To disprove evolution...

[David Davidovich]

Evolution occurred in all organisms, not just those of humans.

There are other organisms that don't have brains, so brains are not the only factor to consider for evolutionary changes, and in some cases, speciation occurred due to such change.

I wasn't referring to evolutionary changes; I was talking about intelligence.

Beside that.

What intelligence are you talking about?

I am asking because intelligence among humans varied widely.

So are there a particular form of intelligence that you are referring to?

To give you an example.

Let's supposed that there are two humans. One of them is intelligent because he is a rocket scientist, while the other is a cook.

Does that mean a cook who cannot design rocket, as being "less than human" or "not human"?

You're entering into strawman territory because being less than or not being human is not the issue. However, it can clearly be said that even within the human species, there are some humans who are more intelligent than other humans.

And when each have children, grandchildren and so on, do they inherit their knowledge and skills through DNA?

I would say that some humans can inherit the ability to learn knowledge and to have wisdom, in addition to having the potential to acquire abilities from their parent or other antecedents. And conversely, some humans do not inherit their parents or antecedents' ability to learn knowledge and to acquire wisdom and/or have the potential to acquire certain abilities.

Or are such skills and knowledge taught to them?

I'm glad you asked that. Because one example that I would like to use is that of the German cockroach. And I'm guessing that probably most people during at least one time in their lives have either had these kinds of cockroaches in their homes or apartments, or have witnessed them in someone else's home. Also, if you try to smash one of these types of cockroaches either on a counter or on the floor, they will move like a football player in order to evade being squashed. However, unlike football players who have to spend hours on the training field perfecting their running and their evasive moves, a German cockroach doesn't have to spend time honing their skills of evasion. They just know how to do it naturally. It's built-in. And it's not even like the example that Tiberius used about baby birds who at least have to practice how to fly where it takes repeated effort, and I'm guessing that the development of their wings and breast muscles are involved too. But for cockroaches, their abilities to evade are completely built-in to them... No learning required.

Also, once again, with humans, they can both inherit the potential to learn knowledge and wisdom from their parents and antecedents, and the potential to acquire their forebearers' skills. While at the same time, some children don't inherit their antecedents' knowledge, wisdom, and/or the potential to develop their skills. Like for example: I was never good a sports, no matter how I tried, however, I have siblings and relatives who are good at sports, and I'm guessing they inherited that from someone in our family tree.

As Tiberius have tried to explain to you, intelligence is not good indicator of evolutionary changes, because no knowledge and no skills inherited through their genes, hence being able to built rockets or to cook chow mien or grill steak are not heritable biologically, hence such skills and knowledge have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with that as I just previously mentioned. Also, Tiberius and I had narrowed down what we were actually talking about to the definition itself of intelligence

Intelligence are not good indicator of changes to biology, especially of non-human organisms.

Once again, Tiberius and I were only trying find what the definition of "intelligence" was.

To give another example, brown bears and polar bears are closely related to one another, are considered sister-species. Biologists, specialists in bear biology would investigate HOW, WHERE & WHEN such changes occur - the divergence of these two species.

You could resort to what many creationists resort to, and say -

1. they are not different species,
   
2. or the silly "bear will always remain bear"
   
3. or say even more stupid thing like "Can a bear give birth to a dog"?

1 and 2 aren't explanation, just assertion without understanding the biology of two different types of bears.

And 3, is what only idiots say, because they don't understand Evolution, so they "make up" insane and impossible scenario that no biologists would consider them to be serious question.

Number 3 comes up a lot among creationists, especially like "Can cat give birth to dog?" or "Can dog give birth to cat?" Or the frequent "Can chimp give birth to a human?"

No biologists would ask this sort of question, because it is just plain ignorance and intellectually dishonest to repeat such lame and unscientific scenarios.

None of these are probable, because they don't understand Evolution. especially the "common ancestor"?

Neither humans or chimpanzees exist 7 million years ago, but some extinct species that exhibit some common physical traits of either before the divergence. So no, chimpanzees didn't and cannot give birth to human species, nor humans to chimpanzees.

This extinct species was possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis (also known as the Toumai), which flourished during the Miocene epoch, the specimen were found in Chad. The science community haven't yet reached a decision if the Sahelanthropus is a direct common ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees, or not.

Um, okay.

 

[gnostic]

I would say that some humans can inherit the ability to learn knowledge and to have wisdom, in addition to having the potential to acquire abilities from their parent or other antecedents.

The operator word is “learn” knowledge, not “inherited”.

And as to wisdom, that come with experiences of learning, and not just learning knowledge from books or teachers, but also learning from one’s mistakes, so not to repeat them.

People are not born wise, and yes, I know you were talking about “intelligence”, but I wanted to point out that people don’t have knowledge embedded in their DNA, nor the intelligence & wisdom exist without learning how to use that knowledge.

