What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Immanuel Can]

...I still think evolutionists owe us an explanation for that complete dearth of transitional forms that their own theory would make us expect.

Well, again, according to evolutionary theory, every living thing is a transitional form.

That's what the theory wants us to believe, alright: except it's not true, obviously. Everything is a fixed species. There are no inter-species cases. Not one.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would I "need to show" anything?

It's called, "having rational grounds to assert a claim."

You are the one asserting a claim...

No, you are the one who said your dog's a moral philosopher. I think it's an absurd claim. But if you can substantiate it by more than your wishfulness, I'll be happy to consider your evidence.

[Age]

...I still think evolutionists owe us an explanation for that complete dearth of transitional forms that their own theory would make us expect.

Well, again, according to evolutionary theory, every living thing is a transitional form.

That's what the theory wants us to believe, alright: except it's not true, obviously. Everything is a fixed species. There are no inter-species cases. Not one.

FINALLY 'this one' HAS GOTTEN SOMEWHERE, and thus IS ACTUALLY GETTING SOMEWHERE, here.

[Alexiev]

It's called, "having rational grounds to assert a claim."

You are the one asserting a claim...

No, you are the one who said your dog's a moral philosopher. I think it's an absurd claim. But if you can substantiate it by more than your wishfulness, I'll be happy to consider your evidence.

I said it in response to your claim that non-human animals have no sense of moral responsibility. I provided you with one small piece of evidence that you are wrong. There are many others. You, on the other hand, have offered not a scintilla of evidence in support of your claim. You are simply making it up -- you have no way of knowing if it is true; you believe it not because of any evidence other than a story about how Adam and Eve ate fruit from a tree which gave them knowledge of good and evil. The silly notion about how humans were made in God's image is, in fact, contradicted by the notion that they attained moral philosophy (knowledge of good and evil) through sin. Which is it? Did we become moral philosophers at our creation? Or when we ate the forbidden fruit? Perhaps our moral acuity evolved, just as our culture, our bodies, and our brains evolved. Doubtless the moral philosophy we see demonstrated in other species differs from our own, but why assume it is non- existant?

By the way, there's an interesting Adam Gopnik article in this week's New Yorker about modern literary and historical criticism of the Gospels. Apparently, some modern scholars are doubting the notion that the gospels (written in Greek, a language Jesus and his disciples didn't use) were compilations of the oral histories of Jesus' life. Instead, they appear to be more literary, using themes and motifs of Greek literature.. The idea is that they are more akin to Hans Christian Anderson stories than to the "collected" stories of the brothers Grimm. For anyone interested, here's a link.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025 ... rine-nixey

[Immanuel Can]

You are the one asserting a claim...

No, you are the one who said your dog's a moral philosopher. I think it's an absurd claim. But if you can substantiate it by more than your wishfulness, I'll be happy to consider your evidence.

I said it in response to your claim that non-human animals have no sense of moral responsibility.

It's your burden to prove they do. There's no evidence they do.

I provided you with one small piece of evidence that you are wrong.

No, you provided me with a personal anecdote that you would like to assume is somse sort of evidence. It's not at all evident that your interpretation of the animal's brain functioning in that case is right. There are very different interpretations that make equal sense, at the very least.

Show that your dog preferentially rescues pregnant women on principle, not by chance, instinct or conditioning. Show his code, maybe.

[Alexiev]

No, you are the one who said your dog's a moral philosopher. I think it's an absurd claim. But if you can substantiate it by more than your wishfulness, I'll be happy to consider your evidence.

I said it in response to your claim that non-human animals have no sense of moral responsibility.

It's your burden to prove they do. There's no evidence they do.

I provided you with one small piece of evidence that you are wrong.

No, you provided me with a personal anecdote that you would like to assume is somse sort of evidence. It's not at all evident that your interpretation of the animal's brain functioning in that case is right. There are very different interpretations that make equal sense, at the very least.

Show that your dog preferentially rescues pregnant women on principle, not by chance, instinct or conditioning. Show his code, maybe.

I don't think I'll bother. Clearly, you ignore all evidence (we discussed the capuchin monkeys experiment before) that suggests you might be wrong. I'm sure you're not interested in the article I linked, either. You appear to be anti- intellectual.

What do you think could possible constitute evidence, if not witnessed behavior? You already discounted the inference that capuchin monkeys had a notion of "fair play" -- clearly a form of morality. I suppose you think not only non- humans, but also non-Christians, lack moral principles. Wrong (even bigoted and stupid) on both coumts.

[Immanuel Can]

I said it in response to your claim that non-human animals have no sense of moral responsibility.

It's your burden to prove they do. There's no evidence they do.

I provided you with one small piece of evidence that you are wrong.

No, you provided me with a personal anecdote that you would like to assume is somse sort of evidence. It's not at all evident that your interpretation of the animal's brain functioning in that case is right. There are very different interpretations that make equal sense, at the very least.

Show that your dog preferentially rescues pregnant women on principle, not by chance, instinct or conditioning. Show his code, maybe.

I don't think I'll bother. Clearly, you ignore all evidence (we discussed the capuchin monkeys experiment before) that suggests you might be wrong.

You don't know anything about monkey alleged 'moral culture', obviously. Because you're wrong about that, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGvblv_ts4. Now see that, and tell me about how moral they are.

What do you think could possible constitute evidence, if not witnessed behavior?

To make a justified claim about what's going on in the mind of a dog, you would have to know what is going on in the mind of a dog. You're not a dog, and don't have magical access to the mind of a dog. Therefore, you don't know why dogs do what they do.

QED.

[Alexiev]

It's your burden to prove they do. There's no evidence they do.


