Previous in Forum: Old pipe insulation: is it amosite asbestos?   Next in Forum: Parker Solar Probe touches surface of the sun
Close
Close
Close
Page 5 of 6: « First < Prev 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29

Is evolution correct?

12/15/2021 6:41 AM

We are lad to understand that the human as we know it, evolved from an ape like creature. From walking on all fours to upright and inventing, building, destroying and having wars.

If we have been around and inhabiting this planet side by side with other animals and apes, the question arises, why only has the human evolved to invent, destroy, build, wear clothes and kill and hunt for pleasure when all the other animals and apes have not evolved over the same time period to complete the same. Why have gorillas not build wooden houses for their families to live in or evolved to grow their own food crops. Why have they not created towns and villages to reside in. Why have only humans evolved to have many languages and have many beliefs of gods when animals have not done so over the same time period?

The only animal that kills for fun is humans, the only animal that creates wars is humans. And the only animals to over populate the planet is humans. All other animals only kill for necessity to survive.

Who stole the missing link? Are we all wrong in what has been taught to us and we now believe. Have we been lied to all along?

Why only have humans evolved far quicker than any other living animal on this planet if we originally were from ape like descendants?

Register to Reply
This discussion was "closed" on 02/17/2022 12:27 PM. No new comments are allowed.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#518
In reply to #515
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/09/2022 7:33 PM

I know the insult you have waiting behind your 'friendly' inquiry about cats in my house. Save the insult and direct it to redfred, who in his latest post, reveals that he too has a pet cat. Like him, you never miss an opportunity to include an insult in a post. It is so much easier than reasoned argument isn't it? And if the argument is lost, an insult is so much easier than admitting (in reference to two branches of this thread), the cognitive dissonance of a determinist who feels contempt for any human action; easier than admitting that determinism is an untestable hypothesis; and is easier than admitting that no test has proven self-awareness in gorillas.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#521
In reply to #518

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/09/2022 11:50 PM

I don't known you Canadianslidewinder, how could I insult you? ...moreover, why would you care?

I'm curious if you were around cats during your upbringing, if you had to indure the unpleasant task of scooping litter to allow the cat to share your space.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#516
In reply to #514
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/09/2022 12:21 PM

What annoys me is your apparent insistence that any real or imagined report from any era supporting your perspective proves you are right. (Most of your "references" appear to originate from your memories. Memories are highly fallible.)

You are correct on one thing, sound scientific studies do not have an expiration date. Does that mean I'm forbidden to comment on their age? The age of a study does provide one metric for the validity of the study's conclusions. The longer a study's conclusions are not challenged the more accepted are the conclusions.

Dian Fossey's work is considerably older than those studies and she clearly concluded gorillas and many other animals are self-aware. Your studies challenge her conclusions. The later video challenge your studies' conclusions. (I know you didn't author those studies but you did proffer those studies.) Many more studies have been done in animal behavior on self-awareness that the subset of semi-self-aware species is added to the discussions.

Not all human beings are self-aware. (Consider the last eight years of Ariel Sharon's life.) Finding some members of any group are not self-aware does not preclude that other members of that group could be self-aware.

The experts in animal behavior are undecided over which species if any, are self-aware. I am not an animal behavior expert. I don't think you are an animal expert. My cats do respond to their names. They often ignore me, too. (Just like some people, too.) If a cat can learn to respond to a given name that cat is aware of itself.

Lastly, I'm concerned about how vehemently you have responded to this lengthy discussion on evolution. Particularly the repeated reading comprehension difficulties, the fundamental logic you fail to grasp, and the repeated deflection into barely related topics. You have lost all credibility to me and I suspect several others here.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#517
In reply to #516

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/09/2022 6:44 PM

You provide a link to a general article about Diane Fossey, but no link to the study or studies in which she "clearly concluded" that gorillas and many other animals are self-aware. Further, you are using language that researchers in MSR (Mirror Self Recognition) are wary of using (a problem in your reading comprehension I assume). They are very careful not to say that from certain observed behaviour they 'conclude' this or that. Rather, they state that the behaviour 'could be interpreted' to mean...etc. There is no certainty about self-awareness in animals.

The linked video provided by TINAC does not challenge the studies I referenced. All of the shown gorilla behaviour can be interpreted as gorillas confronting 'other' gorillas in the mirror, with no understanding that it is their own image. TINAC was selective in his choice. He obviously wanted to refute my statement in a recent post that gorillas react aggressively to their mirror image, and he received the expected applause from the peanut gallery for doing so. Well, other videos on the same channel show gorillas reacting very aggressively to the mirror image - beating their chests, pounding the ground, swinging large pieces of tree branch... I suspect the linked video was taken after they had settled down, after they realized that the 'other' gorillas were no threat.

Your quote: "If a cat can learn to respond to a given name that cat is aware of itself." Is this some of the 'fundamental logic I fail to grasp'? My TV responds to voice commands. Not only that - it learned to respond specifically to my voice commands. By your 'fundamental logic' I assume you believe my TV is self-aware?

Your primary modus operandi is not reasoned argument, but personal invective. It is much easier isn't it? Your post to which I am replying actually contains a bit of substance along with the usual insults, so it is special among your posts.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#519
In reply to #517

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/09/2022 7:43 PM

Any carnivore has to have at least enough self-awareness to avoid eating its own feet.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#524
In reply to #519

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 9:34 AM

Self-awareness is not exemplified, as redfred argued by example, as a cat that knows its name. Self-awareness is to know that you know. A cat would have to know that it knows its name to be self-aware.

My TV can respond to my voice commands. It, like a cat, knows its name. But it does not know that it knows, so it is not self-aware.

You might reply, but how can we be certain that a cat does not know that it knows? True, we can't be certain, and since we can't be certain, we are unable draw positive conclusions either way. That is why researchers use words like 'appear to show' or 'the findings suggest' or 'could be interpreted as' rather than 'we conclude'. Posters here who state with certainty that this or that creature is self-aware, are expressing an opinion, not a fact.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#525
In reply to #524

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 1:05 PM

What about an African Grey parrot that while looking into a mirror at itself asks "What color am I?"

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#528
In reply to #525

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 6:27 PM

What about a parrot that, when a mirror is placed in front of it, says, "Polly wants a cracker." The training is the same.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#529
In reply to #528

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 9:27 PM

It was a spontaneous question from a parrot.

The crux of animal self-awareness uncertainties lies in how to bridge the communication barrier. A parrot that speaks and understands spoken English words bridged that barrier. Primates using hand sign language bridged that gap, too. A chimp presenting empathy and sympathy for a handler's miscarriage did much more than just bridging that barrier.

On second thought, Ariel Sharon's last eight years also prove that some humans are incapable of opening their minds up to new ideas. Some people are just brain dead, forever.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#536
In reply to #529

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 8:50 AM

Provide a reference to a peer reviewed academic paper or papers on the subject of that parrot and I will be happy to read it and consider the merit of the case.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#542
In reply to #536

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 11:55 AM

I doubt you will read any scholarly paper on Alex. If you were open to the idea then you would've already taken the initiative to do a search on Google Scholar to find the over five thousand papers I quickly found. I'm certain you can find a few of those papers are from reviewers who also have closed minds.

The Scientific American article originally published in 1998 is a good introduction to how Alex was trained but it does not address how he would assemble words into new concepts.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#543
In reply to #542

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 5:51 PM

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Had you an open mind about gorilla MSR you wouldn't have insisted that a YouTube video challenged all prior interpretations of observed gorilla reactions to their mirror image. You would have done a simple search and found the paper I found, published one month ago, that further confirms earlier research that gorillas show no compelling evidence of self-recognition.

I did find a paper "from reviewers who also have closed minds". The title is "Mirror use by African Grey Parrots". One of the "closed mind" authors is I.M. Pepperberg, the trainer of Alex the parrot. Quote: "The data suggests that both birds viewed the mirror image as a conspecific." In other words, each parrot was unable to comprehend that the image in the mirror was an image of itself.

