Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation

I don't have to reconcile it in the first place. Infact, evolution is more easy to swallow than saying we are just another animal.For me, it's a double standard, and is incredulous to deny how much more consciously endowed we are as conscious beings. (And is therefore denying the inductive and vast amount of evidence, and it's proper conclusion)Now usually I'm told of some vague ability that an animal may or may not have, but never have I been shown the equivalent. For example, show me an animal that could paint the Sistine chapel ceiling, to look like how the animal sees it (the equivalent).Show me an animal that has created an engine, or has any kind of written language. Show me an animal that can reason, and do science, and that can understand the various concepts of relativity.Thje truth is - that your ignoring a HUGE amount of inductive reality pertaining to just how far above them we are.So I'm far from reconcling anything, because I'd be denying reality to believe that we are just another animal.Untill I see the animal's equivalent of New York - a city humans built, and animals probably live in, this just isn't convincing. Slothful induction.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 15:35 AM

As in binoculars/telescopes?The fact is, that the traits you mention don't particularly show consciousness at our level. They just don't. Animals may have abilities but to say we are the same requires a leap of imagination. I expect the reason why I am sitting on a PC, and the animals aren't is that I am consciously endowed beyond they are.The fact is that the amount of evidence for us being different from the other trillion species - is seen all around us. Look around - you made it all, from your chair to your ceiling.We shape the world around us and produce technology, and are aware of ourselves, more than any other critter on the planet. Do you deny this in favour of a chimp messing with paint?Even babies can mess with paint. It doesn't matter, because what Genesis says is true - we will become as gods, and we do have dominion. I know you don't like it - but this argument really does favour Genesis, and Ive always known it. In the same way evolution has far more evidence than anything else, this just does favour the bible I'm afraid. Now I'm being very honest.I have seen all the examples of how animals have intelligence - and are to some point aware of themselves. Do I deny this? No. DO I think they are conscious beings, that can create technology and communicate with us at a completely conscious level, that they could pray to God and be a conscious person like him? No.Now in small numbers, we might not do aswell, but I'm sure there must be species that have been around for the same amount of time as us. For example, if we share a common ancestry with chimps, then they've been around a while - and where is their technology?I'm afraid there isn't an easy counter - because the obvious conclusion is that Genesis is right, and your argument is slothful induction, because you have to ignore the vast amount of evidence that shows just how different we are. But deep down - I think you know it.

Erm, now who's strawmanning? My real argument, is exactly what I said, thanks. And now I'll explain the logical differences.You say that " I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat "Humans are not different from other animals, in an equivalent way as these other organisms.A difference we have, which no other organism shares equivalently, is that we create a world in which other animals live in. Humpback wales, don't create their own environment, nor echidnae or chihuahuas. Therefore, show me an equivalent difference.This means we are a unique species. I really don't, because when I type, look at the screen and press send, I'm completing my argument. If you cannot see the unique difference of humans, when compared with whales and such - then you are ignoring evidence all around you. And that's false. You can't teach a chimp to write, paint, create engines or MOST of what we do. (Most). Also - I've shown that chimps have been around as long as we, and I didn't mention evolution. My point is that if we are different in quality - then where is the quality of crucial difference, in the chimp world? They remain without technology. Please show their tools with a link. [emphasis mine]Lol. Erm, I really think this proves my point about that fallacy I mentioned. If you can't see this difference then I'm very shocked. No, but my chair, clothes, PC and human world I'm sitting in, certainly does show we're unique, and how all this evidence has to be ignored(hence the fallacy). Simply show one organism that has produced anything as bizarre as a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment - after being on earth - in large numbers, for millions of years.My argument from obviousness, is simply what it is.-- Also, we know right and wrong, and think logically, in a way far beyond any other species can, when compared to all other species.What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals, in a way which is equivalent to that of a human creating cities on earth? Please answer.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 21:00 AM

But they were able to write, believe in God, shape the world around them and build arks and such. Also - you missed my point. My point was that, the human, is the only species to have produced such technological advancements after a long period of time. But evolutionits say that we have an ancestry with chimps, yet I don't think they're ready for space travel.(What about the pyramids - are you saying the chimps could have built them? Weren't they made in the biblical era)? Irrelevant. I choose my own words. YOU want to use a specific word, "special", so that you can progress to a point in your argument. I know what the word means, I just haven't used it. I've used "different" and "unique", so the question is - why do you want me to usethe word "special"? I know, but that's your own slothful induction. We infest the planet on a scale that is beyond belief. There is no way a dunghill is the equivalent of New York city. I urge you to stop desperate rationalization. Yet you say; " 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."BUT - If we taught Moses to make or work an Ipod or Pc's etc..(like your chimps do) - he would be able to. Like if that chimp was taught to smash a rock on a stone or whatever the silly suggestion is. Anyway - according to my logic - the biblicans were uniquely different to animals because of what I have previously stated - belief in God, writing etc. But that's moot because my point is, that now we are clearly uniquely different, and even in bible days we were, but before our evolution, it obviously wouldn't matter if we weren't, as we would be evolving, and still not be conscious. Is it homo Erectus whom had a baby brain equivalent?PS. The biblists were clearly consciously endowed by looking at what they wrote - which no animal has done, except for in rudimentary small-brained confusion. Indeed - chimps are quite clearly stuck at rudimentary level, if after all these millions of years, they still have the smashing rock on stone technique.Also, even the science shows that we have the biggest brain to body ratio. In this way we are uniquely different.Also, we play god - and mess with our genetic makeup, can any other species do this? Please answer. That's because God made them loyal, to be under the dominion of man. But that still is not the equivalent of building cities, and humans sacrifice themselves aswell.Remember I specifically said, " What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals "This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 09:45 AM