No, you provided me with a personal anecdote that you would like to assume is somse sort of evidence. It's not at all evident that your interpretation of the animal's brain functioning in that case is right. There are very different interpretations that make equal sense, at the very least.

Show that your dog preferentially rescues pregnant women on principle, not by chance, instinct or conditioning. Show his code, maybe.

I don't think I'll bother. Clearly, you ignore all evidence (we discussed the capuchin monkeys experiment before) that suggests you might be wrong.

You don't know anything about monkey alleged 'moral culture', obviously. Because you're wrong about that, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGvblv_ts4. Now see that, and tell me about how moral they are.

What do you think could possible constitute evidence, if not witnessed behavior?

To make a justified claim about what's going on in the mind of a dog, you would have to know what is going on in the mind of a dog. You're not a dog, and don't have magical access to the mind of a dog. Therefore, you don't know why dogs do what they do.

QED.

Nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable to make logical inferences based on the behavior of dogs or monkeys. As with all scientific inferences, this does not constitute "proof". But ir does constitute "evidence".

You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence whatsoever foe your claim that non-humans have ni sense of morality and justice, despite their behavior suggesting that they fo.

Maybe you should read the article I linked. It might enlighten you about modern academic approaches to the study of the Gospels. Then you could move out of the dark ages, and into the modern world of scientific inference and literary criticism.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think I'll bother. Clearly, you ignore all evidence (we discussed the capuchin monkeys experiment before) that suggests you might be wrong.

You don't know anything about monkey alleged 'moral culture', obviously. Because you're wrong about that, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGvblv_ts4. Now see that, and tell me about how moral they are.

What do you think could possible constitute evidence, if not witnessed behavior?

To make a justified claim about what's going on in the mind of a dog, you would have to know what is going on in the mind of a dog. You're not a dog, and don't have magical access to the mind of a dog. Therefore, you don't know why dogs do what they do.

QED.

Nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable to make logical inferences based on the behavior of dogs or monkeys.

What do you "infer" from the behaviour you witnessed in the video, courtesty of the BBC and David Attenborough?

[Alexiev]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=763138 time=1743610534
What do you "infer" from the behaviour you witnessed in the video, courtesty of the BBC and David Attenborough?

I infer that Attenborough is British, because of his accent. I also infer, from both the video and, even more from DNA testing, that we share a common ancestor with chimps. I also infer that someone othe than A.
was present, videoing the hunt.

I could go on, but I'd rather discuss the Gopnik article.

What do you infer from that?

[Immanuel Can]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=763138 time=1743610534
What do you "infer" from the behaviour you witnessed in the video, courtesty of the BBC and David Attenborough?

I infer that Attenborough is British, because of his accent. I also infer, from both the video and, even more from DNA testing, that we share a common ancestor with chimps. I also infer that someone othe than A. was present, videoing the hunt.

But you infer nothing about monkey morality. So obviously, you have no ability to infer anything about dog morality, either.

P.S. -- the Gopnik article has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, apparently. So it's a complete red herring, not an answer.

[Alexiev]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=763138 time=1743610534
What do you "infer" from the behaviour you witnessed in the video, courtesty of the BBC and David Attenborough?

I infer that Attenborough is British, because of his accent. I also infer, from both the video and, even more from DNA testing, that we share a common ancestor with chimps. I also infer that someone othe than A. was present, videoing the hunt.

But you infer nothing about monkey morality. So obviously, you have no ability to infer anything about dog morality, either.

P.S. -- the Gopnik article has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, apparently. So it's a complete red herring, not an answer.

As usual your inferences are illogical. I never wrote that my stated inferences constituted all my inferences. How could you possibly assume I did?

Also, if you knew anything about biology, you would not infer that chimps are monkeys. They aren’t.

I could infer from the video that chimps sometimes cooperated when hunting and then share the kill.

[Immanuel Can]

I infer that Attenborough is British, because of his accent. I also infer, from both the video and, even more from DNA testing, that we share a common ancestor with chimps. I also infer that someone othe than A. was present, videoing the hunt.

But you infer nothing about monkey morality. So obviously, you have no ability to infer anything about dog morality, either.

P.S. -- the Gopnik article has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, apparently. So it's a complete red herring, not an answer.

I never wrote that my stated inferences constituted all my inferences.

Good. Then let's have some relevant inferences, starting with what you infer from the video about monkey morality.

How could you possibly assume I did?

Well, because you didn't offer anything relevant. Pretty obvious, actually.

[Alexiev]

But you infer nothing about monkey morality. So obviously, you have no ability to infer anything about dog morality, either.

P.S. -- the Gopnik article has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, apparently. So it's a complete red herring, not an answer.

I never wrote that my stated inferences constituted all my inferences.

Good. Then let's have some relevant inferences, starting with what you infer from the video about monkey morality.

How could you possibly assume I did?

Well, because you didn't offer anything relevant. Pretty obvious, actually.

I'm not sure why you want to know -- but we cannot infer anything about monkey morality, because the video was about chimpanzee behavior, not monkey behavior. I suppose we can infer that the monkeys did not want to get eaten by the fact that they feared the chimps and fled from them.

I can infer from this discussion that you are ignorant about biology and incompetent rhetorically.

[Immanuel Can]

I never wrote that my stated inferences constituted all my inferences.

Good. Then let's have some relevant inferences, starting with what you infer from the video about monkey morality.

How could you possibly assume I did?

Well, because you didn't offer anything relevant. Pretty obvious, actually.

I'm not sure why you want to know...

Well, because you claimed to have insight on the moral motives of dogs, Dr. Doolittle.

You're not this dumb. I know you're just evading a question you can't answer.