So, as with gorillas, so with grey parrots. Both exhibit impressive cognitive ability in certain areas, but oddly, both exhibit a cognitive incapacity of self-recognition, a capacity present in just about every human child older than 18 months.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster #4
#530
In reply to #528

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 12:10 AM

Aha! Now we know where the line was crossed! When Polly speaks of herself in the third person, that is not self-aware. But when she or another parrot uses the first-person "I", that is self-aware.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#537
In reply to #530

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 8:53 AM

I like your analysis.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#522
In reply to #517

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 12:09 AM

I replied with the video, NOT to challenge any academic paper you might be referencing.

I replied with a video to show that after reading relevant papers, the conclusion you arrived at, namely that (I'm paraphrasing here) 'gorillas consistently react with aggression when presented with a mirror even when given time to acclimate to said mirror'; is utterly and demonstrably incorrect. The implication being that if you get something as simple as that wrong and yet have such confidence to make the type of claim you did, then whatever you claim should be treated as suspect.

AFAICT, Silverbacks are the gorillas that respond to with agression mirrors, but not all silverbacks and not indefinitely.

Now presented with the video evidence showing your claim to be wrong, you attempt.to shift what you claim into something that less obviously wrong. To do that you have to give up on important aspects of your earlier claim, namely that no matter how long gorillas were around mirrors they always react with aggression. You thien presume that the gorillas in the video I responded had become familiar with mirrors previously, when there is zero evidence for this AND it still negates your original claim.

You simply refuse to ever admit having had the wrong idea, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary. This is a character flaw that will make those who realize it, generally discount whatever you say, if not use your claims as counterindicators.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#523
In reply to #522

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 9:03 AM

I have already stated that I remember reading an article that gorillas consistently react with aggression to their mirror image, but am unable to recall where I read it. From your linked video it appears that I remembered the 'react with aggression consistently and over time' part of the article incorrectly, but I did correctly remember the important part of the article. As follows:

Here is my quote from post #489: "After one exposure to their mirror image they are unable to understand that the image is not another gorilla. After numerous exposures to their mirror image the conclusion is that they are incapable of understanding that the image is not another gorilla."

Yes, TINAC, that is "the type of claim" I made. I should not have used the word 'conclusion' because, typically, researchers in this field do not use that word, but here, to quote again from 'Animal Behaviour' (May 1999) is "the type of claim" researchers have also made: "The gorillas did not show compelling evidence of self-recognition, even after four years of mirror exposure."

Your quote: "You then presume that the gorillas in the video I responded had become familiar with mirrors previously, when there is zero evidence for this ". Here is a link to a video on the same channel. The video was uploaded by the same person and it appears to be the same mirror and also videotaped in Gabon. https://youtu.be/tz0avWZoqjg That male gorilla remains actively aggressive and angry at its mirror image throughout the video. In your linked video, whether or not those gorillas had previous exposure to the mirror, all of their behaviour could be interpreted as a reaction to 'other' gorillas. The video does not challenge established research with respect to gorillas and MSR.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#526
In reply to #523

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 1:12 PM

Ariel Sharon showed no compelling evidence of self-recognition for eight years. Does that mean no human is capable of self-recognition, of course, it doesn't. You are just presenting another red herring fallacy to support your opinion.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#527
In reply to #526

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/10/2022 6:03 PM

red herring? That must be another of your examples of fundamental logic I am unable to understand. It is not my "opinion" that the video linked by TINAC does not challenge the findings of the three earlier MSR studies involving gorillas which I posted. It is your opinion that it does. Here is a quote from the paper "Mirror Self-Recognition in Gorillas" published 7 January, 2022 (one month ago), authored by Murray, Anderson, and Gallup:

From the Abstract: "These findings illustrate that methodological rigour does not guarantee stronger evidence of self-recognition in gorillas. By implication, it might be suggested that, in general, gorillas do not show compelling evidence of MSR."

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#533
In reply to #527

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 7:28 AM

Why are we still talking about this?

This branch of the thread arose because you claimed that no animals exhibit self awareness.

Back in post 489 you conceded that the scientific community is now in agreement about the interpretation of passing the mirror test:-

"There is no current active dispute with respect to mammal behaviour and the mirror test"

Gorillas are irrelevant. (As it happens we all agree that failing the mirror test does not preclude self awareness, and the fact that that Gorilla with ASL training invented a sign for itself because it found it difficult to sign "K"s with small thumbs, is a pretty clear indication that it was self aware.)

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#535
In reply to #533

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 8:43 AM

Yes, with respect to mammals, passing the mirror test is interpreted as self-recognition. Can a mammal that is incapable of self-recognition be nevertheless, self-aware? If so, it is an odd juxtaposition of cognitive capacity and incapacity. You put the gorilla in that category because it altered (altered is a more appropriate word than 'invented') a communication means to suit the structure of its hands. I have two cats. They fail the mirror test. One is a very large cat, the other is very small. They each use entirely different vocalizations to communicate their various desires. These vocalizations are not just different in pitch in accordance with each cat's size, but different in length, tone, texture...they each have developed a separate and unique communication means. Can we then conclude from this that these cats, to use a recent example, not just know their names, but know that they know their names, and are therefore self-aware? I submit that this is a rash interpretation, both with respect to cats, and gorillas.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#538
In reply to #535

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 9:42 AM

Sorry, when I said "invented a sign for itself" I didn't mean invented a sign on it's own for it's own convenience; I meant invented a sign to represent itself/its name.

But you have chosen to concentrate your answer on my "postscript" and effectively brushed over the main point of my post.

I see that you have acknowledged the validity of the main point:-

"Yes, with respect to mammals, passing the mirror test is interpreted as self-recognition."

But then tried to divert attention from it.

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#541
In reply to #538

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 11:24 AM

I guess I'm missing your point. Can bodily self-recognition (ie: MSR) be equated with self-awareness, the human sense of knowing that we know? This is a murky area. The questions around this are not nuts-and-bolts engineering questions. It is completely valid (for example) to test a truss design and positively conclude that the design will or won't support the predicted load. But there is no such certainty here. That is why researchers in this field do not use the words "we conclude" from any observed behaviour. They even hedge their use of the word 'interpreted' with 'could be interpreted'.

I did misunderstand the meaning of the gorilla signage you described (and have clarified). That is intriguing, I will admit. If gorillas are so capable of communicating with sign language then why can't researchers ask, "Hey, Mr. Gorilla, why can't you, since you seem so smart, figure out that the gorilla in the mirror is actually you?" or, "Hey, Samson, it is clear that you know your name is Samson, but do you know that you know your name is Samson?"

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#545
In reply to #541

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/12/2022 6:08 AM

"Can bodily self-recognition (ie: MSR) be equated with self-awareness?"

Yes.

"the human sense of knowing that we know?"

I suspect that that's a very advanced concept. The Greeks figured it out, but, since then it's probably a post Descartes concept.

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#546
In reply to #545

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/12/2022 9:29 AM

You answer with an unqualified "Yes" to the question, "Can bodily self-recognition (ie:MSR) be equated with self-awareness?"

Your certainty is not shared by researchers in the field. When the mirror test was introduced several decades ago, there was an assumption that mirror self-recognition implied self-awareness. As more and more animals have passed the test, including in 2018, a fish, the past assumption that this implies self-awareness is now seriously questioned.

Researcher De Waal (2019) asks, "Does the kind of body self-awareness demonstrated in the MSR test really equate to concepts about oneself as a psychological entity?" Researchers Kohda et al. write in 'Plos Biology' Feb. 2019, that with respect to the wrasse fish and MSR, "It has reawakened the debate over whether the paradigm is appropriate for testing self-awareness." They conduct their own test on the wrasse fish, and conclude that the fish "shows behaviour responses that fulfil the criteria of the MSR test but, we make no claims that our study proves fish are self-aware." (underlining mine)

So, the current thinking is that assumptions of self-awareness cannot be made from an MSR 'pass'. It obviously follows that neither can assumptions of self-awareness be made from a MSR fail (gorillas, African grey parrots).

