURTS/..but the truth will set you free...[always give more than you get]

http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html
http://www.macroevolution.net/bird-mammal-hybrids.html

Dear Extropian,

<<Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of LIFE is not a legitimate field of scientific research>>

Your very question is misleading because you assert that life is a phenomenon and later even go a step further in asserting that it has origins.
While phenomena are indeed objective and verifiable by science and physical objects (such as our bodies) indeed have origins, those assertions have no scientific basis, hence are good as any other superstition, no matter how fashionable they happen to be.

The research on how inorganic molecules developed into organic ones, then into DNA, cells, pigs, monkeys, humans, etc. is a legitimate field of science - it explains how our bodies came into being and I have no problem with it, yet it tells us nothing about life.

The hypothesis as if life - a subjective experience, is a result of something objective (biological bodies), or indeed as if there is a causal relation whereby anything objective can result in anything subjective, is an unscientific fantasy and indeed makes no sense.