Do animals grieve?

[BSM1]

LOL, what kind of question is this? Of course they do. You can see it in household pets when one of their own dies.

Heck, this doesn't quite qualify as grieving (the dog probably didn't know what had happened), but there's even a documented case of this one dog in Japan that seemed to ritualize its grieving and dwell on it for years. The critter was smart enough to walk to the train station to meet his owner when he got back from work. Even after the owner died, though, the dog would always go to the same spot and wait. For nine years.

That wasn't grief, for Heaven's sake, that was simply Pavlovian stupidity.

And they can say "geez" at the end of pointless comments - and stick out their tongues as an apparently rude gesture

I, too, have noticed this in many unicorns.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course animals grieve. I feel bad for anyone who even has to ask this question, because they obviously haven't spent much time around animals.

 

[Valjean]

One of the most moving examples I heard of is from the 1980s of a chimpanzee named Washoe who, like Coco the gorilla, was taught sign language. One of her caretakers "disappeared" for several weeks and when the woman came back, the chimp gave her the cold shoulder for abandoning her (she had been acquired by the researchers after her mother was killed). The researcher signed that she'd left because her baby had died (miscarriage) and in response, Washoe looked dejected and then signed "I cry" to show she was sorry.

There are lots of examples of chimps grieving. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/chimps-grieve-over-dead-relatives

I saw the story on a PBS documentary some 2 decades ago and don't recall the name of it. As for research beyond the internet, I suggest looking up Roger Fouts who has written about it. He too was a primate researcher.

The Naturalist Joe Hutto observed grief in mule deer. Touching the Wild | Full Episode | Nature | PBS

EDIT: My family has stray cats we feed and they breed every summer. When a queen is separated from her kittens she gets very distressed, and if I remember correctly, they seem to display sadness (as much as a cat can) when the kittens die (which happens often, on account of sickness or toms killing them).

Your family really needs to get those cats spayed/neutered.

The areas of the brain 'lighting up' may well be the result of "expectation postponed".....on the part of the animal. Animals may well appear to "grieve", but not for the same reasons that humans do. I don't think we need a degree in psychology to see that.

We are not animals....thank God!

You remind me of Descartes, who thought of animals as soulless automatons, incapable of pain or suffering. He would perform anatomical dissections of living, awake animals knowing that their screams and struggles were only an imitation of agony.

Animals are creatures of emotion more than intellect. They have the same emotional responses we do, but without the intellectual underpinning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure they can grieve. But, until they're able to sarcastically troll morons on the internet, I won't see them as equal to me.

 

[Deeje]

The emotional responses of some posters here have overlooked what I wrote in their haste to judge what they think I said. I have not claimed that animals have no emotions.....I have claimed that some (actually very few) animals grieve, but their grief is not the same as ours.....it does not come from the same place. For the most part, death is programmed into animal kind, whereas no such 'program' exists in humans.

I have been around animals all my life, both in my home and on a farm. I have observed that some animals, particularly domestic ones, will sometimes exhibit emotional responses to the loss of a companion or a baby....but certainly not the majority. Out of all the species that exist on earth, a small handful will demonstrate such an emotional response to death. They generally adjust to their loss quite rapidly however, unlike humans who don't really ever adjust at all. Death is not 'programmed' into us. The much loved companions or family members we lose in death, rarely leave our thoughts.

Wild animals are designed to be very self sufficient, but domestic animals are designed to need our care and attention. There is a reason why there is such a division given in the Bible IMO. (Genesis 1:24-25)

I don't believe that we are just intelligent animals, though I understand why some want to believe that.

 

[siti]

Fair enough. It would have been helpful to state that at the outset though.

I indicated it in the other thread.

...we know when someone is away for a period of time and coming back, and when they have passed away and we will never see them again. Can you explain that to an animal? Do they know the difference?

Presumably they do when they are presented with a corpse...

My dog's expectation is a programmed response to something that happens every day. Her body clock is synced to specific time periods when she enjoys her meals. Like the dog featured in the movie "Hatchi".....the dog so looked forward to his Master's return every day at the same time that he lived in expectation of it for many years after he passed away. That time was associated with something pleasurable.
Was it possible to explain that th him? His "contemplation of the future" was reduced to the moment. Animals live in the present.....all decisions are made about the immediate future....in the moment, not contemplating future actions in an hour or a day or a week. Only we can do that.