Re: The human sense of knowing that we know. - Yes, it is an advanced concept, but it an essential component of self-awareness, and a concept easily understood by most humans. You refer to Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." We, as humans think, and know that we think. We know that we know. The MSR test does not test for this cognitive ability, so how in the case of gorillas, who fail that test, could we possibly ask in sign language, "Mr. Gorilla, do you know that you know?"

Self-awareness in non-humans is not "blindingly obvious".(to quote you from a past post)

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#548
In reply to #546

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/13/2022 7:49 AM

"Researcher De Waal (2019) asks, "Does the kind of body self-awareness demonstrated in the MSR test really equate to concepts about oneself as a psychological entity?""

Again: concepts about oneself as a psychological entity, is a much higher bar to clear than most humans are capable of independently.

I can't find that quote, and you haven't referenced where it comes from so we can't tell if you or someone else that you copied it from cherry picked it, or, took it out of context.

This whole branch of the thread seems to have started because of your comment in post #75:-

"I don't understand the relentless arguing by posters in this thread that humans do not by any measure transcend brute nature"

I countered in post 92 that:-

"I don't think anyone said or believes that. What I think most of us believe is that

"humans do not by any measure transcend brute nature""

In post #94 and subsequent posts you asserted that you did indeed believe that humans transcend nature, and you set self awareness as the bar you believed that no other creature could reach.

In this article:-

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000112

From February 2019, the same person you quoted above: Frans de Waal, explains his current understanding of the state of play. This is a section of the article:-

In short most scientist are now moving towards the understanding shown in graph B, with a continuity of self awareness understanding, but even the more traditional understanding shown in graph A has us joined by other hominids, elephants, dolphins and some corvids above the discontinuity.

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#549
In reply to #548

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/13/2022 12:26 PM

It appears you have quickly abandoned your outdated and dogmatic interpretation of the MSR test in light of current academic discussion.

"Does the kind of body self-awareness demonstrated in the MSR test really equate to concepts about oneself as a psychological entity?" I mistakenly attributed that statement to de Waal. It was made by Jennifer Vonk in her paper "A Fish Eye View of the Mirror Test" in which she critically comments on the de Waal paper you reference. Her following sentence is, "De Waal conflates these distinct aspects of self-awareness in his commentary despite making the insightful observation that we should not expect all-or-nothing cognition."

I wonder how de Waal would fit the human cognitive capacity to know that we know, into his gradualist framework. It seems that either a sentient being knows that it knows, or it doesn't. It is not a slide up a gradient. It is a step. I can't find any reference to this concept of self-awareness in the literature - probably because it can't be behaviorally measured. De Waal reasons that, "All animals need a self-concept. A monkey needs to know if a branch can carry his weight before landing on it...etc." Arguably then, a bug also has a self-concept, and a bug and a monkey have their places on the self-concept gradualist continuum. Fair enough. But how is the human cognitive capacity to know that we know fit on that continuum, if that cognitive capacity is shared by no other creature?

Show me convincing evidence that a monkey or any other creature knows that it knows and then I will acknowledge that cognitive self-awareness is not a unique human attribute.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#550
In reply to #549

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/14/2022 8:30 AM

"It appears you have quickly abandoned your outdated and dogmatic interpretation of the MSR test in light of current academic discussion."

I wasn't aware that I had expressed any opinion about the interpretation of the MSR test before very recent posts, except to point out that a failure does not indicate that a gorilla is not self aware.

"I wonder how de Waal would fit the human cognitive capacity to know that we know, into his gradualist framework. "

Very high up, certainly much higher than the average human without the advantage of learning from others.

You quote Jenifer Vonk:-

"De Waal conflates these distinct aspects of self-awareness in his commentary despite making the insightful observation that we should not expect all-or-nothing cognition."

Can you point out the place in the article where De Waal does this?

Do you think she can?

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#551
In reply to #550

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/14/2022 6:05 PM

Your quote: "I wasn't aware that I had expressed any opinion about the interpretation of the MSR test before very recent posts, except to point out that a failure does not indicate that a gorilla is not self aware." In your post #545 you answered with an emphatic, unqualified 'Yes' to my question, "Can bodily self-recognition be equated with self-awareness?" In my responsive post #546 I pointed out that your 'yes' answer to that question reflected early thinking that a 'pass' of the MSR test implied self-awareness, and that researchers are now seriously questioning that assumption. (I don't think you should be forcing me to re-iterate such a recent exchange - with your claim that you "weren't aware" that you had expressed any opinion...etc.)

Jennifer Vonk: "De Waal conflates these distinct aspects of self-awareness in his commentary despite making the insightful observation that we should not expect all-or-nothing cognition." Those are her words, not mine, but she has a point. De Waal, in his commentary on Fig. 3 uses the words self-concept, self-recognition, and self-aware as if describing the same thing. In contrast, Kohda et al. (in a paper I referenced in a prior post) do not conflate body self-recognition of a fish with self-awareness. They specifically state in their summary that they "make no claims that our study proves fish are self-aware", and confess that they are no longer sure what the fish pass "may mean for our understanding of self-awareness in animals and our interpretation of the test itself". But there is De Waal, ignoring these doubts of his colleagues, and on his sloped line, grouping fish with monkeys and parrots, above dogs and cats and pigs.

I asked: Where would de Waal place the human cognitive capacity to know that we know, into his gradualist framework? And you answer: "Very high up, certainly much higher than the average human without the advantage of learning from others." I agree that it would be high up. I disagree that the concept requires any advantage of learning or insight. Who would not understand the question, "Do you know that you think?" This is human self-awareness. It is not de Waal's "self-concept" that he describes as a monkey's ability to judge if a branch will hold its weight. By that measure, even a bug has a self-concept because it can move around and over obstacles. But to know that we think. To know that we know... In the absence of evidence that any living creatures other than humans possess this cognitive ability, De Waal's slope needs to be amended - with a step at the top, and humans alone at the top of that step.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#552
In reply to #551

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/14/2022 6:26 PM

Seldom have I ever seen anyone so deeply obsessed over an idea.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster #2
#554
In reply to #552

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/14/2022 10:08 PM

The obsession makes me worry about that cat.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#556
In reply to #552

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 9:41 AM

At different times no one posted on this thread for several days. It has always been others who have re-opened the discussion, not I. Regardless, why should you care? Are you strapped in a chair, head clamped in place, ophthalmic speculums holding your eyes open (as per Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange'), so that you are forced to read the comments? I hope so.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#558
In reply to #556

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 2:45 PM

Thank you for your kind wishes.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#557
In reply to #551

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 11:12 AM

Who would not understand the question, "Do you know that you think?"

There is a huge difference between being able to answer a question, and, realising that the question is appropriate to be asked.

Do you know that sometimes you don’t think?

Before reading my responses below, look through our recent posts, and your post #551 above: what do you think my responses will be?

.

.

.

.

Your quote: "I wasn't aware that I had expressed any opinion about the interpretation of the MSR test before very recent posts, except to point out that a failure does not indicate that a gorilla is not self aware." In your post #545 you answered with an emphatic, unqualified 'Yes' to my question, "Can bodily self-recognition be equated with self-awareness?" In my responsive post #546 I pointed out that your 'yes' answer to that question reflected early thinking that a 'pass' of the MSR test implied self-awareness, and that researchers are now seriously questioning that assumption. (I don't think you should be forcing me to re-iterate such a recent exchange - with your claim that you "weren't aware" that you had expressed any opinion...etc.)

My quote starting “ I wasn’t aware…” was in post 550: I consider post #545 to be recent compared to that.

Jennifer Vonk: "De Waal conflates these distinct aspects of self-awareness in his commentary despite making the insightful observation that we should not expect all-or-nothing cognition." Those are her words, not mine, but she has a point. De Waal, in his commentary on Fig. 3 uses the words self-concept, self-recognition, and self-aware as if describing the same thing.

