Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

Mike, oh Great Irrefutable Mike, there is but another way I can falsify this statement - I can demonstrate that it is not a universal characteristic of humans. Humans from just a few hundred years ago would not have this characteristic, therefore it is not a human characteristic. If an iPod is a defining human characteristic, then we were not humans when we were born.Come now Great Irrefutable Mike! Do you really not understand why modern technology cannot be a species-defining characteristic?I honestly don't believe that you are that dim.That is why we use more general terminology, like "culture" and "technology" to describe these examples you give. Unfortunately for your argument, these have been demonstrated in non-human animals.I also would hope that you honestly don't believe that Quetzal and I are so dim that we don't get your argument. We got it the first time, you know, before you incessantly repeated it as though that might make it true. You haven't, in fact, you argued that quantity was sufficient for the unique difference just a few posts ago. I doubt it. Simply from a nutritional standpoint humans are smarter now. I did explain it already, Jack. I had a feeling you weren't reading all of my messages, given some of your half-assed responses and claims that I didn't refute your points. Good thing you're irrefutable, huh?See, part of the reason I didn't give you an example qualitative difference was because I was trying to think of a real one (whether or not you believe it I was trying to come up with a qualitative difference myself - which is why I was able to share with you my brainstorm that religious worship might qualify).You want an unreal qualitative difference? Telekinesis. If humans were the only species with telekinesis I'd say that would qualify as a "unique difference".

No, Mike. I was trying to come up qualitative differences as well. I discussed with you my thoughts on "spirituality" and "written language" and specifically why, after consideration, I felt they were not unique or defining to humans. Doesn't sound like I was part of the grand conspiracy you describe.It's too bad that you break down and rant and contradict yourself and the history of the thread when the discussion doesn't go your way. Holy crap, Irrefutable Mike! You are absolutely correct on this one!They were apes, not monkeys.

No, it doesn't make sense. Not wanting to be a species doesn't invalidate a comparison, it simply demonstrates a weak ego that cannot stand the thought of being compared to a non-human. Luckily science doesn't ignore such comparisons on egotistical grounds, since major medical advancements have been made based on the fact that humans and bacteria/yeast/worms/flies/mice have a heck of a lot in common. In other words, you have medically benefited from 'icky' comparisons (unless you refuse modern medical treatment).(Also, I read your previous post just like Crash did - as an insult to Crash.)

What are you referring to here? It isn't clear. Is this supposed to counter my point that personal disgust at a comparison does NOT scientifically invalidate it? His claim was "that intelligence isn't all that" in evolutionary terms.Obviously stating that a human has the intelligence of a bacterium or roach is an insult.I bet you could be one of those species right now, don't you.

Sorry, Catholic Scientist - somehow I missed your post.But frankly, all of the points you bring up (excepting the cannibalism stuff) have already been well-discussed in the thread, and I don't see any point in rehashing them. (Hopefully you won't take this as dismissive, because it is not intended to be - if you read through the rest of the thread and don't feel that your points have been answered, we can continue the discussion.)

At some point in this thread I (and I think others) pondered whether other animals exhibited the quality of "spirituality." I came across the following on-line review article that addresses that point: I'm not endorsing everything in the paper, and it isn't peer-reviewed - though I think it provides some interesting organization and insight. It seeks to define "spiritual rites" surrounding such things as birth/death/reverence for nature, and then reference possible occurrences in chimp cultural groups.There are some statements that are potentially problematic. One includes male-male aggression following a death as part of ritual - a much more obvious explanation is that male-male aggression following loss of a community member is to reestablish or maintain social hierarchy in the altered group. (Though such behavior could potentially "evolve" into ritual behavior.)The review also contains some random tidbits about primate culture, including capture and use of hyraxes as temporary pets, the use of fermented fruits to get (intentionally?) drunk, and the use of leaves by some chimp cultures to wipe their post-pooping bums.

I agree with your assessment completely; especially that his unneccesary overreaching to support his model brought in some dubious examples and connections.I would however, absolutely love to see an adolescent chimp sleeping with her pet hyrax.

Good thing Dr. Harrod isn't an animal behaviorist, otherwise that would be true. His PhD focused on comparative mythology and ancient Greek religion. He has never published an article on a non-human animal, and I doubt that he will publish this one (at least not in a biology journal). This is a review intended for religious archaelogists, not for primatologists. I believe that the smiling/gasping/midwives stuff has been fairly well-established by real primatologists. Correlations between facial expressions and emotions has been done - now, I'm not sure if the account that Harrod used involved a "chimp smile" or a "human's idea of a chimp smile." If I recall correctly, what humans would most identify as a smile on a chimp is actually a sign of anxiety and distress - which would likely accompany birth.But you are correct - there are lots of jumps across understated knowledge gaps in the review.But I think we can take something useful out of Harrod's paper, which is his framework of spirituality and the beginnings of comparisons. Non-human animals, apes especially, may have spirituality - there needs to be some practical way to define that in order to complete cross-species comparisons.In a way, perhaps his focus was off - it seemed to me Harrod was stating, "see, chimps are spiritual just like humans" (hence the title of his paper), when perhaps he should have focused on humans, "modern human spirituality is just a dressed-up version of simpler animal behavior."When human parents hold their baby for the first time, it is considered a spiritual experience. For most, if a chimp or other animal does so, it is NOT considered a spiritual experience. Is it? What are the differences? I think these are interesting questions.