+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 15760
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 48
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 5
Total: 5

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 9104 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32547
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2013, 09:33:23 pm »
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.


A similar major flaw in the evolutionary paradigm can be shown by comparing species with very similar mental attributes, but which are, according to evolutionists, not at all related.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore
In the recent opinion essay in Nature, biologist Johan Bolhuis and psychologist Clive Wynne accept the premise that species have naturally evolved and, thus, possess shared ancestry. But they contest the Darwinian principle “that species with shared ancestry will have similar cognitive abilities.”5 For example, researchers have noted cognitive similarities between physically disparate species, but not necessarily between physically similar species. Bolhuis and Wynne point out that this “illustrates that cognitive traits cannot be neatly arranged in an evolutionary scale of relatedness.”6

Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates. In the Darwinian models, apes and humans are closely related and share a relatively recent common ancestor. Birds, on the other hand, are only distantly related to primates. Thus, Darwinists predict that of all animals, apes should come closest to manifesting the cognitive capabilities of human beings.

But Bolhuis and Wynne give examples where birds defy this prediction. They cite how “Caledonian crows [though not quite matching ravens in intellectual prowess] outperform monkeys in their ability to retrieve food from a trap tube–from which food can be accessed only at one end.”7 They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that “crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master.”8 Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. (See crows’ cognitive powers in action here.)

High cognitive abilities of certain bird species even sometimes challenge a purely physical explanation for their behavior. Take for example the marsh tit. This bird stores seeds in tree bark or in the ground and is able to retrieve them days later while its “close relative,” the great tit, doesn’t store food at all.9 Biologists presumed the difference would be explained by a larger hippocampus in the brain of the food-storing birds. Alas, the evidence doesn’t support this suggestion.10 Studies also show that food-storers do not perform any better in spatial memory tasks than do the non-food-storers.11

In their paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, three psychology researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), boldly declared Darwin’s idea of the continuity of the mind (from lower species to higher) a mistake.12 They argue “there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.”13 They go on to show that this discontinuity “pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.”14

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 23:13

New Pandemic? by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 21:08

Batteries by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 19:38

Money by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 18:32

Pollution by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 17:17

Tidal Power by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 17:02

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
01 Apr, 2020 06:04

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 23:23

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 17:00

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
31 Mar, 2020 16:26