What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[juvenissun]

How does that support the idea that the difference in intelligence between a gorilla and a duck is smaller then between a chimp and a human?

We can trap and kill all of them, right?
That shows the big difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you also have something constructive to contribute to the conversation, instead of these one-liner bare assertions without a shred of evidential support?

What other evidence do you like to see?

 

[Ophiolite]

More evidence for you: Have you seen a chimp, or any animal cook its food? How much intelligence difference is there between eating cooked and eating raw food?

If you like to see more evidence, I have hundreds for you.

If you fail to answer my question on this occasion I shall be reporting you. Intransigent refusal to answer a reasonable question is, as I understand it, against forum rules, it is also extremely impolite. Stop answering a question I have not asked and answer the one I have asked.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We can trap and kill all of them, right?
That shows the big difference.

You can trap and kill humans easily too.

 

[juvenissun]

You can trap and kill humans easily too.

Yes, intelligence among humans are at the same level when compared to animals.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes whales or dolphins could be superior in intelligence to us, depending on how you measure intelligence...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, intelligence among humans are at the same level when compared to animals.

But you have repeatedly said that animals have less intelligence than humans for the majority of this thread. Do you retract that claim now?

 

[juvenissun]

But you have repeatedly said that animals have less intelligence than humans for the majority of this thread. Do you retract that claim now?

Of course not. You compare human with human. What does that have anything to do with what I said?

 

[toLiJC]

One thing Descartes definitely did not trust was sensory input. You look out, out your window, and say you see people walking around. But for all you know, they could be hats and coats on robot coat racks. The senses give only an abstract impression of what's out there.

why again that descartes?!, why must we necessarily follow descartes or reconcile ourselves to his philosophy instead of thinking clearly?!, and what kind of sick idea is to assume that only we are living (be)souled beings while all others are unsouled robots?! (this reminds me of a scene of one movie in which a caveman dropped/threw stones on/at the leg of another caveman who cried out in pain, as if he thought that man is not a living human being)

Blessings

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course not. You compare human with human. What does that have anything to do with what I said?

But your claim was the following:
"We can trap and kill all of them, right?
That shows the big difference."

I said that you can trap and kill humans easily too. So that means that you were demonstrably wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes whales or dolphins could be superior in intelligence to us, depending on how you measure intelligence...

By overall achievement.
We can watch dolphin show in aquarium.

 

[juvenissun]

But your claim was the following:
"We can trap and kill all of them, right?
That shows the big difference."

I said that you can trap and kill humans easily too. So that means that you were demonstrably wrong.

OK, modify it:
We can trap and eat all of them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, modify it:
We can trap and eat all of them.

We can eat humans too. It's called cannibalism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are the evidence.

No, I am not. If you can't provide evidence that something is an invention or the result of some invention, how could you ever view the existence of said item as evidence of some inventor?

 

[PsychoSarah]

They are all approximately equal when compared with that of human.

They demonstrably are not. Many species of birds can use human speech in unique ways to convey meanings. Yet, an amoeba reacts in such a set pattern that you could never really train them to do anything they aren't going to do in some natural situation. Do you think so little of your dog that you would put it on the same level of intelligence as a jellyfish, an animal that doesn't even have a brain? What barrier to you think exists that makes chimpanzee intelligence perfectly explainable via naturalistic process, but not human intelligence?

I don't even understand your logic here: if you view human intelligence as so extraordinary that it couldn't have possibly evolved, how can you view chimpanzee intelligence, which in some tasks surpasses ours, as not defying evolution in some way? I don't get why your argument is so human centered that you would allow any other trait to be influenced by evolution but that one, including the intelligence of every other species on Earth.

That is the evidence.

My intelligence, nor anyone else's, is not evidence of some designer unless you can provide evidence that disproves all other reasonable possibilities. For example, say there is a 3 meter deep hole in the ground, and you want to claim that I dug it. I deny this. This is how you properly defend such a position.

1. Usually, the first step one would go for is demonstrating that the hole wasn't dug by some other animal or the result of some natural cause. A hole dug with a shovel will not look like such holes, so you could point out the shape of the hole, the size, the markings on the sides of it... heck, you might even catch a lucky break and have a used shovel nearby to present as evidence.