In fact He does almost exactly the opposite:-

But much more to the point in post #549, you say:-

"Does the kind of body self-awareness demonstrated in the MSR test really equate to concepts about oneself as a psychological entity?" I mistakenly attributed that statement to de Waal. It was made by Jennifer Vonk in her paper "A Fish Eye View of the Mirror Test" in which she critically comments on the de Waal paper you reference. Her following sentence is, "De Waal conflates these distinct aspects of self-awareness in his commentary despite making the insightful observation that we should not expect all-or-nothing cognition."

Vonk is accusing him of conflating <concepts about oneself as a psychological entity> and <self-awareness>.

De Waal does not mention anything which could be considered similar to <concepts about oneself as a psychological entity>, so its difficult to see how he could have associated that idea with any other in either a positive or negative way.

I think I covered the third paragraph in my opening sentence.

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#559
In reply to #557

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 2:46 PM

Your quote: "Vonk is accusing him of conflating <concepts about oneself as a psychological entity> and <self-awareness>." No she isn't. You left out a word. Vonk is accusing him of conflating concepts about oneself as a psychological entity and body self-awareness. The current question among researchers, primarily in response to the wrasse fish MSR pass, is: Does the body self-awareness that seems related to an MSR pass equate to our traditional understanding of self-awareness (a concept of oneself as a psychological entity)? Even ten years ago, most researchers would agree with your emphatic 'yes', they do equate. Not so now. That a fish, by MSR measurement, can be placed on a scale of self-awareness higher than dogs, cats, and pigs (as de Waal does) has researchers (Kohda et al.) questioning "whether the paradigm (MSR test) is appropriate for testing self-awareness".

To return to what I see as a blindness in all of these studies: A fundamental characteristic of human self-awareness is that we know that we think, and that we know that we know. We have a perception that within us there is a first entity that thinks, and a second entity that knows that the first entity thinks. We can think about thinking. Or, almost identically, there is a first entity that knows and a second entity that knows that the first entity knows. The branch of philosophy known as epistemology could not exist without this human cognitive ability. The concept is easily understood by most people because it is part of the internal cognitive reality of human beings. In large measure, it is the defining characteristic of human self-awareness. But from an MSR 'pass', no assumption can be made that any animal shares this attribute of human self-awareness. Also, no assumption can be made from the problem solving ability of certain animals that they share this attribute of human self-awareness. Computers can solve problems, and we make no assumptions that they know that they know.

So, with no evidence that any animal shares this attribute of human self-awareness, and with no evidence that it is even emergent in any other creature (Either you know that you think, or you don't. There is nothing gradualist about it) human self-awareness does not fit on de Waal's sloped line figurative representation of self-awareness. To include humans, de Waal would have to stop his sloped line at its highest point, draw a vertical line up, and then a horizontal line. Humans, with their unique self-awareness, would be placed on this top step, above all other living creatures. But wait, you cry! That is not a sloped line continuum in accordance with the evolutionary framework of emergent self-awareness. I reply: It is not the scientist's task to fit the data into a theory. If the data doesn't fit, that is not the fault of the data.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#567
In reply to #559

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/17/2022 6:34 AM

"You left out a word. Vonk is accusing him of conflating concepts about oneself as a psychological entity and body self-awareness"

It's not her reference to <self-awareness> or <body self-awareness> that I'm objecting to, as I thought I'd made clear in this following sentence:-

"De Waal does not mention anything which could be considered similar to <concepts about oneself as a psychological entity>"

For you to ignore this sentence almost seems like a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the real issue.

Also, you have ignored, but, not challenged my assertion that: knowing that we know, and concepts about oneself as a psychological entity, are much higher bars than a non culturally evolved human would pass. Two things seriously affect human self-awareness:-

1.) Cultural evolution, which does occur a little in some other species, and, more importantly:-

2.) Mass communication, which started in humans long before the written word with story tellers and older people being able to explain lessons they've learned.

Of course the second of these two things enhances the first hugely.

Do you remember Donald Rumsfeld's "Known known; unknown unknown" speech. At the time he was ridiculed, and I guess that although many people understood exactly what he meant, the "man on the street" probably thought he was talking gobbledygook. But now that the ideas have "filtered down", I don't think anyone would ridicule or misunderstand him.

But all of that aside, your argument that humans have somehow been singled out is similar to comparing: giraffes with camels and llamas and other long necked animal; elephants with anteaters and other long nosed animals; narwhals with elephants, saber toothed cats and other animals with highly evolved teeth (although here perhaps venomous snakes do have a valid claim to a step change); web making spiders with bolas spiders, silk worms and other creatures which utilise bodily excretions to disable their prey.

There must be hundreds of examples, and, of course I have already mentioned several where the creatures superiority over other animals, including us, is in the brain.

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#568
In reply to #567

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/17/2022 10:00 AM

Quoting you: "...as I thought I'd made clear in this following sentence: De Waal does not mention anything which could be considered similar to <concepts about oneself as a psychological entity".

...and as I thought I made clear in my reply: "Does the body self-awareness that seems related to an MSR pass equate to our traditional understanding of self-awareness (a concept of oneself as a psychological entity)?" De Waal repeatedly refers to self-awareness in his paper. Vonk, in her paper, is implicitly stating that self-awareness is integral to 'a concept of oneself as a psychological entity' and is arguing that, in light of the recent MSR 'pass' of a fish, we should seriously consider the possibility that body self-awareness is not the same as the self-awareness that is integral to 'a concept of oneself as a psychological entity'. From my reading, she is not alone in this thinking, but de Waal makes no reference to this growing current of thought, and in my view she reasonably criticizes him for this omission.

I don't know where "non culturally evolved humans" could be found that wouldn't understand that we know that we know, and as I have argued, by no test can we assume that any animal shares this cognitive ability. How it came to be is a mystery, but it surely predates written communication. The biblical story of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is thought to have its source in pre-history story telling. The story can be interpreted as an attempt to explain what appears to be a sudden emergence of human self-awareness, to know that we know, to know that we think. Those elders from long ago had no problem understanding the concept, but they were baffled by how it came to be, and so created an interesting story to explain it. Researchers today remain equally baffled, but they lack the creative genius of those pre-history elders. They can't even come up with a good explanatory story.

Your examples of extreme differences between animals are physical differences, and by growing fossil evidence appear to involve no step change. Evolution of cognitive ability does not leave a fossil record. Archaeological findings have traced the development of tool making, but that provides no clue to when and how we came to know that we think. This ability, in my judgement, is inherently a step change. Either you know that you think, or you don't. Those prehistoric elders who told the forbidden fruit story would not have used the term 'step change', but the story is clearly describing just that. Science has brought us no closer to understanding it, and with the absence of evidence that any animal shares this ability, we currently have no choice but to draw a step at the top of de Waal's sloped line, and put human self-awareness on that top step, alone.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#553
In reply to #546

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/14/2022 7:58 PM

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#555
In reply to #553

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 8:29 AM

When I click on your posted video the message appears: YouTube.com refused to connect.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#560
In reply to #555

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 5:33 PM
__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#561
In reply to #560

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 6:44 PM

Cats are not on the list of animals that pass the MSR test. There are many videos of cats repeatedly attacking their image in the mirror. They think it is another cat. After repeated exposure they realize the meerkat mirror cat is no threat, and they ignore it.

In the comment section of this video someone wrote that the filmed cat has a housemate cat that has folded ears. So, consistent with cats' reaction to their mirror image, this cat thinks the cat in the mirror is its folded ear housemate. It doesn't act aggressively because the housemate cat is part of its family, but it is puzzled because the cat in the mirror, its housemate, does not have the familiar folded ears. It registers its confusion about the other cat it sees in the mirror, its normally folded ear housemate cat, by touching its own ears. I trust you find this explanation satisfactory.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#562
In reply to #561

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/15/2022 9:19 PM

You'll make up and then present all sorts of lies in the hope you will deceive somebody.

