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

[DogmaHunter]

Otherwise, we will be equally intelligent as our dogs.

Why?

You're not making any sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you reach that conclusion? Not all animals that are nonhuman are equally intelligent to each other, so why would you ever think that?

I'm gonna take a wild guess here, but the reason is probably something that comes down to "...cuz the bible"

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That is ridiculously false.

 

[toLiJC]

No, no. Not Descartes at all. Descartes lived at the beginning of the Enlightenment and Age of Skepticism. With he Thirty Years War, many were coming to doubt all they had been taught about religion and everything else. That included Descartes, who says via his life that he has come to doubt everything he was taught in his strict Catholic upbringing. He now wants to explore just how we can know things. it's no longer enough to say you know, you have to say how. Examine the whole learning process. He thinks the place to start is with radical doubt. That is your built-in [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] detector. If you can doubt something even in the least , then drop it. This, by the way, led to the modern idea that if you have the least doubt about a person's guilt, then let him go. Descartes ran through a systematic list of things he could doubt, including even that he had a body. The only thing he couldn't doubt was that he was doubting and that meant the only thing you cam be one-hundred percent sure of is that you are a thinking substance. You should read his "Meditations " some time. Major work in philosophy. Now, he did argue that there was a God. But that angered the church, since he was basing everything on reason, not revelation. I hope this helps.

to mistrust things that are suspicious, but if there are things plain enough, such as individual sensorium, sentience, mind and consciousness (because every man has his own perception and usually doesn't know what is in the minds of the others), then what uncertain thing will we have so that we should mistrust it?!

Blessings

 

[Hoghead1]

to mistrust things that are suspicious, but if there are things plain enough, such as individual sensorium, sentience, mind and consciousness (because every man has his own perception and usually doesn't know what is in the minds of the others), then what uncertain thing will we have so that we should mistrust it?!

Blessings

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am so tired of repeating this. It is worse than teaching a kindergarten kid.
Compare yourself with dog, cat, cow, sheep, etc. Are you standing out sooooo much in intelligence?

1. No. Your assertion is that the difference in levels of intelligence of different species of animals is small and insignificant compared with that of human intelligence. Are you now retracting that assertion? To be clear, you appeared to claim earlier that while animal A may be more intelligent than animal B the difference between them was small compared with the difference between them and humans.

So, I ask again, do you still maintain this is true? If you do, will you please provide proper evidence, not unsubstantiated opinion, to justify your claim that the intelligence of an ape is about on a par with a haddock, when compared with a human.

2. I suspect their may be research showing that kindergarten kids have a genuine difficulty in understanding the importance of evidence and peer reviewed articles and relevant citations and logical argument. You might want to be more cautious, therefore, about making veiled ad hominems. Especially when they lack foundation.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, in certain areas we are. I've yet to see a dog pass high-school algebra, though these is evidence dogs have some capacity to count. I know dogs can hear sounds way beyond our range of hearing, but I've never seen one conduct a symphony. Have you? After all, if as you say, all creatures are equal in IQ, then there must be a maestro dog somewhere. Hmmm. What symphony orchestra does he or she conduct?

Birds can fly, cow can digest grass. Can you? Are you dumber than a bird or a cow because of that?

 

[juvenissun]

Go against a chimpanzee in a memory test. You'll lose. Does this mean the chimpanzee is smarter than you?

I can trap a chimp. That is the ultimate proof.

 

[juvenissun]

1. No. Your assertion is that the difference in levels of intelligence of different species of animals is small and insignificant compared with that of human intelligence. Are you now retracting that assertion? To be clear, you appeared to claim earlier that while animal A may be more intelligent than animal B the difference between them was small compared with the difference between them and humans.

So, I ask again, do you still maintain this is true? If you do, will you please provide proper evidence, not unsubstantiated opinion, to justify your claim that the intelligence of an ape is about on a par with a haddock, when compared with a human.

2. I suspect their may be research showing that kindergarten kids have a genuine difficulty in understanding the importance of evidence and peer reviewed articles and relevant citations and logical argument. You might want to be more cautious, therefore, about making veiled ad hominems. Especially when they lack foundation.

Yes, that is what I said many many times.
Evidence? I also said that many many times. Do you have a chimp family as your neighbor? NO. That IS the evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, that is what I said many many times.
Evidence? I also said that many many times. Do you have a chimp family as your neighbor? NO. That IS the evidence.

Are you even bothering to read what I have written?

Please provide evidence that the difference in intelligence between a haddock and a gorilla is small compared with the difference between the intelligence of a human and either of those. This is what you have claimed. Now justify it with more that a trite and silly irrelevance.

Evidence is peer reviewed research published in reputable journals, or - at worst - a tightly argued network of observation and logic. It is most certainly not an offhand opinion with no obvious relevance to an argument, asserted by someone who appears to have little or no education in the matters under discussion.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you even bothering to read what I have written?

Please provide evidence that the difference in intelligence between a haddock and a gorilla is small compared with the difference between the intelligence of a human and either of those. This is what you have claimed. Now justify it with more that a trite and silly irrelevance.

Evidence is peer reviewed research published in reputable journals, or - at worst - a tightly argued network of observation and logic. It is most certainly not an offhand opinion with no obvious relevance to an argument, asserted by someone who appears to have little or no education in the matters under discussion.

Evidence is something obvious. Your neighbor is not a chimp family is an obvious fact. It is an excellent evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

You said:
" If intelligence evolved that fast, then we should have a supper super smart ameba."

If that doesn't imply that you think that "intelligence" is an inevitable outcome of evolution, then I have no idea what the point of that sentence was.

No. It does not apply. Without human, intelligence of life goes nowhere. It does not evolve at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

You're not making any sense.

You are not as dumb as your dog. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evidence is something obvious. Your neighbor is not a chimp family is an obvious fact. It is an excellent evidence.

1. No. Your definition of evidence is ludicrous. Perhaps you have not taken any education in science. That would make your confusion understandable. I urge you to acquire a better understanding of the nature of evidence before making further indefensible statements.

2. In what way is the fact that a chimp family not my neighbour evidence that a haddock and a gorilla have very similar intellects when compared with a human?

3. Once you have answered that question then - for the third or fourth time of asking - please provide the evidence to support your contention that a haddock and a gorilla have very similar intellects when compared with a human.

4. And please answer the questions I have asked, not the questions you think I asked.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm beginning to think Juvie's having a bit of fun with you all on this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are not as dumb as your dog.

Right, you've said that already.

My question was why you think that means that intelligence can't evolve........

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidence is something obvious. Your neighbor is not a chimp family is an obvious fact. It is an excellent evidence.

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?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. It does not apply. Without human, intelligence of life goes nowhere. It does not evolve at all.

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

 

[juvenissun]

2. In what way is the fact that a chimp family not my neighbour evidence that a haddock and a gorilla have very similar intellects when compared with a human?

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Right, you've said that already.

My question was why you think that means that intelligence can't evolve........

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