Show me another animal that has played God with it's genetic makeup -and that of other organisms.Show me why the chimps haven't built a pyramid, or why they can't qualitively learn rocket science.Genesis said we would become as Gods. How more accurate can you get? We mess with DNA and can clone. Show me how anything is equivalently as bizarre as that in nature.I think I'll refrain from positing now as you missed my points, and didn't address the bulk of my truths.The fact is that qualitively, Moses could be taught how to make a plane train or automobile, but a chimp couldn't. Moses could assimilate vast informations pertaining to information theory, while chimps could improve their rock on stone technique.There's no convincing you, and NosyNed said that nobody would budge so I'll be wise and refrain.PS, I am not insulting you when I say slothful induction- if you click the link you'll see that's what the site calls it. I certainly think that this is a fallacy of induction though, because humans are obviously living conscious beings - able to design and create, like God. Meanwhile, God let the animals be sacrificed, and we eat them with no worries.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:20 AM

I have came up with many quality arguments. All basically ignored.Has any other organism split the atom?Can any other organism blow up the world?quality = quantity in this case I'm afraid. Because 1+1+1 = 3 for the chimp, aswell as the human, aswell as the same time in the race.Unless you can tell me how to confirm or falsify this illusive "qualititative difference", then what does it mean? Would space-travel qualify? If not - what would to you? Have I not said that Moses could also learn nowaday technology? Time has to happen, and things take time. Unique quality differences, might take time to show.My analogy; An artist may well not be that skilled in the beginning, but in the end, he has mastered his skill. Many qualities are seen in the fourth dimension.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:53 AM

Hi Queen. (For now)Why did the other hominids not survive? Remember 2001? The part where the hominid becomes conscious when smashing the bones?Ofcourse - that's assuming this saga of hominids happened. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 18:51 AM

To get back onto what we're saying about humans being unique; Evolution of language boxPertaining to my dog point; Also;

Dear Pink S', I think at this stage the readers really would like to know what would qualify as a qualitative difference.I'll assume you're just jesting? (I've done similar things in the past, so I suspect you are).If you're not, then please put us all in the picture, we really want to know.

Haven't I said that Moses and biblists have the same ability?We could teach Moses how to do things, and increase his knowledge. Also - I have shown with that link that there is the unique aspect of language, and written.But what would make a qualitative difference to you?Space travel, examining our DNA make-up, cloning? We could teach the fist sapien to do these things.Are you going to just ignore these points?Oh, and on another note, I think that's an achievement to refrain from eating animals willfully, and I think that shows good character. (not that my opinion is worth much around here ) I won't say it's a unique trait to the species though. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 21:18 AM

Tusko, thanks for your input, I like you already. (I remember your name but I don't think we've had many exchanges).
. That's true and I concede it. I've been thinking about this from a logical perspective, for some time and I think that there's something not in the equation at the moment, and that is ability.We have to take the human species as a whole, and all the other species as a whole, with visualizing the fourth dimension of time aswell. This is because abilities humans have in the present would still represent abilities in the past, but without any technological advancement, these abilities would still exist - they just wouldn't show.Also, the quality of any differences can still be recognised because we know that life, and all species must take time to develop. (Think about this a bit)So the question becomes, if we are judging between species, then shouldn't we ask what that species is capable of?Final thought;We are, best described, as a WHOLE - as uniquely different from other animals.Other organisms may well have unique differences - but we are uniquely different unlike any other organism, because other organisms are not - as a whole, uniquely different and also, their abilities have been shown to not be of equivalent value/quality to that of homo sapiens. To explain what I mean; A hammer head shark may well have a unique difference from other sharks, and all other none-sharks. The former it's hammer-head, the latter - it's a shark. And this can be said about all species.But humans are uniquely different from all other organisms in a way that other animals aren't.Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anyway. Example, if we can't fly - we make planes. If we can't go fast, we build vehicles. This is our invisible ability, and it is evidenced through the fourth dimension of time, because it is not tangeable. It is essentialy, our ability to think/design like no other organism, and THEN put it into the practicle, and mold the shapes in our heads, from the world around us. This is the clincher for me. Our minds can overcome our nature. Is that a qualititive difference? If not - then nothing will ever qualify for this illusive title.Example; All homo sapiens can be taught to use advanced technology, and all homo sapiens, and/or 99%, have
the ability to do so, even if 99% haven't the means.I shown this with the painter's analogy. Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time.Example; The first homo sapien could be as great as Leanardo Davinci, but his ability is rendered moot at that time in history, for lack of means/time and essentially knowledge, which is not an ability but rather an accumulation of gained information.Einstein would have been just as brilliant thousands and thousands of years ago. His abilities might not have shown back then though, through lack of means. Our abilities don't change, but the times do. Time doesn't mean we don't have unique qualitative ability.