So how do you know what this cat thinks, you don't. That is a lie. There are no comments on the presented video site.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#563
In reply to #562

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/16/2022 8:54 AM

You are quick to call me a liar. The video posted by TINAC is a YouTube 'Short' and has no comments. The same video was posted by HiroshiRaleighTV and it does have comments. Less than 40 comments so the one I referenced is easy to find.

This is not the first time in this thread you have called me a liar. You earlier called me a liar for stating that within a patent document words can be given broader or narrower definitions than their their dictionary definition, provided this is set forth at the outset of the document. I know a bit about language use in patent documents and I know that this is true. Your accusation revealed your ignorance.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#564
In reply to #563

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/16/2022 12:56 PM

Are you the one holding the camera or personally know the cameraman of that amusing video? If not then you are a liar. It does not matter what comments are placed on another site about that video. People add amusing fantasies to videos for fun all the time. They are not claiming the fantasies are real, you are. You are a liar. The curator of the website with those comments, if it exists (you continue to expect us to take your word for everything), probably doesn't know who is the cameraman or cat.

If being called a liar really bothers you then stop presenting unsubstantiated stories as established facts.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#565
In reply to #564

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/16/2022 8:32 PM

Cats are on the list of animals that fail the MSR test. The cat's behaviour is explainable in accordance with that truth, which I have done. Please entertain me, and others here, with an explanation that is not in accordance with that truth.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#566
In reply to #565

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/16/2022 8:48 PM

Hey, Santa Claus, are you making a list and checking it twice?

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#569
In reply to #564

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/17/2022 10:05 AM

PS: As I did with HITekRedNek2 earlier in this thread, I have now reported your behaviour to the CR4 Administrators.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#531
In reply to #523

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 4:25 AM

"... The video does not challenge established research with respect to gorillas and MSR. ...."

.

As I noted earlier, there was no intention on my part to challenge the establjshed research. My intent (and apparent effect, if the level of concern in your reaponses is any indicator) was to challenge your wild nonestablished interpretation of the research. So, it seems, we are not at odds on everything: the establshed research need not be discounted. I will still insist that there is plenty of room for error in interpreting such research, as you have generously demonstrated at your own expense.

.

Staying with that theme: what is this you commented about 'gorilla remains....angry at its mirror image'?!?

Okay, aside from the gross over reach in assuming you can perceive 'anger' from the behavior of a gorilla, doesn't your act of anthopomorphizing the gorilla's behavior 'prove' (in the same way that you want to prove determinists aren't really determinists because of current western jurisprudence) that in fact you do see gorillas as being capable of human complex traits (like anger) of which a necessary component must be a sense of self?

Anyway, how can you imagine a gorilla perceiving an image to be an 'other gorilla', without the juxtaposition of 'non-other gorilla' being a concept available to them. Certainly 'non-other' in this senario would equate to 'self'.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#539
In reply to #531

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 10:19 AM

My "wild nonestablished interpretation of the research" you say? You are out to lunch. The researchers do their own interpretation. I just reported on it. It is irrelevant that I incorrectly recalled the duration of aggressive behaviour shown by gorillas when first confronted with their mirror image. I already admitted this (yesterday I think), and here you are still dancing with glee at my memory slip up, and pretending that this discredits everything I have written. It is inexpressively petty. The consensus interpretation (which I correctly stated) is that gorillas, in MSR tests "do not show compelling evidence of MSR". This quote is from the paper 'Mirror Recognition in Gorillas" published one month ago.

As for your little 'other gorilla' and 'non-other gorilla' semantic jig-a-jig, I suggest you write to the authors of the referenced paper (Murray, Anderson, and Gallup) and share your great insight with them. It is sure to shake up the scientific community in this field.

As for your 'anger' argument: Poke a stick into a hornet's nest and 'angry' is the word we use to describe the hornets' reaction. It does not mean that we see hornets as capable of human complex traits and therefore probably have a sense of self. It is astonishing how much nonsense you can pack into one post. But there is even more...

You bizarrely connect my use of the words 'angry' and 'gorilla' in one sentence, back to our determinism/free will discussion! You just won't give it up will you? Okay, I'll humour you with this (why, I ask myself): My argument made no reference to western jurisprudence, as you continue to bone-headedly assert. It is utterly simple. Both determinists and those who believe in free will react with contempt to certain human behaviour (I gave examples), and this is evidence that determinists actually believe in free will regardless of what they profess. You have presented no sensible refutation. Now, can we please put it to rest?

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#544
In reply to #539

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 11:25 PM

The reason it isn't being given a rest is because nature of it. It being your insistence on continued attempts to foist upon readers, as if fact, a litany of mischaracterizations, distortions, distractions, misunderstandings and instances gross over-confidence (where in you presume to know that someone in reality actually thinks what you say they think, directly contradicting what they report about their own thoughts, OR alternately where in you proclaim what an animal definitively does think or even what an animal cannot think).

It is completely your right to think whatever you want, however wrong it may be. However when you trot out your absurdities, telling other people that you know what they actually think (contradicting what they have stated) you should expect pushback.

If you want it to just be given a rest, then stop presenting as fact, your fantasy/conjecture about things you do not know.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#547
In reply to #544

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/12/2022 9:31 AM

Thanks for my morning smile.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#532
In reply to #523

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 5:01 AM

Let's include a little more from #489:

"....Gorillas consistently act with aggression to their mirror image, even after days and weeks of exposure. Interpretation: After one exposure to their mirror image they are unable to understand that the image is not another gorilla. After numerous exposures to their mirror image the conclusion is that they are incapable of understanding that the image is not another gorilla. Gorillas do not fail the mirror test in a passive manner (ie: by ignoring their image, like my cats). They fail actively, dramatically, and indisputably ..."

.

You cherry picked the center presumably because you felt confident about it. This shows you still don't grasp the severity of your misunderstanding. There is not one sentence in the above quote that can be correctly discerned from the research discussed. Not one!

Gorillas do not consistently act with aggression to mirrors. Videos document this

None of the observations can demonstrate that they are incapable of understanding the image is not another gorilla. The only thing thar can be said is that compelling evidence of self recognition is not forthcoming in the MSR test. Understand these are two different concepts entirely.

There is no conceivable way that the MSR test could be failed "actively dramatically and indisputably". The MSR might be not be passed in an indisputable fashion, but once again that is not the same.

If you cannot understand the distinction you should not try to use scientific studies to support your arguments/beliefs until such time as you can.

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#540
In reply to #532

Re: Is evolution correct?

02/11/2022 10:30 AM

...and you continue to dance with glee that I incorrectly recalled (and I have acknowledged that I incorrectly recalled) from an article I read some time ago, the duration of gorrilas' aggressive behaviour towards their mirror image. Give it a break.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster #1
#202
In reply to #197
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 11:47 AM

Perhaps he would like you to see and consider his point rather than extolling your point as factual and concise and nothing else can possibly be correct.

You are also a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Is this not what happens on this site many times over? There are a good few here.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#203
In reply to #202

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 12:03 PM

I did show that I considered his point of view but there has been no reciprocation. I and others also repeatedly bolstered our perspective that animals are self-aware in the dictionary's meaning of self-aware but all I get back are unsubstantiated opinions. By asking for a proposed suitable observation supporting my perspective I am in effect pleading for reciprocity.

Respect should be a two-way street.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#204
In reply to #203

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 3:32 PM

If he plays his harp loud enough and long enough, maybe he'll get into heaven.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
2
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 147
Good Answers: 9
#205
In reply to #204

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 4:42 PM

Much antagonism, distracts from topic. The question is correctness not perfection, a judgement, not an exclusion-oroof package. Evolution, including cultural evolution, explains so much so well that it wins my acceptance over anything else. I see the appeal of the "elses" but am too much of a realist even in old age to flip.

The big divide is not a polarization but rather a spectrum with few at the extremes, like the world population where the closer to the poles, the fewer people.

