|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation | |||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
A human, can not fly through natural ability. Artificially, a human species has the ability to fly, go under water, travel at high speed and create far distant sight (telescopes and such). THIS is the ability of the human. This is how a human is very unique in an un-equivalent capacity to that of any other organism. By showing me the equivalent of this in any other organism on earth, you will then falsify my logical statement. 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.
I have proved that ability of a human does not relate to quantity. You haven't, in fact, you argued that quantity was sufficient for the unique difference just a few posts ago.
The first human would have the same intelligence as a modern one. I doubt it. Simply from a nutritional standpoint humans are smarter now.
Well it cuts both ways Jack. So now explain what a qualitative difference is or you haven't proved a thing. What would satisfy you, what is a qualitative difference? 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
now you want us to believe that humans are just the same as all the animal, to complete the ideological naturalistic position. 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.
But I doubt monkeys can talk and I doubt they can type either, Holy crap, Irrefutable Mike! You are absolutely correct on this one! They were apes, not monkeys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I mearly pointed out, that you wouldn't want to be that species, so then you really shouldn't compare yourself to it. Makes sense right? 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
But it's so silly. Hey mom, can I go over Johnny's house?' No Why not? Because. But other kids do. 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?
So first he claims that intelligence isn't all that, then he get's insulted because he thinks I'm calling him stupid? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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:
Harrod, J. (2004). Chimpanzee Spirituality: A Concise Synthesis of the Literature - v.1 4.12.2004 (29pp.) -- An overview of chimpanzee spirituality and its correspondence to human religion and its neuroscience.
Access here - first article in list. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Pink, this is exactly the kind of 'research' I was complaining about in the other thread; the kind of shameless anthropomorphisizing that gives other animal behaviorists a bad name... this type of paper embodies everything that is WRONG about animal behavior research... 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.
quote: And you wonder why I roll my eyes when I see this stuff? It is sheer, unadulterated anthropomorphizing. Smiling? Gasping? Midwives? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024