With all due respect - there is no way you can possibly know that. I'm guessing that dogs don't plan their next vacation or discuss what they would like to have for dinner this evening...but we don't know that they have no concept of the future at all. Obviously it would not be the same - probably not even very much like - a human's concept of the future - but we don't know that they don't have one at all and it is quite difficult to imagine how animals could function if they were completely directed by instinct 'in the moment' - there would be no direction to their actions at all save momentary responses to momentary stimuli. I can't see that as a very good survival strategy.

The areas of the brain 'lighting up' may well be the result of "expectation postponed".....on the part of the animal. Animals may well appear to "grieve", but not for the same reasons that humans do. I don't think we need a degree in psychology to see that.

No - it is the result of the brains sub-cortical structure and activity in response to the loss/departure of another animal that was closely related in some way (family, friend, partner) - these regions of the brain and the associated neurochemical responses are not just 'analogous' but 'homologous' throughout the mammalian class. It is the outward behavioral expressions that differ between species - not the reason for the 'grief' response.

We are not animals....thank God!

Well, actually we are...but whether God is to thank for it is another question altogether.

 

[siti]

that was simply Pavlovian stupidity

Sorry - was this about the dog grieving thing or were you explaining your post?

 

[siti]

Of course animals grieve. I feel bad for anyone who even has to ask this question, because they obviously haven't spent much time around animals.

I didn't have to ask the question for my own benefit - but I didn't feel comfortable starting a thread entitled "what's wrong with these people who don't know that animals grieve?".

 

[shawn001]

While not on grieving, which is, of course, a given and pretty bad for someone to say we are better than animals because of their depth of grief or reactions to pain and death. We are animals, mammals, homo sapiens and I don't believe superior. Do other animals believe in superstitions?


But only a few animals can recognize themselves in the mirror and I believe only mammals, like us. A sense of self. But not sure about some birds and Octopoda.

Elephant in the Mirror | Mind of a Giant

A simple test with a child, a mirror and a spot of paint proves that by a certain age, humans recognise themselves in the mirror. How will Orangutans fare?

Just how smart are dolphins? - Inside the Animal Mind - BBC

Gabonese Gorilla family all have cool reactions to their mirror reflection except for the silverback

 

[Deeje]

Presumably they do when they are presented with a corpse...

I believe that the emphasis is on the word "presumably" in that statement....because supposition was all I heard in that video.

Who really knows what is going on in an elephant's mind? David Attinborough was 'interpreting' what he saw in this behavior and likening it to human behavior....does he know any of it is true? Like all evolutionists, he is athletic when it comes to jumping to pre-conceived conclusions. Who knows what signals are being processed by the smell of the dead elephant? As I mentioned, some in the animal kingdom are designed to live in troupes or close family units, making the loss of a member felt by the entire family. Behaviors can be misinterpreted, especially when there is an agenda to uphold.

With all due respect - there is no way you can possibly know that.

With all due respect...neither can you. Neither can anyone.....except their Maker.

I'm guessing that dogs don't plan their next vacation or discuss what they would like to have for dinner this evening...but we don't know that they have no concept of the future at all. Obviously it would not be the same - probably not even very much like - a human's concept of the future - but we don't know that they don't have one at all and it is quite difficult to imagine how animals could function if they were completely directed by instinct 'in the moment' - there would be no direction to their actions at all save momentary responses to momentary stimuli. I can't see that as a very good survival strategy.

As you are aware, the Bible indicates that fear of man was instilled in animals when humans were first given permission to eat flesh. If man was given this permission, then perhaps some animals were given the same kind of permission. Why instill a fear of man or even a fear of one another? To give animals a "fight or flight" response in any given situation. It is a survival mechanism so that hunters have to work for their food. Herbivores who have no need to hunt or kill, still have self-protective instincts so that they are not so vulnerable to predators.

There is no proof that animals have a capacity to consciously plan the future. Instinct forces them to do what is necessary to preserve their species. Storing food for winter is not a conscious endeavor in them....it is in us for obvious reasons.

No - it is the result of the brains sub-cortical structure and activity in response to the loss/departure of another animal that was closely related in some way (family, friend, partner) - these regions of the brain and the associated neurochemical responses are not just 'analogous' but 'homologous' throughout the mammalian class. It is the outward behavioral expressions that differ between species - not the reason for the 'grief' response.

"The mammalian class"...ah yes, the lumping of all mammals into one group as if they are all somehow related in an evolutionary chain. Blah, blah, blah....yes, scientists have all kinds of explanations for what they want to believe, just as Bible believers do. However, none of us have any solid evidence for what we believe, even though we will each say we do.