One of these “poles” is belief in impossibles (miracles) learned in infancy when all is miraculous and explanation is impossible. This lasts through childhood and pervades the rest of our lives to varying degrees, hence the spectrum. It is never completely unlearned despite needs to live with rational thinking, the other pole. Logic may make our lives longer and fuller, but the spectre of death and the comforting image of miraculous power support the need for impossibles.

All this is rational as cultural evolution, but when we’re in it we often can’t see it, and resist getting outside of our protective shells. This accounts for much resistance to vaccination as well as the fear of chemicals. It leads to the biologically impossible image of being poisoned by eating fish which have eaten plastics. (Plastics are not bio-toxic, nor even metabolizable/digestible by fish or human.) And to the avoidance of numbers such as energy which might challenge the sanctity of degradability and recycling. But the images persist because humans tend to believe what we want/need to be true.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Anonymous Poster #1
#206
In reply to #204

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 4:42 PM

Now now girls, don't get your knickers in a knot. Play nice.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7959
Good Answers: 284
#308
In reply to #173
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

01/06/2022 6:21 PM

__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#21
In reply to #7
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 9:18 AM

If you have ever owned a dog then you know they are self aware, can posses a guilty conscience,can be jealous and sympathetic.If you yawn,they will yawn.If a child cries,they will cry.

I had a Lab/Sheppard mix that took a piece of chicken from a picnic table and took it to another dog nearby that was tied and could not get to the feast.

I tend to like dogs much better than I like most people.

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Land of Shining Waters
Posts: 788
Good Answers: 31
#29
In reply to #21

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 9:57 AM

See my post #27 in reply to dkwarner.

__________________
It is easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put the cat back in the bag.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#20
In reply to #5
Find in discussion

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 5:11 AM

Depending on which biblical story you read and believe this also shows flaws. Eve being the second wife and Lilith being the first wife. So we have an untruth here. Edison being the man who invented the light bulb when in fact he was not the man who invented the light bulb. Same story with Alex Bell and the phone. Antonio Meucci was the man who invented the first working telephone.

All these misleading 'facts', (lies actually), of what we are told to believe and carry forward in life, indirectly affect our lives and decisions we make are based on untruths.

So why would the theory that we have been lead to believe of evolution of humans be any different.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
2
Guru

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Placerville, CA (38° 45N, 120° 47'W)
Posts: 5989
Good Answers: 242
#45
In reply to #20

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 3:26 PM

"So why would the theory that we have been lead to believe of evolution of humans be any different."

because there is abundant evidence that can be seen right now by any observant person, especially one who studies archeological/geological artifacts.

There is zero evidence of the existence of any original Adam or other first man, or first couple who suddenly appeared or became human.

__________________
Teaching is a great experience, but there is no better teacher than experience.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 147
Good Answers: 9
#52
In reply to #20

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/17/2021 2:20 AM

Your examples are extremes, yes-no, lie-truth, but there is a huge middle between yes-no. Numbers (and probabilities) matter. Edison didn't do nothing and deserves some credit. We are distorted if we see everything as the product of an individual, when it's grouping and following that does much of the work. That's why we can see behaviors as Darwinian.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - Wannabeabettawelda

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Posts: 7192
Good Answers: 416
#10

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/15/2021 2:41 PM

Kill for fun?

I can see you have never owned a cat. My cats will bring home trophies of birds, mice, and moles that they have no intention of eating.

As for warfare you don't have to dig very deep to find this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Whitetail deer are over-populated. Ask anyone with their bumper, lights, hood and fenders that get all smashed up.

If all you want to find is cruelty in the human race, that is what you will find.

Like Mr. Rogers once said, "Look for the helpers" and you will find many more good people than bad people.

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22633
Good Answers: 409
#13

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/15/2021 5:25 PM

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Australia - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 1085
Good Answers: 23
#18

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 1:58 AM

Being clever does not mean intelligence.

__________________
Dont get on to the roundabout if you dont know how to get off
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: May 2018
Location: Under the spreading Bunya Trees, South Burnett, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 610
Good Answers: 57
#19

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 3:52 AM

Partly wrong with your generalisation that only hums kill for pleasure, wild dog packs kill for pleasure, as do packs of feral pigs, just ask any farmer who has found animals killed and left.

Ants go to war over disputed territories as do termites. Iam sure many other creatures kill for pleasure or go to war just do some research to find how wrong these generalisations are.

__________________
Hare today, goon tomorrow!
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#23

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 9:25 AM

Considering the fact that the Earth is billions of years old,and it only took millions of years for mankind to develop,there may have been many advanced civilizations before the present one.

Some of the UFO's may be past civilizations dropping in for a peek at how we are doing.

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#33
In reply to #23

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 10:24 AM

There have been many civilisation's that came and went and no more exist. Many quite advanced and we base much of our learning on what they knew. So where did evolution come in if these people were here long before the so called modern man? Were they different from us?

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#35
In reply to #33

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 10:43 AM

Who knows what knowledge was lost when the library of Alexandria was destroyed?There exists a very accurate map of Antarctica without ice from centuries ago..where did it come from?The Antikythera mechanism? The precision cut stone works all over the world?The melted stone walls of Scotland?The precise placement of hundred ton blocks of stone?What is our real history?

Mankind seems to fit the definition of an invasive species.

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#36
In reply to #35

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 11:03 AM

Totally agree with you as there is much we don't know. There is also many theories that have been put out and disproved. We tend to BS the world with ideas that are taken as factual and soon proved to be wrong. We also take facts and declare them conspiracy. So why do we believe that humans evolved far better than any other animal?

For evolution to take place changes cannot happen quickly as genes require time to evolve and adapt over a long period of stable time. Smarter genes are passed on by older people not younger people as there genes have not had time to gather the required information to create changes, and to start to adapt to these changes. Humans have longer life spans. Virus's evolve quickly as they have very short life spans.

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: MSP, MN
Posts: 711
Good Answers: 8
#46

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 3:31 PM

Last night I was licking my toad (not a euphemism), which enables me to speak with God. Funny story, He likes to be called "the Dude" and calls me "Doc." So I said "Dude, what's the deal with humans anyway?"

"Humans? What are those?"

"C'mon Dude, you created them just 5000 years ago."

"Oh, yeah! Doc, I've created trillions of sentient races in my day, so excuse me if I forget some of my mistakes."

"Well, why did you create them?"

"It was a dark and lonely night in Heaven and I was bored. Then I thought "I'll create a race and give them Free Will and see what happens." As you know I like to run the show, but I decided to let these little buggers make their own decisions. And I sprinkled some old bones and fossils around so the humans would invent evolution and think they were descended from monkeys, which I also created because they are just so fun to watch."

"That's it? You were bored?"

"Life in Heaven isn't all fun and games, you know."

"Ok, so now what happens?"

"Well, as you know the Dude is omniscient, so I can see all and, well, it's not good. Humans trash their planet, which I created and gave them, and now they are going to exterminate themselves."

"That's terrible! Can't you stop it?"

"Sure, but I gave them Free Will and they made their bad choices. Who am I to intervene?"

"Dude! You're the almighty, the creator, the King of Kings, the big Kahuna, master of all space and time!"

"Just not feeling it. Let them go the way of the Dodo, which was, in hindsight, not one of my best ideas either."

"Please! I just got the latest iPhone!"

"Sorry, the Dude chooses to start over with another race, but this time I will give them Free Will 2.0, which is just like Free Will, except I will smite all the bad guys and turn them into toads."

"Oh. Well, that sounds good. But you're gonna have lots of toads. Can I have some? They lose their taste after the first lick."

"Jeeze, sorry, Doc, but you're not part of the new race. You're going to die with the rest of humanity."

"Bummer. Well, I gotta get some shuteye, I have monster trucks and strip clubs tomorrow."

"Ah, FYI those things will never be invented by the new race. But I will start them off with Velcro and root beer, about the only things the humans got right. Sleep tight, Doc."

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 1282
Good Answers: 22
#48

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/16/2021 3:55 PM

Humans have changed the way they evolve, by evolving their surroundings to their requirements where every other animal will adapt to changing surroundings or move to where the surroundings are more suited to them.