2. Once you have gathered sufficient evidence that the hole was dug by a human, that still wouldn't be sufficient to reasonably claim that I am the one that dug it. After all, there are many humans out there capable of digging holes, and probably a good portion of them could do a better job of it than me. Looking for dirt under my fingernails and testing where it came from, figuring out the shovel is mine thanks to it having some defining characteristic, and removing any possibility of an alibi would all help to amount to evidence that I had dug the hole that was stronger than even if I had claimed to have done so. Establishing a motive for doing it would help as well, but not be inherently necessary.

You haven't even touched step 1 for assuming my or anyone else's intelligence could count as evidence for some designer. Unless you can disprove any alternative possibility, such as evolution, with actual evidence rather than claims, our intelligence isn't evidence for anything other than the fact that intelligence exists... and quite a few people question even that. Step 2 is necessary to get a "specific designer", so even if you somehow got step 1 completed (which you have yet to even try), you would still need to get through this step to make any claims on the nature of this "intelligent designer".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you think you can find a dog, or a cat as smart as you are?
I don't.

Irrelevant, being the most intelligent species we know of OVERALL (as in, when you average all the subjects, because as I have mentioned before, many animals beat us in singular cognitive functions) says nothing of the plausibility of our intelligence being the result of natural selection. After all, if a species ever did start getting so smart as to challenge us for our niche, ONE OF THE SPECIES WOULD END UP KILLING THE OTHER. That's why you don't see two species exactly like an Arctic tern, or like an emperor penguin, or like a tiger, or like a zebra, living with the exact same behaviors in the exact same ecosystem eating the exact same foods. Inevitably, the species compete with each other for resources until one adapts to a slightly different lifestyle that doesn't compete with the other species, one dies, or they both die. This is why invasive species are such a risk to native ones; species that take up the same niche cannot long term coexist in the same ecosystem without something changing.

Considering how badly we tend to treat our own species just for disagreements, can you even imagine humans tolerating the existence of an equally intelligent and aggressive race of rhinos? Newsflash, there used to be many species near as intelligent as us, maybe even a bit more (it's hard to say); as many as 5 different species like that existed at the same time. The reason why this is no longer the case: these species lived in different environments from each other, thus didn't compete much for resources. Then our ancestors began travelling into their territory and competing with them for resources until they starved to death. We're perhaps the worst invasive species that has ever existed, because not only have we been directly responsible for the extinction and near extinction of thousands upon thousands of species, but we are also responsible for introducing thousands of other invasive species into vulnerable environments that they are now destroying. We pushed the Neanderthals into cannibalism before they finally died, going so far as to crack open each other's bones to eat the marrow.

 

[juvenissun]

We can eat humans too. It's called cannibalism.

You are intelligent, would you do that?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't even understand your logic here: if you view human intelligence as so extraordinary that it couldn't have possibly evolved, how can you view chimpanzee intelligence, which in some tasks surpasses ours, as not defying evolution in some way? I don't get why your argument is so human centered that you would allow any other trait to be influenced by evolution but that one, including the intelligence of every other species on Earth.

I think you do understand. We cook our food, chimp does not. Why?

 

[juvenissun]

Irrelevant, being the most intelligent species we know of OVERALL (as in, when you average all the subjects, because as I have mentioned before, many animals beat us in singular cognitive functions) says nothing of the plausibility of our intelligence being the result of natural selection. After all, if a species ever did start getting so smart as to challenge us for our niche, ONE OF THE SPECIES WOULD END UP KILLING THE OTHER. That's why you don't see two species exactly like an Arctic tern, or like an emperor penguin, or like a tiger, or like a zebra, living with the exact same behaviors in the exact same ecosystem eating the exact same foods.

I don't see any animals can even remotely threat us based on their intelligence. This is very very unusual.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are intelligent, would you do that?

Intelligence has nothing to do with. It's all to do with circumstance. Many carnivorous and omnivorous animals across the world will not actively engage in cannibalism, but only if the situation leaves them with no other alternative but to eat one of their own.