Mozart may have been a young prodigy, but even he learned through watching and listening to his father composed and played. His gift was nurtured at young age, because his father was also a composer too. But a large part of his genius come from his own creativity. That didn’t come from DNA, nor did it magically appeared from nothing.

Knowledge can be passed on from generation to generation, like from father to son, but these knowledge and skill have to be taught and learned, and sometimes such gifted individuals can go beyond their teachers due to their creativity and seeming “effortless” effort, that it would seem natural.

(What I mean by “effortless effort”, it seems to come easy for some people, like my Mozart example.)

All I am saying that all knowledge come from learning, something (knowledge) that are not imprinted in DNA. DNA only carry inheritable physical traits, and knowledge isn’t physical.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, if you're even asking that question, then that is the problem that we're having in this conversation.

And once again you never actually answer my question.

There you go again, twisting things. Because once again, I never made any claim that chimps don't have any kind of intelligence... But any who, I am through with this conversation with you.

I know you didn't.

But you keep presenting various things as evidence that humans have more intelligence than some other creature, I keep asking you why that particular thing should be used as a measure, and you keep refusing to answer.

And it seems that now you know I'm going to keep asking you to justify your position, you've decided to just avoid talking to me altogether so you don't have to answer. You'd do anything to avoid answering, it seems.

 

[David Davidovich]

The operator word is “learn” knowledge, not “inherited”.

And as to wisdom, that come with experiences of learning, and not just learning knowledge from books or teachers, but also learning from one’s mistakes, so not to repeat them.

But still, one has to have the genetic potential to learn wisdom. Because I can confidently say that a baby chimp cannot acquire the wisdom that a baby human potentially could. And simply because the baby chimp doesn't have the same genetic potential as a baby human does.

People are not born wise, and yes, I know you were talking about “intelligence”, but I wanted to point out that people don’t have knowledge embedded in their DNA, nor the intelligence & wisdom exist without learning how to use that knowledge.

But one can have a father who is very wise, and have a son who has inherited that potential, while at the same time, have a son who did not inherit that potential and who fails to be a wise person like his father because he just didn't have it in him.

Mozart may have been a young prodigy, but even he learned through watching and listening to his father composed and played. His gift was nurtured at young age, because his father was also a composer too. But a large part of his genius come from his own creativity. That didn’t come from DNA, nor did it magically appeared from nothing.

I don't doubt that is true. However, there are a multitude of human beings, and a multitude of variables as to why one person can do this or that while another person can't. And there's not one size that fits all. Also, I'm not sure where you and Tiberius have gotten your information from (and that is not a slight), because I have read a lot of information contrary to what you two are contending.

The next 3 lines will be links to artilces because I did not want to read all of them and quote from all of them, but I did skim through them:

Is Intelligence Hereditary? - Scientific American

Do genes influence thinking skills? | Age UK

But I will make a quote from this next link:

Talent is primarily about potential rather than the innate ability to perform any given skill, no matter how natural that skill may seem to be. Some people are naturally faster, stronger or smarter than others, and these people naturally navigate to athletics or academics. Similarly, for the very reason you cite nobody is born with the ability to play the piano, but people are born with varying degrees of musical sensitivity and proclivity. Musical talent is a matter of aptitude, not instinct. Some people are born with greater aptitude, and they develop skill on a musical instrument much faster than do others and rise to higher stages of advancement.​

Studies have been conducted on both musical ability and musical inability, revealing strong genetic components to each. A 2008 study discovered that musical talent is roughly 50 percent genetic, while another, published in 2001, revealed that about 80 percent of tone deafness appears to be genetic.​

emphasis is mine

Is Musical Talent Hereditary? (key-notes.com)

Knowledge can be passed on from generation to generation, like from father to son, but these knowledge and skill have to be taught and learned, and sometimes such gifted individuals can go beyond their teachers due to their creativity and seeming “effortless” effort, that it would seem natural.

(What I mean by “effortless effort”, it seems to come easy for some people, like my Mozart example.)

All I am saying that all knowledge come from learning, something (knowledge) that are not imprinted in DNA. DNA only carry inheritable physical traits, and knowledge isn’t physical.

Of course, knowledge cannot be passed on genetically. However, never did I claim that in any of my posts.

 

[David Davidovich]

And once again you never actually answer my question.



I know you didn't.

But you keep presenting various things as evidence that humans have more intelligence than some other creature, I keep asking you why that particular thing should be used as a measure, and you keep refusing to answer.

And it seems that now you know I'm going to keep asking you to justify your position, you've decided to just avoid talking to me altogether so you don't have to answer. You'd do anything to avoid answering, it seems.

I like gnostic's questions better. They are more sensible. Also, see my reply to his most recent post in my post #124(link) and perhaps some of that post might answer your questions.