But, in my opinion, the biggest issue with humans in general is an inability to be content.

We have lost the “contented” gene which all other animals have.

__________________
Madness is all in the mind
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NASA-Glenn Research Center, Cleveland Ohio
Posts: 389
Good Answers: 17
#67

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/17/2021 11:16 AM

quite a few wrong statements like the "only kill for fun".. ever have a cat?

and all animals would over populate if given the opportunity, but once carrying capacity of the land is met, starvation, disease, predators are the population limiters.

and for the old "humans are overpopulating the world" statement... 1% of the world is covered in highly populated areas. i think when you live above your neighbor on the 60th floor in a city and only see other like buildings, one believes the world is like this.. it isn't.

to finally answer your initial question.. aliens. they came and tried to tell the lab rats that they created them, and were interpreted as gods. in a similar way as Cortes to the Aztecs.

some day we may realize that earth is just a science fair project for some alien student.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 30948
Good Answers: 1726
#98

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/18/2021 7:37 PM

The Fastest Evolving Regions of the Human Genome

__________________
Break a sweat everyday doing something you enjoy
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 30948
Good Answers: 1726
#99

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/18/2021 8:27 PM

__________________
Break a sweat everyday doing something you enjoy
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#150

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 12:15 PM
__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#151

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 12:38 PM

One of the things that modifies natural selection is sperm donors.

This man has fathered over 100 women.

https://www.jta.org/2021/10/20/united-states/jewish-serial-sperm-donor-ari-nagel-nears-100-children-after-a-prolific-pandemic

If you calculate that the average family in the USA is less than 2.1 kids per couple,this guy has over 50 times more chance to have his genes passed on.

And there are many more sperm donors that have a great many children.

If you construct a genetic tree,starting with 2,and doubling every 20 years,in 20 generations there will be millions of descendants.

Start with 100,and you can reach that level in a little over 6 generations.

Maybe my math is off,but will future generations be dominated by women's choice of a sperm donor?

Case in point:No one has a unique family tree.

After 20 generations it turns into a bramble of bushes,impossible to trace.

My children have twice as many ancestors as I do,and so on.

So everyone is more closely related to everyone else than they realize.

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 1282
Good Answers: 22
#152
In reply to #151

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 1:38 PM

No, your children will be unlikely to have twice as many, as there will be some time in the past where the branches have met before.

How far back is anyones guess, but for now most people can only trace back a few generations - and some of them find they are in a relationship with a fourth cousin's aunt. ( I know someone who discovered that after many years of marriage).

__________________
Madness is all in the mind
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#153
In reply to #152

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 2:37 PM

That is exactly my point..no one has a totally unique ancestry.

That is why I said that the family tree quickly becomes a bramble bush.

I, or you could be as closely related to someone on the other side of the world as a person I meet on the street.

There was a bottleneck in the human population where the population went from millions to almost extinct.

Mitochondrial DNA traces most all humans back to 30 fertile females.

We all have common aunts.We are all one big family.

But still we fight.

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#157
In reply to #153

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 4:26 PM

You seem to be eluding to Adam and Eve who got wiped out in a flood, so you now have Noah and his family of 3 sons who we believe had wives. So evolution restarted with 8 people? About 4359 year ago. Seems to be a family business and we inherited bad genes.

Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#158
In reply to #157

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 4:52 PM

My explanation is too long to go here,so read and comprehend this link for a more thorough explanation of the Mitochondrial Eve.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#159
In reply to #158

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 5:30 PM

You should know by now that reference material will not change minds.

I do have a problem with the Mitochondrial Eve story that the original authors often misstated when this was a new story. These small scores of women identified as the Mitochondrial Eves were not the only women living during their lives. They were the only women to produce descendants living today. I claim it is a safe presumption that other Mitochondrial lineages died out over the years. I'm very glad to see that this report does address this problem.

I also wonder if multiple similar Mitochondrial sequences might be erroneously lumped together as being from one female ancestor that didn't actually exist.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#167
In reply to #157

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/23/2021 2:41 AM

According to Bishop James Ussher, the earth was created in 4004 BC. Add 2021 years and you get 6025 years ago. So where do you get 4359?

Both scenarios are completely ridiculous, of course.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#166
In reply to #153

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/23/2021 2:24 AM

That is incorrect. All only children do have unique ancestries.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#160
In reply to #152

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/22/2021 6:58 PM

Here is a link to a very mixed up family tree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 44.56024"N 15.307971E
Posts: 6471
Good Answers: 249
#168

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/23/2021 8:07 AM

In considering that all Baryonic matter is only a small fraction of the universe,and dark matter and energy makes up the rest,who are we to claim that that events that are not explainable or repeatable in the lab are impossible?

There are some things that defy known scientific definition.

We are a frog in a well,and we think that our visible universe is all there is.

We can imagine what is beyond our discoverable and provable abilities.

Consider 2 rabbits,side by side in the lab.

One dies instantly,the other remains alive.Blood taken at the instant of death reveals the same exact chemicals in each rabbit.

Most of the individual cells are still active.

If some cells are "inactive"in the deceased rabbit,are they the source of "life"?

Why is one alive and one dead?

Where does the "life force" go?

If it is energy of some type,it is not destroyed.

So what is the difference?

Could this energy be detected with sufficiently sensitive equipment?

__________________
"A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." "Never argue with a stupid person.They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Posts: 4318
Good Answers: 128
#182

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 7:20 AM

To go back to first principles - evolution, like any scientific theory, is neither right nor wrong. It can be confirmed by observation or experiment, but if anything contradicts it, the theory must be discarded in favour of something better. That doesn't necessarily mean the earlier theory is useless, Newtonian mechanics works well enough in most circs, only breaks down at relativistic speeds.

__________________
Give masochists a fair crack of the whip
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22633
Good Answers: 409
#184
In reply to #182

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 7:30 AM

There are surprising a lot of people that doesn’t realize that science has to be questioned and challenged. And it’s the normally the same ones that would mark it OT, and it’s normally the ones that are locked into classroom academia.

As technology advances, Science itself evolves with observations.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#183

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 7:27 AM

It's pretty clear from my original question, that no one has an answer, but have many side tracks, none which can verify why humans have evolved far quicker than all other animals.

Perhaps aliens, grape juice and stardust injections is the answer to why the missing link is still missing. I hope someone finds it soon.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 1282
Good Answers: 22
#186
In reply to #183

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 8:00 AM

There are many animals which have survived in their current form since long before humans existed, even in our most primitive form.

Sharks are one: but there are many species, each perfected for its own habitat and food source.

I have no doubt that at some point other, extinct, shark species will be discovered. The cause of their demise will be either lack of food, or major change in habitat, or the arrival of a new predator.

Humans are one of the animals who build their living environment to suit themselves, rather than adapt to conditions: ants and bees also make structures to hold their communities and to suit their demands.

Humans are still evolving: average height and weight are increasing while food supplies are plentiful and medicine is useful.

But we are so conceited as a society that we think we are invincible, and look at what happens as soon as a flood of severe storm hits: most sit back and wait for others to sort out their issues rather than rebuilding for themselves.

__________________
Madness is all in the mind
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Posts: 4318
Good Answers: 128
#191
In reply to #183

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 10:10 AM

That's because there is no answer to your original question, as I said in #182

__________________
Give masochists a fair crack of the whip
Register to Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK
Posts: 5265
Good Answers: 287
#195
In reply to #183

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 11:02 AM

"none which can verify why humans have evolved far quicker than all other animals."

I don't understand why you keep saying that.

We have developed larger, and more importantly more plastic parts of some specific parts of our brain. I don't deny that that makes us unique or special in some way, but, an elephants trunk, a giraffes neck and a narwhals incisors make them far more unique. Within the brain some dogs olfactory processing ability many sea creatures and bats echo location processing ability, and many animals memories outstrip ours by many times.

Here's an article from scientific American "What Makes Our Brains Special?"

