Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

True, but this is an argument about quantitative differences, not qualitative differences. There's no uniquely human characteristic that cannot be found in some degree in a non-human animal. I cannot. But I can show you an animal that uses a hammer and anvil. I cannot. But I can show you animals with "spoken" language. I can. Many animals use problem-solving as part of their every day life. I see these as extensions of reason. This is an absurd argument to me, since there are so many animals that do things so much better than humans. I could easily counter:Until I see the human's equivalent of long-range navigation...orUntil I see the human's equivalent of identifying hundreds of poisionous vs. non-poisionous plants...orUntil I see the human's equivalent of echo-location...Not that humans cannot do these things, but they generally need technology, and they represent trained skills of a few individuals within our species. This is little different from the chimpanzees that communicate by sign language and paint impressionistically when given the opportunity.

Probably not, unless you have some method of determining a course from Argentina to the Equator using a pair of binoculars; but that is besides the point, since I conceded that humans use technology to boost their skills to the levels of animals. I never said "we are the same" - did you even read my post? I said we were quantitatively different, but qualitatively the same. What do you mean by "consciousness"? Do you mean "self-awareness"? Because extensive behavioral studies have shown that some animals have self-awareness. Then again, that may be a moot point, since you seem to state that animals are conscious, just that you are conscious to a greater extreme than they are.Like I said, quantitative, not qualitative. I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat. We're all different than all other species, otherwise we wouldn't be different species.Your problem doesn't appear to be with us being "different" or not, it appears to be with us being "special" or not. I didn't make my chair or my ceiling. Chimps produce technology such as hammer and anvil. Of course this is quantitatively different from a Boeing 777, but is it qualitatively different? If you had to crack a nut in the jungle, what would you use?I don't deny we are different; but there is more than a chimp "messing in paint" when a chimp representatively paints an object and then names it as such with sign language. Your argument of "difference" doesn't favor Genesis, since no one would argue that humans are the same as all other species. You are arguing that humans are "special", and if you had any evidence that humans were "special" other than a book written by humans that wanted to feel "special", you might have a case.Your argument from "obviousness" and labeling your opponents' arguments as "slothful induction" doesn't stand as evidence. I guess I didn't realize that God was a person. In any case, you likely have hit upon the only qualitative difference between humans and other species, and that is that some humans worship gods. (Truthfully this may be occurring in other species and we may not be able to detect it.) You're genuinely misconstruing evolution here. Evolution theory would not predicted that chimps, or any other species, would develop technology at the same rate as humans. (Though chimps do have culture, technology, and adornment in the wild.) Chimps may not have accumulated a set of mutations to permit them the capacity to do so, or there may not have existed selective force for the maintainence of technology abilities (especially with humans already filling that niche), or perhaps chimps are too damn wise to spread their culture across the planet in such a destructive fashion. In any case, you might as well have asked why sharks haven't developed interstellar travel yet, given that they've been on the planet longer than we have. Absurd. Like I said before, perhaps you should reread my post you responded to. I'm not saying humans aren't different from all other species, so essentially your whole post is a strawman argument. Your real argument is that humans are "special", not different.You really need to provide some meat to your argument that humans are the "special" species. Saying it is "obvious" doesn't cut it, and neither does your incorrect "slothful induction" counter.Perhaps to me it is "obvious" that God doesn't exist, and I simply find anyone believing so to be suffering from "slothful induction" because they fail to see the reality of an absolute absence of evidence for His existence. Or maybe it is "obvious" to me that the Creation account of another religion is the truth.

