Animal language (Animals)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 15:07 (3597 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Do you think nature would have been unbalanced without the specifically, divinely planned weaverbird's nest, and thus unable to produce humans?-This is an extreme twisting of my thought. I simply believe there is an enormous diversity in life's branching outcomes, and that this bush of life is part of the plan. Balance of nature is the only concept I see that explains it, if an explanation is warranted. Humans arrived. That is enough for me to accept that God's evolutionary process was successful Remember, I think our presence is enough explanation. I repeat, I accept atheist Gould's thought that we are here against all odds, I don't accept chance as a mechanism , so it must be God's design.
 
> DAVID: You neatly skipped my point, which is the size of the gaps. Of course, I see the progression, but I concentrate on the unexplained gaps, and I have my own explanation. 
> 
> dhw: You have claimed that humans are different in kind from our fellow animals because ”the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.” I am trying to show that the gap we now see is the result of an orderly progression, which can be traced as I've described above. Please explain what you see as the giant leap in the examples I have given.-The point is I don't see a giant leap in your 'progression'. Our sudden development of a giant brain is a giant leap, to me comparable to the Cambrian. Based on the existing challenges of nature 8 million years ago, it was an unnecessary change. Current apes prove that to me.-> dhw: You wrote that “there is no evidence that our brain which appeared about 250,000 years ago was not equal to the one we have now. We simply needed time to learn to use it.” Do you disagree with my description of how we learned to use it?-No. -> dhw:Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”).-That is a possible solution to my dilemma.-> dhw: We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism.-The obvious extreme complexities of our brain makes your suggestion very far-fetched.
> 
> dhw: So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention?
> 
> DAVID: Yes, to a much lesser degree than humans in the areas of reason, design, planning, communication and invention. With emotion they can show more love than we deserve, can show disappointment, depression, excitement etc.
> 
> dhw: Thank you for using the word “degree”. Much more appropriate than the word “kind”.-Appropriate for your views. Just a slip of the typing fingers. On reflection, in the area of emotion it is degree, in all other areas it is kind.