I think the answers to a lot of this stuff were in message #60. I hope people re-read it, maybe take it in some. Well, we don't. But again, I think that with the example of the chimp, if his technology is to use natural tools, and he's been around a long time like us, then why would he have not progressed? Or the crow? He or the crow, have both shown no ability.If the animals are equivalently uniquely different, then they would surely equivalently produce and progress with time? If their unique traits were as equally effective and quality as ours, then they would have shown progression and accumulation of knowledge, in written form.Yet I think the pyramids are a good example of the ability of humans early on. Also, the link I provided earlier in the thread certainly examines the abity we have to think.Maybe a simple analogy is needed to articulate my points from message #60;The animals are oranges, and apples and bananas. All with differences that are unique (I don't deny it). But we are chocolate. We really are.Infact I don't know why this is even an issue as it's not even creo versus evo. It's simply to acknowledge the fact that there is something strange going on with humans, and something very unique.I have shown that quality of ability can take time. Therefore quality = time. The animals have had the same time as us = [answer]With their natural ability. They are infact by nature, able to construct them, because of their morphology. It's not a good example of what I mean.Can a beaver fly by nature? He can build a dam by nature. Can a human fly by nature? No. He can fly despite this.It's what a beaver can not do by nature, that s/he must do. http://www.pitara.com/discover/5wh/11.htmThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 14:34 AM

Quetzal - that really doesn't mean much what you've just posted, apart from patting your ideologically inclined friend on the back. Because if one thinks that nothing would qualify as a qualititive difference, then "qualititive difference" means nothing. I'm not stupid, he won't show a qualifier yet untill he can think of something that will not be able to be met. And even then, surely the qualifier is man-made to fit the conclusion.I said;Example; Animals might be unique in what they can do. But we are unique in what we can't do. I think this fundamental difference is a big example of how we are uniquely different. If a shark cannot fly - then that's the end of that. If a rat can only run fast, then that's the end of that. But when it comes to what we can't do, then we have an ability to defy our very natural limits, and do it anywayI think that this is most definitely a quality difference. Where did I mention difference in kind? Please quote me.I'm sure that you think this commetn is a refutation, or that a synergetic group will make you right and mike wrong.Look at your avatar, it shows actually shows a difference between a human and a dog in itself. You wear clothes, because you're not just an animal. When you press "reply" then what represents this oddity?I've also said that quality = quantity.This means that all animals have had time, over the years, to put their apparently equal(to humans) unique differences to the test, and they haven't shown anequivalent ability or quality. Chocolate and fruit.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 14:48 AM

This would come under natural ability. They can use natural resources with their hands, like the beaver uses it's teeth.I'm talking about things we cannot do with natural endowment, pertaining to morphology. Example - a chimp cannot fly(naturally). Eating food and getting it, is an ability it does have.It's what a chimp can't do.Also, I apreciate your point about humans not having the means to show these abilities, but as message #60 says, that's because an invisible ability is not tangeable. Even if Moses didn't have a plane, it doesn't follow that he and his men didn't have the ability to design and create one. Indeed, if short periods of time hinders his ability - then quality = quantity, and also time.I disagree aswell, about chimps. If they really could produce technology, then they wouldn't still be using natural resources, as they find them.Remember message #60? and what I said about molding the earth to the designs we dream up in our heads. Does the cimp have this ability?As for your qualifier of religion, this is met. Because we have design/create ability, we know that there must be a designer/creator.Artificial;Made by humans; produced rather than natural. PS; Although you've said religion qualifies. Why does religion qualify but nothing else?Although you've said that this does qualify as a qualititive difference, you haven't shown what it takes to be classed as one.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 15:33 AM

ADDENDUMThe information in message #60 dealt with all that and provided the categorically vast implication of gargantua sorts pertaining to what we can do artificially. I hereby cannot take part because of insults and people not understanding my argument properly.This has not been understood, or falsified. So far, all animals can eat and gather, and use their morphology to get by. But the point is that it is what they can naturally not do. For example, a beaver cannot naturally fly, and neither can a human. They both can NOT NATURALLY. Human's can artificially, not through quantity, but through ability. I am not looking at this from a viewpoint of nowaday technology (strawman). I am looking at it from a perspective of species. What can a species do. Can our species design/create artificially, to make up for what it can not do naturally? If it can, can other species pertaining to natural ability? No they can't. This is an ability, which sets us apart from other species. Therefore is is certainly your own incredulity to ignore all the inductive evidence. fallacy of slothful induction.When one has gone back and read message #60 and understood it, then one will know that I am un-refuted.Quantitive and qualitive is a moot strawman invoked by PS> I am arguing about our abilities as a species, therefore it wouldn't matter if it was quantitive evidence, it still shows our ability. WHy on earth do you ignore this evidence?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 17:08 AM