Gee whiz, I'm sorry... I totally misconstrued your argument when I used the word "special", when I should have said "uniquely different". (Have you looked up the meaning of the word "special" lately?) Sounds like "special" to me... Not unique. It may be "obvious" to you, but I don't see city-building as making humans "uniquely different". First, many species build "cities", from ants to bees to prairie dogs to naked mole rats. And yes, other species inhabit these "cities". Some ants even keep another species, aphids, as a sort of domestic livestock: Other species "create their own environment", and even keep and tend livestock. Environment building as a uniquely human feature has been refuted. Here's a layman's article on Chimp Culture that discusses termite fishing and hammer/anvil, as well as other tool use. Some excerpts: The tool use is not passed on genetically, it is passed on culturally, and therefore qualifies as technology. The article is based on a large body of research, including giving captive, naive chimps tools that are used by wild chimps. These chimps do not develop tool use unless taught. Technology is not uniquely human. I do not think it is a fallacy for a couple of reasons:First, you haven't established that a hammer and anvil are qualitatively different from a PC, you've only said it is "obvious".Second, if you, a human being, were raised in isolation of contemporary society, would you be conceive, design, and manufacture, a chair, clothes, PC, car, and a Boeing 777? Or would you be cracking nuts with a hammer and anvil? Truthfully, can you make any of those things now?Would you be able to conceive of any of these things if you were born just 200 years ago?You speak as though the manufacture of all of these are an inherent human ability, when if separated from modern human civilization by space or time, the ability breaks down.So, when you argue it is "obvious" that humans are "uniquely different" because you are sitting at a PC, you are also stating that you are uniquely different from humans from a century ago, let alone humans during the time of Genesis. Right. According to your logic, not a single person in the Bible was uniquely different from other animals, because they were unable to produce "a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment."Perhaps. Again, you describe a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference. I'm not arguing against quantitative differences. Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species. Exactly.

I'm not sure if you are saying that chimps could or could not use a computer. Just in case it is the latter: You cannot simply refuse to supply any real qualitative difference argument and blame my slothful induction. It is you being "slothful" at coming up with a qualitative difference. Yep. But bacteria do a much better job of "infesting" the planet. They are everywhere, from deep sea vents to X-ray machines. In any case, other animals "infest" the planet, so this is another quantitative difference.To quote your argument exactly: I refuted this point by referencing the fact that many ants build complex dwelling, and keep aphids as livestock within those dwellings.Now you counter by saying: I never said a dunghill was the "equivalent" of NYC, thus you are changing the argument once refuted. You gave me a characteristic that was uniquely human and I've shown that other animals also have that characteristic.I'm not "desperately rationalizing", I'm simply asking for a single qualitative difference. Nice try. First, even if true, this wouldn't make us uniquely different, it would just put us at one end of a spectrum of many animals with a brain to body ratio. Being the best or biggest at something doesn't make a qualitative difference, it is simply a quantitative difference.Second, it is absolutely false: What kind of argument is that? So dogs are "uniquely different", but God made them that way, so it doesn't count?This is silly. Come up with a qualitative difference, and give it to me in a form that doesn't include examples (like NYC).

I'm not missing your point.Still no qualitative arguments. Only quantitative ones. If you come up with a specific qualitative argument let me know, otherwise I agree that this exchange has reached its limits. I do not eat animals.

I don't see them as quality arguments because you are simply listing examples that are quantitative extremes of a set of traits. Just because the elephant is the largest land animal, does not make it "uniquely different", it simply means that in the characteristic of body size in land mammals, it falls at one end of the range.Non-human animals have the ability to learn, reason, use technology, and pass knowledge from generation to generation culturally. Most of your examples fall under the general realm of "science", which I believe are made up of the above traits. Humans simply define the limits of the range of these traits that can be found in other animals to a lesser degree.

I don't see how quantitative differences make for "different uniqueness". We are not the largest, or the fastest, or the strongest; nor do we have the most powerful sensory abilities.Is any animal that has a "world record" characteristic "differently unique"? First - we don't have all of the qualities of animals with technology. Non-human animals still surpass human technology in sensory abilities.Second - if you define the human species based on modern technology, then you are also define modern humans as a separate "animal" from humans living just a couple of hundred years ago.That is, simple "technology use" can be a characteristic of the human species, but "iPod use" cannot, otherwise humans from five years ago would not be human. "Habitat building" can be a species characteristic, but "New York City building" cannot, otherwise humans from five hundred years ago would not be human.Hopefully that makes sense - and also explains to some degree why I find quality defining rather than quantity. Not based on technology, given my statements above. We are unique in the sense of being not completely like any other species, but that is true for all species. So does the flesh of human infants - that doesn't mean I'm going to eat it. Do you do anything that causes pleasurable sensation? I don't know the details of the global ant colonization (that was posted by someone else), but I can speak theoretically. It sounds like the ants have a trait that makes them more fit to widespread colonization in the sense that they recognize each other and work cooperatively. If humans spread around other ant species, they kill other members of their own species from other colonies, and thus at the species-level they thrive less.It doesn't matter if a species interacts with humans to be successful (such as grasses) - it is still successful, having adapted to a situation involving another species. There are many symbiotic relationships between organisms, and none violate the principles of evolution. The aphids taken care of by the ants in the example I mention above are not an example of "something going wrong", they are an example of success by adaption to an interspecies relationship.

