Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

How do you know to make a bonobo an execption? You still aren't answering that central question.

They can't do anything to fire. So they don't belong. They are too stupid.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They can't do anything to fire. So they don't belong. They are too stupid.

Chimps and other non human apes have been observed teaching their children human sign language without prompting from people.

 

[[serious]]

They can't do anything to fire. So they don't belong. They are too stupid.

As the video demonstrated, they can make and use fire. They wouldn't be an exception if you proposed system actually worked here. Why are fire using bonobos not human under your system and why are non fire using humans still human under your system?

 

[juvenissun]

As the video demonstrated, they can make and use fire. They wouldn't be an exception if you proposed system actually worked here. Why are fire using bonobos not human under your system and why are non fire using humans still human under your system?

Why do you stick on this example so much. It is meaningless. We can teach a chimp to do anything and he would probably learn it. But that is not about chimp. It is about human, the trainer. We can train any animal to do anything.

It is a very inappropriate example/argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Chimps and other non human apes have been observed teaching their children human sign language without prompting from people.

What does the chimp say?

 

[Mainframes]

What does the chimp say?

Usually something along the lines of:

It is this fate, I solemnly assure you, that I dread for you, when the time comes that you make your reckoning, and realize that there is no longer anything that can be done. May you never find yourselves, men of Athens, in such a position! Yet in any case, it were better to die ten thousand deaths, than to do anything out of servility towards Philip [or to sacrifice any of those who speak for your good]. A noble recompense did the people in Oreus receive, for entrusting themselves to Philip’s friends, and thrusting Euphraeus aside! And a noble recompense the democracy of Eretria, for driving away your envoys, and surrendering to Cleitarchus! They are slaves, scourged and butchered! A noble clemency did he show to the Olynthians, who elected Lasthenes to command the cavalry, and banished Apollonides! It is folly, and it is cowardice, to cherish hopes like these, to give way to evil counsels, to refuse to do anything that you should do, to listen to the advocates of the enemy’s cause, and to fancy that you dwell in so great a city that, whatever happens, you will not suffer any harm.

 

[Aureus]

Why do you stick on this example so much. It is meaningless. We can teach a chimp to do anything and he would probably learn it. But that is not about chimp. It is about human, the trainer. We can train any animal to do anything.

It is a very inappropriate example/argument.

Human knowledge and behavior is passed down by teaching. We are but one generation away from barbarism if we did not do so.

Apes, once taught, whatever the source, pass on their knowledge.

That seems like a pretty important characteristic.

What does the chimp say?

"Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death."

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Why do you stick on this example so much. It is meaningless. We can teach a chimp to do anything and he would probably learn it. But that is not about chimp. It is about human, the trainer. We can train any animal to do anything.

It is a very inappropriate example/argument.

How do you think we learn to create fire? Instinctually?

If we didn't "train" the next generation of humans, no one would know how to create fire.

 

[[serious]]

Why do you stick on this example so much. It is meaningless. We can teach a chimp to do anything and he would probably learn it. But that is not about chimp. It is about human, the trainer. We can train any animal to do anything.

It is a very inappropriate example/argument.

The bonobo study in most familiar with does not formally teach this stuff. They use tools around the bonobos and the bonobos pick up how to use the stuff. This is exactly the same way humans learn most stuff. Also exactly like humans, bonobos than pass on these learned behavior to their children.

So again I ask you, if bonobos are perfectly capable of raising and using fire when exposed to the practice in the same way humans are, how would you know, under your system, that bonobos aren't the human kind?

 

[juvenissun]

The bonobo study in most familiar with does not formally teach this stuff. They use tools around the bonobos and the bonobos pick up how to use the stuff. This is exactly the same way humans learn most stuff. Also exactly like humans, bonobos than pass on these learned behavior to their children.

So again I ask you, if bonobos are perfectly capable of raising and using fire when exposed to the practice in the same way humans are, how would you know, under your system, that bonobos aren't the human kind?

I guarantee you that chimp will NOT teach his baby how to use fire.

Stop it. People raised chimps since historical time. We have never seen any society of those educated (civilized?) chimps do anything beyond what wild chimps usually do.

Chimps in zoos live in artificial "caves" for generations. If you released them to the wild, I bet none of them will become a cave dweller.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you think we learn to create fire? Instinctually?

If we didn't "train" the next generation of humans, no one would know how to create fire.

Your offsprings won't
Mine will.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guarantee you that chimp will NOT teach his baby how to use fire.

So what?

Why does that exclude chimps from sharing the same kind with humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

Every classification is.

So I can classify a sparrow as a mammal, if I so prefer?

 

[juvenissun]

So I can classify a sparrow as a mammal, if I so prefer?

Yes, but you should explain why.

 

[juvenissun]

So what?

Why does that exclude chimps from sharing the same kind with humans?

They are tooooo dumb.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

I would reply by saying this is the same guy who claimed that the banana was the Atheist's Nightmare.

I would also reply by saying this is the same guy who has had the basic facts about what evolution means explained to him over and over, yet continues to misuse the term, clearly demonstrating his dishonesty.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What does the chimp say?

Oh, they taught their baby to sign about 50 words, which, considering the adults only knew about 150 that is pretty good for about a years worth of time. They sign in sort of awkward, but grammatically sensible and following syntax, sentences.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, but you should explain why.

Because sparrows are an exception!

 

[[serious]]

They are tooooo dumb.

So now we have the human kind as something that can be taught to use fire and has some threshold intelligence. Next question. If, due to intellectual disability a person did not reach a threshold intelligence to learn to use fire, would that person still be human? I suspect like me you would say yes, but what rationale would exist for this under your system?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, they taught their baby to sign about 50 words, which, considering the adults only knew about 150 that is pretty good for about a years worth of time. They sign in sort of awkward, but grammatically sensible and following syntax, sentences.

I have no problem with that.

But their conversations are limited to the domain of chimp concerns. I don't think there is a sign that says: fire.