Evolution of Human

[FearGod]

Of course there is an escape from a teacher.

Do you need someone to teach you how to peel an orange?

Or could you give it a shot and eventually learn?

Not everything needs to be taught. Ever heard of trial and error?

You should try it.

:yes:

Does that mean that birds had tried in the beginning to sit on their eggs for one day and it doesn't work then they tried for 2 days till the 21 days worked.

If you took 2 pairs of birds that they never saw birds sitting on their eggs, do you think then they'll make the method of trial and error to have their chicks born.

 

[idav]

Does that mean that birds had tried in the beginning to sit on their eggs for one day and it doesn't work then they tried for 2 days till the 21 days worked.

If you took 2 pairs of birds that they never saw birds sitting on their eggs, do you think then they'll make the method of trial and error to have their chicks born.

Same way a plant learns to pollinate, because it is the natural course. Nothing had to teach the earth to make life. Life had been cloning cells well before species did it by hatching eggs.

 

[FearGod]

Same way a plant learns to pollinate, because it is the natural course. Nothing had to teach the earth to make life. Life had been cloning cells well before species did it by hatching eggs.

It is natural course for the bird to sit 21 days for hatching and not by trial and error method.

Why it was a natural course, is it planned to be around 21 days or just it happened to be 21 days, what if the 21 days failed ?

What governs the natural process or it just works with no rules.

 

[idav]

It is natural course for the bird to sit 21 days for hatching and not by trial and error method.

Why it was a natural course, is it planned to be around 21 days or just it happened to be 21 days, what if the 21 days failed ?

What governs the natural process or it just works with no rules.

Why assume its planned or governed?

 

[FearGod]

Why assume its planned or governed?

Because i believe in logic and science.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Because i believe in logic and science.

The instinct to nest slowly developed over time just like all the rest of the instinctual behaviors in animals. Nesting is not evidence against evolution, it is proof that instinctual behaviors evolve.

 

[metis]

Maybe it's the "rules" (laws of physics) that are that which "govern". Evidence is mounting that these rules may not be universal.

 

[idav]

Because i believe in logic and science.

What is logical is that ideas and knowledge grew over time. Whether of nature or nurture makes no difference to evolution.

 

[FearGod]

The instinct to nest slowly developed over time just like all the rest of the instinctual behaviors in animals. Nesting is not evidence against evolution, it is proof that instinctual behaviors evolve.

So nesting isn't kind of intelligence as they claimed it to be but just an animal instinct.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So nesting isn't kind of intelligence as they claimed it to be but just an animal instinct.

Who says it isn't instinctual?

 

[idav]

So nesting isn't kind of intelligence as they claimed it to be but just an animal instinct.

Anything we know is a kind of intelligence, doesn't matter the source of the knowledge.

 

[FearGod]

Anything we know is a kind of intelligence, doesn't matter the source of the knowledge.

Really, our sex instinct is kind of intelligence.

 

[idav]

Really, our sex instinct is kind of intelligence.

Do you ever have a point? Anything we know is a from of intelligence. It doens't matter how you learn it. Makes no difference if it is something known from birth or taught to you by parents. Why does it matter how birds are intelligent, they simply are? They can know things and be taught things.

 

[FearGod]

Who says it isn't instinctual?

They insist to describe it as an intelligent behaviour by the bird and not an instinctual act.

So if birds are intelligent beings and they learn how to build their own nests,the question is who taught them or who was the first one to invent the idea of building nests and if all birds do it regardless of thinking then how can we regard it as an invention or a product of thinking.

Birds likely learn by watching.

Does it matter which bird was the first though? That question doesn't need to be answered to get the point across that birds are intelligent. It's a separate issue and birds don't have their own written history.

We don't know which individual human made the first spear or which individual discovered fire.

 

[idav]

They insist to describe it as an intelligent behaviour by the bird and not an instinctual act.

Following instinct isn't dumb but rather intelligent.

 

[FearGod]

Do you ever have a point? Anything we know is a from of intelligence. It doens't matter how you learn it. Makes no difference if it is something known from birth or taught to you by parents. Why does it matter how birds are intelligent, they simply are? They can know things and be taught things.

instinctive behavior isn't a product of learning.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

They insist to describe it as an intelligent behaviour by the bird and not an instinctual act.

The act of building a nest is probably learnt, the act of nesting is instinctual. Do you understand the difference or do you need further explanation?

 

[idav]

instinctive behavior isn't a product of learning.

Evolution isn't a conscious type of learning so what does that matter. Displaying knowledge of anything is a sign of intelligence.

 

[FearGod]

Following instinct isn't dumb but rather intelligent.

The instinct is wired in, it doesn't need learning and knowledge, it is always there.

 

[idav]

The instinct is wired in, it doesn't need learning and knowledge, it is always there.

Hard wired by nature. Knowledge doesn't require learning, knowledge can always be there. I still don't see the point. Most things are hard coded by nature thats what evolution says.