Quantity, not quality. How does this pertain to your "dog point"? Anyway, this contradicts your previous claim: Did humans breed dogs, or did God make them? Again, quantity, not quality. Not a qualitative difference. Not a qualitative difference, since non-human primates have morality. I recommend Frans de Waal's Good Natured for review of the subject. Here is an example from recent primary literature: Here is a short review with free full-text online:

No. I'll assume you're jesting.Don't be rude just because you haven't come up with a decent point yet.

Yes, you've claimed that Moses could be trained to use a computer. Chimps, bonobos, and orangutans also can be trained to use a computer (see my ref in a post above) and increase their knowledge.Moses and his peeps did not have the ability to conceive, design, or build a computer. They did not even have a rudimentary understanding of the electricity that would be used to power a computer.Do you really not see the problem with using "we've built computers" as a characteristic of the human species? It is a historical characteristic, not an innate one. This is the best you've come up with - but this depends much on your definition of language, and whether written language makes communication qualitatively different (I'll have to think on this point).Since you asked for what I consider a qualitative uniqueness of the human species, my strongest feeling is towards the quality of "religious worship"; since as of yet we have no evidence for such in other animals - though that doesn't mean it isn't occurring. Now, depending on how you feel about "worship", this could be considered a great "unique" quality, or simply an aberrant psychological response to the unknown (which may not be so unique to humans). Well, chimps have served as astronauts; and I really doubt that the first human, whether by evolution or creation, could have begun to understand DNA and cloning, let alone practice molecular genetics. No, since this is the dozenth time I've addressed them. You in turn ignore my rebuttals, and simply list another example of modern technology as a species characteristic (even though I asked you to cease and desist example-based characteristics several posts ago). There's little will involved, really, so don't pat me on the back too hard.Honestly, it is like me congratulating you on refraining from cannibalism.

Hey Mike, sorry to beat a dead horse (especially being a vegetarian and all), but I gotta say one last time:Quantitative, not qualitative.For example - If chimps can't crack nuts, they use a hammer and anvil. If chimps (and some birds) can't reach termites with their fingers, they use sticks. If certain bird species can't attract a mate, they collect ornaments to attract one. If many animals can't find a suitable place to live - they build hives/colonies/burrows/etc. I think the same can be said about cultural tool use among non-human primates - they are using their minds (learned knowledge and not instinct) to overcome their "nature" (natural limitations).Another quick note on the dimension of time. We cannot use present day technology to define our species for the same reason we cannot use future technology to define our species. You haven't said - "if we can't to get from one planet to another in a nanosecond, we build teleportation". Even if interplanetary teleportation is developed at some point in the future, it cannot be used in that future as a species characteristic since it would fail to define our species in our present.Earlier you mentioned "written language" and I said I thought that was a possibility. However, I now realize it possibly fails for the same reason - I don't know what the current thinking is on the abilities of early homo sapiens in the writing department.

First let me say that there is no reason to believe that all species would develop reasoning/technology/culture at the same rate, so the idea that we should have seen more advanced technology from these creatures by now is a bit silly. Again, we could compare modern human technology to that used by humans a few hundred years ago and say the same thing - geolologically/evolutionarily a few hundred years is essentially no difference in time. My qualifier is a qualitative difference. You just keep give me examples of human characteristics that are found in animals.Actually, I've given you an example of what I think is a possible qualitative difference - religious worship (spirituality). However, I have qualified that this falls into a psychological realm that we may not be able to detect in animals, or that spirituality in humans is simply an extension of a base psychological urge. I don't think you really commented on that. I'll say it again - it cannot be a qualitative difference when animals also use their minds to "defy their natural limits". Chimps eat nuts that they cannot crack with their teeth or hands, only with a well-placed blow by a hammer-rock to a nut on an anvil-stone. This is not an genetic behavior, and is passed on culturally. The chimps have used the ability to reason and learn to overcome their biological inability to crack and consume the nuts. Do you think this example somehow doesn't fit the characteristic you've described above?

