primates with moral sence, empathy and fairness

Originally posted by RJHinds
You take it back? Then, I guess we don't agree? That darn Satan!

A mere slip of the fingertip, but too complex to be an accident I hear you say.

Originally posted by galveston75
So that would mean millions if not billions of fossils would have been deposited on the surface of the earth of these beings as they died over this time.

How do you know? Do you know how fossilization takes place? What percentage of living animals get fossilized after death? Approximately how many human ancestors lived and how many fossils do you expect? Give us a rough calculation not a wild guess.

So where are they? Why is there only a handfull if that many of these link fossils from our supposed ancestors?
There are a lot more than a handful, but we have found less than the millions if not billions you expect, because fossilization is not nearly as prevalent as you seem to think.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you know? Do you know how fossilization takes place? What percentage of living animals get fossilized after death? Approximately how many human ancestors lived and how many fossils do you expect? Give us a rough calculation not a wild guess.

[b]So where are they? Why is there only a handfull if that many of these link fossils from our supposed a ...[text shortened]... not billions you expect, because fossilization is not nearly as prevalent as you seem to think.

That is because there was not many to fossilize, since it has been only a litttle over 6000 years.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

looks like our evolutionary cousins have empathy, a sense of morality and fairness, just like us.

they also hunt other primates for sport and practice canibalism.

do not mistake some instances where the apes "behave" with "omg thats totally empathy you guys, just like us".

pigeons, with the brains the size of a pea, behave nice. do they also have morality?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they also hunt other primates for sport and practice canibalism.

do not mistake some instances where the apes "behave" with "omg thats totally empathy you guys, just like us".

pigeons, with the brains the size of a pea, behave nice. do they also have morality?

The pigeons have instincts.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they also hunt other primates for sport and practice canibalism.

do not mistake some instances where the apes "behave" with "omg thats totally empathy you guys, just like us".

pigeons, with the brains the size of a pea, behave nice. do they also have morality?

Yes, pigeons have morality. Merely mentioning the size of their brains will not prove otherwise.
And humans have been known to hunt other humans for sport and practice cannibalism (in some parts of the world, they may still do so.)
If you think there is a 'mistake' in the conclusion, then explain where the mistake is rather than than simply dismissing it out of hand.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, pigeons have morality. Merely mentioning the size of their brains will not prove otherwise.
And humans have been known to hunt other humans for sport and practice cannibalism (in some parts of the world, they may still do so.)
If you think there is a 'mistake' in the conclusion, then explain where the mistake is rather than than simply dismissing it out of hand.

Yes, pigeons have morality.

what!? I think you may mean something different from the word “morality”.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, pigeons have morality. Merely mentioning the size of their brains will not prove otherwise.
And humans have been known to hunt other humans for sport and practice cannibalism (in some parts of the world, they may still do so.)
If you think there is a 'mistake' in the conclusion, then explain where the mistake is rather than than simply dismissing it out of hand.

morality must be conscious. otherwise, a computer that doesn't delete my files might be considered moral.

size of brains or rather the complexity might prove the incapability of higher thought. just because at some point in time a pigeon behaved nicely doesn't mean it has morality and empathy. could be simply it is too dumb to plan ahead, to weigh the consequence of ones actions, to see those actions cause harm to others even if they cause good to one's self and to decide(because of a moral system) that it is not worth it.

an experiment was conducted with 2 chimps set in 2 cages. a log was placed in front of them that had 2 bowls of reward (fruit). the chimps figured out that by working together to pull some ropes, both could get a bowl. however when the experiment was changed so as only one of them gets the reward, the chimp getting nothing refused to help, even if it only required a second of its time. so there: i have an example that proves chimps are not empathic and do not have a moral system. because i say so.


humans who are known to hunt other humans do not have morality. if you disagree with that, you are making the meaning of morality too general.

Originally posted by humy
what!? I think you may mean something different from the word “morality”.

No, I do not. If you object to my statement, then say so, and say why.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
morality must be conscious.

And what is conciousness? Are pigeons concious? And no, the size of their brain isn't going to answer that question.

size of brains or rather the complexity might prove the incapability of higher thought.
So what size exactly is required for 'higher thought'? Do you have any evidence to prove that a given size/complexity is required?

just because at some point in time a pigeon behaved nicely doesn't mean it has morality and empathy. could be simply it is too dumb to plan ahead, to weigh the consequence of ones actions, to see those actions cause harm to others even if they cause good to one's self and to decide(because of a moral system) that it is not worth it.
But you haven't proved otherwise, you are just speculating because of your bias against pigeons.

an experiment was conducted with 2 chimps set in 2 cages. a log was placed in front of them that had 2 bowls of reward (fruit). the chimps figured out that by working together to pull some ropes, both could get a bowl. however when the experiment was changed so as only one of them gets the reward, the chimp getting nothing refused to help, even if it only required a second of its time. so there: i have an example that proves chimps are not empathic and do not have a moral system. because i say so.
Please give references. And if I give you an example of a human doing the same, will that prove that humans too have no morals?

humans who are known to hunt other humans do not have morality. if you disagree with that, you are making the meaning of morality too general.
I disagree with that. I do not think 'morality' equals 'acting nicely all the time', or even 'acting above a certain level of niceness'. I have no doubt that Hitler for example had morality. I do not think he always acted morally.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what is conciousness? Are pigeons concious? And no, the size of their brain isn't going to answer that question.