Here are a couple of snippets:-

"Other researchers have found that traits once believed to belong solely to humans also exist in other members of the animal kingdom. Monkeys have a sense of fairness. Chimps engage in war. Rats show altruism and exhibit empathy. In a study published last week in Nature Communications, neuroscientist Christopher Petkov and his group at Newcastle University found that macaques and humans share brain areas responsible for processing the basic structures of language. [Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]"

"Aida Gómez-Robles, an anthropologist at The George Washington University, and her colleagues compared the effect of genes on brain size and organization in 218 human and 206 chimpanzee brains. They found that although brain size was highly heritable in both species, the organization of the cerebral cortex—especially in areas involved in higher-order cognition functions—was much less genetically controlled in humans than in chimps. One potential explanation for this difference, according to the researchers, is that because our brains are less developed than those of our primate cousins at birth, it creates a longer period during which we can be molded by our surroundings."

__________________
We are alone in the universe, or, we are not. Either way it's incredible... Adapted from R. Buckminster Fuller/Arthur C. Clarke
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 20964
Good Answers: 780
#207
In reply to #183

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/28/2021 10:34 PM

There several reasons why human evolution has spreader faster than among other species.

1. Natural selection, as originally described by Wallace and Darwin, is mostly very gradual.

2. Sexual selection, also described by Darwin after Origin, can proceed quite a bit faster, not only in humans, but also in other species. Fashion fads can be really quick examples.

3. Cultural evolution is also faster.

4. Brain size, sexual selection, and cultural selection can collectively act in concert to result in relatively quick evolution for all of them together.

None of this is difficult or obscure, so it is disappointing that you don't already know of it.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#208
In reply to #207

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 6:43 AM

Glad you are disappointed Mr Tornado. You must be feeling very smug with yourself right now. Elevated and proud, no doubt. I am glad I contributed to your happiness.

Now re-read the original question. For it is not proving correct so far.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Posts: 4318
Good Answers: 128
#209
In reply to #208

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 8:27 AM

It's neither correct nor incorrect. Like any other scientific theory it's accepted unless or until it's found wanting, at which a better theory might take it's place.

__________________
Give masochists a fair crack of the whip
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15105
Good Answers: 936
#210
In reply to #208

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 8:31 AM

Well, first of all, many of your suppositions in the original question have already been shown to be false. Thus your question comes from a false premise. Until you recognize this you cannot see how we have answered any part of your unclarified question.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Placerville, CA (38° 45N, 120° 47'W)
Posts: 5989
Good Answers: 242
#212
In reply to #208

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 11:21 AM

I did just re-read your original post (having read it several times previously). It includes at least seven questions, some of which do not have question marks. That count does not include the title question.

Which of those eight or more questions is "the original question"?

Assuming that the title "Is evolution Correct?" is "the original question", then as several others have pointed out, the answer is: "Yes and no."

If you mean: "Does evolution occur?", the answer is unequivocally YES. I have lived long enough to have personally observed it happening.

If you mean something like: "Does evolution predict exactly how organisms will change over time?", then the answer is NO.

__________________
Teaching is a great experience, but there is no better teacher than experience.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2004
Good Answers: 29
#213
In reply to #212

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 1:13 PM

Lets take this to a sensible place now all have had a good research on Google and Bing.

The theory of Evolution is simply that, a theory that is accepted to be possibly true. It is not factual and cannot be backed up fully to prove it is true. It is an assumption accepted by many as being a possibility. That is fact. You cannot deny this.

The theory of evolution was bandied around way before Charles Darwin/Alfred Russel Wallace, Jean Baptise Lemark, (1744-1829). And there were a few who pondered this idea, even before Darwin/Wallace and Lemarck.

Darwins book, Origin of the Species was published in 1859, in the Victorian era. The maths say's that was 162 years ago.

The Nasca lines were discovered in 1941. Göbekli Tepe was discovered in 1963. The advanced stone work of Pumapunku. I wont go on. These people who built these places were not idiots. They were advanced people who had clearly evolved. They had sophisticated societies, had advanced technology and incredible knowledge. This, however, is a theory, firmly rejected by mainstream scholars who oppose the idea that such advanced civilisations existed on Earth at a time when they say primitive man inhabited our planet.

Oddly, these discoveries were all after Darwins Origin of the Species.

Now up to 2021. We have technology today that was not even thought of 165 years ago. Man has discovered things that he assumed did not exist 1000 years ago. The Antikythera mechanism (/ˌæntɪkɪˈθɪərə/ AN-tih-kih-THEER-ə) is an ancient Greek hand-powered orrery, described as the oldest example of an analogue computer[1][2][3] used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses decades in advance.[4][5][6] It could also be used to track the four-year cycle of athletic games which was similar to an Olympiad, the cycle of the ancient Olympic Games.[7][8][9] This artefact was among wreckage retrieved from a shipwreck off the coast of the Greek island Antikythera in 1901.

Therefore, based on what Darwin/Wallace knew in 1865, they may have been quite correct when looking at their findings from Lemark and others, and on the understanding of the Victorian day. No one here can truly convince me that Darwin/Wallace, or Lemarck considered the Mayans, Inca, Dilmun, Zapotecans, or any other advanced and lost civilisation, as he knew nothing about them. They may have been more evolved than they thought.

But we do now thanks to technology and rethinking what we once thought we knew. These humans were advanced and very evolved, if we compare what they have build, left behind as a legacy and what we have used from them, such as medicines, building techniques, writing, maths and science. These so called prehistoric people were not so prehistoric but very evolved peoples. Perhaps more so than you realise.

So we have evolved to 2021 with new technology and that has shown discoveries not known 165 years ago. We have learned of civilisations who, when we think they had simple tools to use, turn out to be far more clever than we modern day humans, as we cannot do what they have done without technology and clever tools, and still we cannot do what they have created, I have to ask, have we as a modern species evolved?
We really have no idea how pyramids were built, we can harbour a guess, a theory, an idea that sound plausible. We really have no idea what they were built for, but surmise they align with the stars. We have no idea how 100 tonne granite blocks were moved, but we can harbour a theory.

We have a theory of evolution, but if it is challenged, many forget that there was advanced civilisations who have been and gone and who were evolved in many ways. So with all the new discoveries made to date, 165 years later, can you be sure that modern day humans have evolved as we like to believe?

So think about the above before jumping to the spew forth wisdom, consider the past as compared to the now. The theory is challenged. And remember, the evolution theory is just that, a theory. It is not factual, but assumed to be fact that is unproven.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Placerville, CA (38° 45N, 120° 47'W)
Posts: 5989
Good Answers: 242
#214
In reply to #213

Re: Is evolution correct?

12/29/2021 1:52 PM

The disappearance of species, and therefore cultures and civilizations, is as much a part of evolution as is the appearance/development of new species.

I've studied the Antikythera mechanism several times, and marvel at the intelligence and knowledge of the designer, as well as the incredible skill of the craftsman or craftsmen who built it. But none of these things disproves the OBSERVABLE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.

Since you can't accept that which is observable, or perhaps have a totally different concept of evolution, I now bow out.

__________________
Teaching is a great experience, but there is no better teacher than experience.
Register to Reply
Register to Reply Page 5 of 6: « First < Prev 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »
This discussion was "closed" on 02/17/2022 12:27 PM. No new comments are allowed.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (12); bgot (23); Brave Sir Robin (1); canadianslidewinder (143); Codemaster (5); DaveD (10); dkwarner (23); garth (1); GM1964 (7); Griffex (28); HiTekRedNek (27); hitekrednek2 (18); IQ (20); lyn (1); phoenix911 (16); PWSlack (1); Randall (37); redfred (96); setlock77 (3); SolarEagle (8); SSCpal (1); Stef (1); tkot (1); Tornado (23); truth is not a compromise (63)

Previous in Forum: Old pipe insulation: is it amosite asbestos?   Next in Forum: Parker Solar Probe touches surface of the sun

Advertisement