Right, just like humans use natural resources with their hands when they build a car. Humans just happen to use a variety of complex machines to manipulate the natural resources. They don't always use them as they find them. They alter termite sticks to an optimal design. At least one chimp population also strips bark off of trees and breaks and bends the bark to make seats and shoe-like pieces for use in climbing spiny fruit-trees. I've been having trouble finding the reference to this, which is why I haven't mentioned it until now (I guess I should go a-looking again). However, the use of bark to climb spiny trees gives the chimps access to fruit they wouldn't have access to based on their 'nature'.Also, a note about hammer/anvil rocks - chimps may not manufacture these, but they are quite particular about them. They collect ones of optimum size and shape, and store and use the same ones sometimes for years on end. No, quality = quality. The fact that you have to twist your suggested qualitative differences into "quantitative differences at a precise moment in history" simply further demonstrates that indeed, they are NOT qualitative differences.This again further demonstrates that you haven't supported your argument in the least - when you can't come up with a qualitative difference, you simply exclaim "it's invisible, it's not tangible, but it's there!" This is absurd, or at least invoking the supernatural, rather than supporting your claim. Huh!?! This doesn't make sense at multiple levels. The fact that we can create does not prove an ultimate creator. In fact your logical severly falls apart - since creators can only be created by creators, than no original creator could have existed. (Though we are now off-topic, methinks...)Secondly, even if you feel that "we create, therefore God exists", this doesn't negate the possibility that non-human animals may experience spirituality, which is the point you have to answer in this thread.

Ooooh boy, you got me there! You looked up a definition of a word that hasn't even come up in the discussion yet, and then put a smiley after it. Wow!What exactly does this have to do with the discussion at hand? No, I did not. Perhaps you should look up "qualitative" in the dictionary...You are arguing for a qualitative characteristic that makes humans "uniquely different".Therefore you need to come up with a "quality" that is not present in any degree in any non-human animal. If it is present in any degree it is a difference of "quantity", not "quality".I figured you understood this since this is more-or-less the sort of argument you have been trying to put forth. Did you really not understand "qualitative difference"?

It has been understood. It has been falsified.Humans are at one end of a range for characteristics including technology, culture, and reasoning. Since other animals have these same characteristics, these characteristics do not make us "uniquely different" from other animals. Your introduction of the term "artificial" at this stage of the discussion does not change the underlying evidence. It has been demonstrated to you multiple times that they can. You simply choose to ignore it.Let me summarize a bit:- You claim that our modern technological advances make us qualitatively different.
- It is pointed out to you that other animals develop and use technology.
- It is pointed out to you that it is a fallacy to define a species characteristic using historical evidence that would not have defined the species as such a hundred years ago.
- You claim that even though Moses-era people didn't conceive of or design such technology, they could be taught how to use it.
- It is pointed out to that chimps, bonobos, and orangs can be taught to use computers. Some even use a keyboard with a voice processor to talk to people over the phone.
- You claim that the unique difference is now invisible, intangible, and the sum of quantitative and time differences (which is a fallacy).
- Thus, you've descended into ignoring evidence and making up undetectable characteristics to prove your point.In defending that ancient humans were technologically apt, you stated: Again, chimps in the wild have culture, technology, and reasoning. (Not to mention the amazing abilities of captive chimps, such as the one developing stone working ability given the same "knowledge" that you say is required for humans to express their "unique" abilities). Given material and time they may develop these further (though this is unlikely due to niche considerations). My point is that the same argument you make to defend the aptitude of humans of the past can be used to defend the aptitude of apes of the present. Perhaps you should go back and rethink your incessant use of this term. It is simply a way to defend your "argument from the obvious". Slothful induction requires me to ignore the evidence; however, I haven't ignored your evidence, I've refuted it.Now to the important boldface stuff:Falsehood #1: It is not moot, and it is not a strawman. You argued that humans were "uniquely different"; that is, "obviously" having characteristics that other animals do not have. This is a qualitative argument that you made. It cannot be a quantitative argument, because if a non-human animal has a human characteristic to a lesser degree, it still has that characteristic.Falsehood #2: You've been arguing for human uniqueness, not human ability. It does matter if you argument is qualitative or quantitative, as I describe above.Falsehood #3: I have not done so. First, I have repeatedly acknowledged that humans are quite different from other animals.Secondly, I have refuted the evidence you provided as "unique" human characteristics by giving you documented examples of those same characteristics in non-humans.
If I am refuting, I am not ignoring.Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread. What you have laid out here as your "ADDENDUM" is a complete misrepresentation.