Animal language (Animals)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 15, 2015, 00:06 (3599 days ago) @ dhw


> I wrote, and you quoted: "How do you think the first birds made their nests?" The first weavers must have had the ability to design them, and “bit by bit” is your invention, not mine. I am against Darwinian gradualism...... My alternative suggestion ...is that the first cells passed on an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly God-given) which would -...- ultimately lead to billions of innovations, including weaver birds working out for themselves how to build a nest.-But you do believe in gradualism: did the weaverbirds spend time 'working out' the whole nest at first or a little bit at a time?-> 
> dhw: That is because you are resolutely opposed to the idea that our fellow creatures are able to think for themselves, although you frequently quote articles which prove they can.-Of course they can work out very simple mental issues. You just won't recognize the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.-> 
> dhw: You have missed the point. We don't understand their [bird, animal] aesthetics, .... In my example, the prospective mate will choose between the songs/displays of the suitors. One will seem to her/him more attractive than the others. That = animal aesthetics.-It is you who is using the aesthetic term 'attractive'. We don't know that the response is not an automatic response to a certain note. And you can't claim you know it is 'attraction'. Neither you or I know which is correct.-> 
> dhw:I am not imposing human attributes on our fellow animals; we have inherited those attributes from them. Animals are not less advanced humans. Humans are more advanced animals.-I accept your point. The attributes started before we evolved. But I view the gap as a difference in kind, and you don't. At no other point in evolution do we see such a gap, except at the Cambrian.