If you want to see animals grieving as if that somehow points to shared human traits because of an imagined relationship to apes or any other creature, then go for it. I personally see the human race as a separate and uniquely different class of creature, made by the same entity as all other creation, but with qualities and abilities that no other earthly creation possesses. I even see that we are all made of basically the same raw materials....but it doesn't mean that evolution took place, even though science wishes to interpret the "evidence" that way. We will all know soon enough I guess.

 

[siti]

Who knows what signals are being processed by the smell of the dead elephant?

Actually we do know - at least in part - it is the production of cortico-releasing factor (CRF) - a neurotransmitter that stimulates the grief response process in the sub-cortical brain structure associated with detachment/bereavement responses and that probably also influences linked processes in the nucleus accumbens that are associated with addictive behaviors - perhaps to 'memories' of lost 'loved ones' (at least in humans - and I don't see any reason why not in elephants and maybe also other primates - and...who knows?)

The point is, we have a fairly good idea which brain apparatus and which neurochemicals are involved and we know that these are common among mammals (at least). Is there any sound, logical reason to assume that they don't function in a similar way even if the behavior is outwardly different? What is very clear is that animals as different as prairie voles, elephants and humans all display marked changes of behavior in response to the death of closely related animals. And the behavior changes are correlated with brain activity in the same regions of the brains of these creatures (at least in the case of prairie voles and humans as far as I know but there may have been others that have been studied too) and involving the same neurochemical responses.

There is no question that this is evidence of our relatedness to other animals - you can choose not to believe it - but you certainly can't reasonably deny the evidence.

 

[Deeje]

Actually we do know - at least in part - it is the production of cortico-releasing factor (CRF) - a neurotransmitter that stimulates the grief response process in the sub-cortical brain structure associated with detachment/bereavement responses and that probably also influences linked processes in the nucleus accumbens that are associated with addictive behaviors - perhaps to 'memories' of lost 'loved ones' (at least in humans - and I don't see any reason why not in elephants and maybe also other primates - and...who knows?)

Were the elephants hooked up to an imaging machine in that video? I didn't see one.

All I saw was an evolutionist assuming lots of things, based on very little real evidence.....as they always do.

There is no question that this is evidence of our relatedness to other animals - you can choose not to believe it - but you certainly can't reasonably deny the evidence.

"Relatedness" is an assumption based on what?....scientists' interpretation of their "evidence" ? that we share DNA?
From the looks of it, we share DNA with a lot of creation.....does that mean that we are related to bananas?

Does it means that amoebas morphed into dinosaurs? or that dinosaurs morphed into chickens? You can believe that if you like.....it's a fantasy way beyond belief in an Intelligent Designer. IMO.

We can take the same evidence as evolutionary scientists examine and creation can be an equal assumption based on that same evidence.....different bias is all.

You don't seem to realize that science has no real proof for their assumptions.....they just have really good marketing.
How easy is it to sell an appealing idea to a willing public purely by the power of suggestion?

Easier than anyone can imagine. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4; 1 John 5:19)

 

[siti]

"Relatedness" is an assumption based on what?....scientists' interpretation of their "evidence" ? that we share DNA?

Its an assumption based on the obvious fact that we are related...

...does that mean that we are related to bananas?

Yes indeed - although admittedly the resemblance is easier to see in some RF psoters than others.

We can take the same evidence as evolutionary scientists examine and creation can be an equal assumption based on that same evidence.....different bias is all.

No it can't. Creation - as in special creation at any rate - can provide no explanation as to why the sub-cortical brain should be so similar in both structure and function in guinea pigs and humans (for example); no satisfactory explanation as to why profound behavioral changes in response to death are observed for a wide range of mammals most of whom are considered (by special creation believers) to be (in effect) automatons responding to stimuli by pure instinct alone; no satisfactory explanation as to why the brains of prairie voles should produce precisely the same hormones in response to death of a related animal as the human brain does...etc.

Evolution does provide a satisfactory explanation...we (humans, prairie voles, elephants...) inherited these traits from common ancestry.

Does it means that amoebas morphed into dinosaurs? or that dinosaurs morphed into chickens? You can believe that if you like.....it's a fantasy way beyond belief in an Intelligent Designer. IMO.

Then your O is mistook! But anyway, I don't want to take my own topic off into the vast wastelands of evo-ID inanity. I have presented scientific evidence that shows that animals are somewhat like humans in terms of the biology of the 'grief'-response. I argue that this is evidence (not conclusive on its own, but evidence nevertheless) that we are related to beasts. Like I said - you can choose not to believe it - but you can't reasonably deny the evidence.