[b]size of brains or rather the complexity might prove the incapability of higher thought.
So what size exactly is required for 'higher thought'? Do you have any evidence to prove that a given size/complexity is required?

just ...[text shortened]... doubt that Hitler for example had morality. I do not think he always acted morally.

But you haven't proved otherwise, you are just speculating because of your bias against pigeons.

nor have you proven that god doesn't exist, you are simply biased against god.
i am saying pigeons have no higher brain functions because it hasn't been proven so. you are saying they might have because they haven't been proved otherwise. i don't think you are using science in the correct manner.


"And if I give you an example of a human doing the same, will that prove that humans too have no morals?"
no. i was exaggerating to make a point. the difference however is that humans declare they have morality (even if they don't ). they define a moral system. we just assign our understanding of morality to some lower species who might simply behave like that because of instincts. do cows have morality because they care for their young? do pigeons have morality because they don't murder each other for a better chance at a promotion at work?



I do not think 'morality' equals 'acting nicely all the time', or even 'acting above a certain level of niceness'.
i disagree with your disagreeing. morality is acting nicely to each other. you cannot say any number and kind of rules of conduct represents a moral system. that would mean that a serial killer who always folds his underwear is considered a moral person.

and before you say that hitler is also moral, i would say that bad morality is not morality. just as "good" is not "bad" or "non-good"

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Why do you fundamentalist constantly pretend not to understand the answers to the questions you ask in this infantile manner. I am sure you must know by now that we did not evolve from any monkey in existence today, but that we share a common ancestor with them.

Our ancestors did not all jump down from the trees and into the grasslands one sunday aftern ...[text shortened]... do not decide to actively evolve they simply follow a few basic rules of survival and Sh#####g.

First stop the insults, that is the usual responce and I hoped that would not happen here but I'm sure the usual will happen.
I'm asking in a simple way because I would like simple answers that make sense. If there is a problem with that then don't answer.........

So I'm not looking for word's like "probably, imagine or maybe" in the answers, I want proof that this actually did happen and that it is still happening.

So again if their normal eco system were changing, why not move on to the same systems instead of moving out into an area that would have brought an end to their existance in a short time as they would not have been adapted to that area such as the grasslands? Those systems they lived in originally or still here aren't they?
We see that happening now on this planet but we don't see any animals evolving to survive as you say it did then. The become extenct.
All we can ever see now is animal "adapting" but not evolving into some new species especially on the scale that evolution says it can happen.

The point I'm making is no where on the planet do we see "evolution" happening as it supposedly has always been. All species we see today are within there own kind and fit perfectly into the enviroment they live in even as most invoroments are constantly changing from outside sourses.

Originally posted by galveston75
First stop the insults, that is the usual responce and I hoped that would not happen here but I'm sure the usual will happen.
I'm asking in a simple way because I would like simple answers that make sense. If there is a problem with that then don't answer.........

So I'm not looking for word's like "probably, imagine or maybe" in the answers, I wa ...[text shortened]... hey live in even as most invoroments are constantly changing from outside sourses.

Hey, G-man, come down out of your ivory tower for a minute and try to explain why humans and chimps have more than 95% of their DNA the same.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hey, G-man, come down out of your ivory tower for a minute and try to explain why humans and chimps have more than 95% of their DNA the same.

So what does that have to do with anything? That comment is always made but so what? There is still a huge amount of differances between us and apes and there is still NO missing link or the thousands of links that have never been found.
So are you an evolutionist or a believer in the Bible? You can't be both....

Originally posted by galveston75
First stop the insults, that is the usual responce and I hoped that would not happen here but I'm sure the usual will happen.
I'm asking in a simple way because I would like simple answers that make sense. If there is a problem with that then don't answer.........

So I'm not looking for word's like "probably, imagine or maybe" in the answers, I wa ...[text shortened]... hey live in even as most invoroments are constantly changing from outside sourses.

Then when someone goes to the bother of answering a question that could be found on wiki try not be quite so sarcastic in dismissing it incorrectly! It is childlike behaviourand does not belong in a discussion between adults..


As for your questions I refer you to my previous answer until you can raise a reasonable argument in response. If you think I am going to bother explaining why you cannot see evolution in real time you are in for a dissapointment. Btw the answer is in your question