 

[Deeje]

Its an assumption based on the obvious fact that we are related...

There are a lot of obvious facts ignored by evolutionists, so what gives you the high ground on this topic? "Relationship" can mean made of the same basic raw materials.....this is what Genesis indicates. God created the raw materials and they were fashioned into all we see by an able assistant. (Proverbs 8:30-31; Colossians 1:15-16) Related only by the matter out of which we are fashioned.

Yes indeed - although admittedly the resemblance is easier to see in some RF psoters than others.

I agree. Some posters display distinct banana-like characteristics.

No it can't. Creation - as in special creation at any rate - can provide no explanation as to why the sub-cortical brain should be so similar in both structure and function in guinea pigs and humans (for example)

Unless of course they were all made by the same Creator and share similar basic anatomical structure. It appears to me as if the Creator favored the vertebrate structure and brain model in most of his land dwelling creation. Most creatures have a backbone and a brain....and most walk on four legs. Giving his last creation increased brain capacity as well as a moral sense, (and ability to walk on two legs) just made them into the superior creatures that he intended to become the caretakers of all other life here.....his representatives, if you like, ensuring that this earth was maintained in an orderly way, according to his wishes by creatures who possessed his qualities. We started off so well......but then we got carried away with the idea that we could be better off without having to answer to anyone but ourselves. Not a very smart move really.

You seem to have a very stilted idea about what creation can actually entail IMO. You place limitations on God that he does not place on himself. Is there a reason why you do this?

no satisfactory explanation as to why profound behavioral changes in response to death are observed for a wide range of mammals most of whom are considered (by special creation believers) to be (in effect) automatons responding to stimuli by pure instinct alone; no satisfa

Who said anything about Mammals being automatons? Anyone who has ever owned a pet, is aware that animals respond to humans in a very wonderful way, especially if they are raised by them. You cannot form a mutual bond with an automaton. (unless you suffer from a mental illness) Instinct is what drives animals but they have way more to offer us in a relationship than mere instinct. We love them and they are capable of showing affection to us in return. Mutual affection.....designed that way.

It makes life more enjoyable.

 

[BSM1]

Sorry - was this about the dog grieving thing or were you explaining your post?

Being that we're the only animals that have the cognitive ability to answer this question, it's your choice.

 

[siti]

what gives you the high ground on this topic?

Two things - facts and evidence...

It appears to me as if the Creator favored the vertebrate structure and brain model in most of his land dwelling creation. Most creatures have a backbone and a brain....and most walk on four legs.

...but the facts are that there are only about 66,000 known species of vertebrates half of which are fish and a third of the land-based vertebrate species are birds that don't walk on four legs...whereas there are well over a million known species of invertebrates - mostly insects - that have neither backbone nor walk on four legs. Only about 5% of the described land-dwelling animal species on earth are vertebrates. There are almost 5 times as many species of spiders and scorpions as there are land-based vertebrates and close to 50 times as many species of insects.There are more species of earthworm than there are of mammals.

Giving his last creation increased brain capacity as well as a moral sense, (and ability to walk on two legs) just made them into the superior creatures

Elephants, dolphins and whales have bigger brains and birds (and some dinosaurs) were bipedal millions of years before humans. I'll leave the moral sense thing for a later discussion.

...made them into the superior creatures that he intended to become the caretakers of all other life here.....his representatives, if you like, ensuring that this earth was maintained in an orderly way, according to his wishes by creatures who possessed his qualities. ... Not a very smart move really.

Indeed!

You seem to have a very stilted idea about what creation can actually entail IMO. You place limitations on God that he does not place on himself. Is there a reason why you do this?

Two reasons - facts and evidence...

...I rest my case.

 

[Deeje]

Two things - facts and evidence...

Science has no facts (as many evolutionists on this site keep telling me) and only misinterpreted evidence. You can believe them if you wish. I can look at the "evidence" and make a bunch of suggestions too.

Pick your belief system.

...but the facts are that there are only about 66,000 known species of vertebrates half of which are fish and a third of the land-based vertebrate species are birds that don't walk on four legs...whereas there are well over a million known species of invertebrates - mostly insects - that have neither backbone nor walk on four legs. Only about 5% of the described land-dwelling animal species on earth are vertebrates. There are almost 5 times as many species of spiders and scorpions as there are land-based vertebrates and close to 50 times as many species of insects.There are more species of earthworm than there are of mammals.

I don't believe I was talking about insects or birds or even earthworms.

I was talking about land dwelling vertebrates.....remember?...the four legged variety mainly, although birds follow the model too, come to think of it....the base model must have been a good one.
Nice try though.

Elephants, dolphins and whales have bigger brains and birds (and some dinosaurs) were bipedal millions of years before humans. I'll leave the moral sense thing for a later discussion.

Of course, lets not allow those pesky whale and dolphin brains to get in the way......or even the echo-location systems....dolphins must be related to bats then?

Two reasons - facts and evidence...

...I rest my case.

Sorry, thrown out of court as a conviction cannot be achieved due to a complete lack of corroborating evidence. Assertions are not facts. Suggestions are not facts and supposition is not fact......that equals zero facts. No one can prove that evolution ever happened except in the imagination of evolutionary scientists.

You are obviously impressed by evolution's architecture....it can look quite impressive......but you haven't really checked out the foundations, have you?......built on sand.....you know how the story ends.

 

[siti]

Science has no facts (as many evolutionists on this site keep telling me)

Well you shouldn't believe everything they tell you.

I don't believe I was talking about insects or birds or even earthworms. I was talking about land dwelling vertebrates.....remember?

No what I remember is this (my emphasis)...

It appears to me as if the Creator favored the vertebrate structure and brain model in most of his land dwelling creation...

...which is patently absurd as only about 5% of land-dwelling species of animals ("kinds" if you prefer) are vertebrates. Most of the land-dwelling animals are insects and there are over a million species which - if we are to believe the creation 'hypothesis' - implies that the Creator re-invented much the same apparatus individually for each species of insect over a million times. That doesn't seem like a very intelligent way of creating things to me. But it gets even worse when you come to mammals...

...for example the "great whales" ("sea monsters") were created on the fifth creative day - long before the land-dwellers - including dinosaurs that we know died out tens of millions of years ago - complete with things that look suspiciously like vestigial hip bones carefully concealed in their blubbery masses. Whales, of course, (unlike the land-dwelling tetrapods) have no use for hip bones in terms of locomotion - but male whales apparently do find them to be very useful anchor points for the muscles that hold their presumably prodigiously proportioned genital organs in place. So did the creator really invent hips millions of years before any creature needed them to hang legs on - or are we all walking around with the aid of creatively modified giant penis hangers? Little wonder then that we "all stumble many times".

Of course evolution has not trouble accounting for this - nature simply uses - and re-uses - what it already has - but it really is a stretch and a half to claim that God dunnit AND it is intelligently designed.

Assertions are not facts. Suggestions are not facts and supposition is not fact......that equals zero facts.

Correct - and that's all you have presented so far - assertions and suppositions. There remains zero evidence to corroborate your particular version of 'intelligent creation".

 

[Deeje]

Correct - and that's all you have presented so far - assertions and suppositions. There remains zero evidence to corroborate your particular version of 'intelligent creation".

If you believe that the Creator is going to provide more proof for his existence than he already has, I suggest you don't hold your breath. Millions of us don't need further proof and at the end of the day, (which we believe is fast approaching, given the state of affairs in the world) when that comes, it will be a bit late. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Since when has the majority ever been in the right where God is concerned? (Matthew 7:13-14)

We basically have the choice between two belief systems......made your choice? Confident about it? Done.
What more needs to be said?

 

[siti]

Millions of us don't need further proof and at the end of the day, (which we believe is fast approaching, given the state of affairs in the world) when that comes, it will be a bit late.

What more needs to be said?

Not much I don't suppose. But I was wondering - what do you think will happen to the mammalian grief response process in the New World? I mean will "we" (as in you - and obviously not an irreformable apostatizing reprobate like me) still weep for our lost pets? When that cuddly lion cub that the little girl is hugging in the picture grows old and dies after a lifetime of providing faithful companionship - will there really be no "grief and sighing"? Will our dogs still fret when we leave them for a few hours? Will we not feel that profound sadness when a 160 year old turtle that we knew personally for her entire life finally closes her tearful eyes for the last time? Will death really be no more - and mourning...or is that reward just for the remnant of the one "kind" that did most in "ruining the earth", eliminating hundreds of other "kinds" of God's creation altogether in the process and justifying themselves at the most critical of all times by imagining that its all OK because all will turn out well after God's "fast approaching" intervention? I hope, for their sake, that other animals don't also have a sense of justice!