 

[Tiberius]

I like gnostic's questions better. They are more sensible. Also, see my reply to his most recent post in my post #124(link) and perhaps some of that post might answer your questions.

Okay then, how about this question...

You keep talking about how Humans are more intelligent than some particular species because we can do some particular thing and the animal in question can't.

But what about comparing the intelligence of two different species of animals? Can you show me if one species is more intelligent than another species? For example, is a raven more intelligent than a chimp?

 

[rational experiences]

A humans owned conscious teaching.

Said to hu man's living. As humans about humans and self Idolating human as the dangerous conscious behaviours.

Bible's man destroyer scientist earth substance was a machine theist. First reasons to invent human sciences.

The machine. Hu man's exact warning.

The human theist.

Who chooses by being human both a topic and subject.

Natural body had existed. Or natural body first does exist. With and advised by a present human only.

Alongside of your own living human life.

At your side human man thinking is only seen natural observation of anything.

Science exact said there is no thesis by both topic of conscious awareness and subject. Terms used inferred to teach human theist what use of human consciousness was as valid terms in human reality.

Just a choice only.

To choose either term any body type exists first as it ended to own the form type that it personally exists as.

There is no pre term and also no end term. Natural presence exact term observed first.

Parent position of any type.

Sex is then why any parent type succeeds by a baby that it forms.

Term a God teaching said sexual procreation was inheritance of any type of sin. A baby.

Sin meaning by a human the reason why it's not the same as it's parent life.

As light radiation in spirit by a cold gas changes it by space causes.

Direct to sun earth history knowledge of a conscious mind that said earth was given nothing by nuclear sun sin K holes. As lights natural historic position not with earth.

Earth gas in heavens cosmic was cold clear immaculate only.

As we use in theism history cosmic advice in reasoning why. As the conscious mind of a human.

As a human in total scientific pretence of a self idolator by topic human observation is making believe they created any subject they study.

Not only do they use machines that never existed in nature or cosmic law they also use just human beliefs to tell stories.

That group behaviour was termed a human cult mentality. To force group behaviours upon a natural human life.

It had been legally outlawed as a non human theism by outlawing Alchemy as position first theism of a human scientist.

Secondly any human who dared to theory dead things not even equal to living life was gaoled as criminal human behaviour as it is. Against living lifes present....exact place present only.

Simply because what causes any body type to die decease it's living presence is still owned present in the living life experience.

Man was already told biology isn't an energy constant as it dies and decomposes.

There is no scientific argument. By humans.

Was once given an ancient legal human precedence. For life continuance on earth.

 

[rational experiences]

An example of scientists directly lying by self Idolating just human thoughts.

Apes live alongside of us in life.

Dinosaurs are extinct dead.

Yet they try to string their chosen topic and subjects together. Life to dead things.

Apes already by science terms....at my side are living and separate in the same atmospheric states that causes their life to die as an ape. The same as a human dies.

Our atmospheric condition hence only supports bio life of a human about 100 years as it in fact kills us itself.

Was a known scientific teaching to human theists who lie about the sustainability of life on earth being constant.

Sex was the only reason life continued.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, let's just put it this way, I personally don't think that a chimp would understand what we are talking about... Therefore, that should be enough support. And if not, why?

You don't understand what chinese people are talking about.
Does that make you less intelligent then chinese people?

To clarify: yes, humans are more intelligent then chimps.
What I object to is the metric you seem to be using to quantify that.

In truth, humans are more intelligent then chimps, but not that much more intelligent.
In truth, the difference between manipulating a stick with intent and pre-planned purpose to fashion it into a termite catching device, isn't that far behind building the Hubble Space Telescope.

It requires the operating presence of all the same types of cognitive faculties which allow for planning, reasoning, organization, etc.

Actually, the main reasons why we humans build such telescopes while chimps don't come much further then termite catching sticks, is 2-fold:
- our motoric and general anatomy allows for more finesse in manipulation of things
- we humans tend to learn everything blindly. Regardless of short term gains. A chimp will generally not bother with learning things that don't yield immediate benefit.

That last one, is pretty much the reason of our vast knowledge. We tend to learn our children everything we know. Including seemingly useless stuff. We recognize long term accomplishments. And as children, we also don't question the teaching authorities. We absorb all that we are told.

There's this infamous experiment conducted with young humans and chimps.
They are given a black box and are shown a couple manipulations with it. Like 6 steps one has to go through. When you get to step 6, a piece of candy comes out.

Both the humans and chimps are shown the steps. Both carefully repeat those steps to get their candy. Both learn those steps easily.

In part 2 of the experiment, the same box is given. Only this time it's not black.. it's made from see-through plastic. So you can see what goes on inside. The subjects are shown the 6 steps again with the new box. It's immediately clear that 4 of the 6 steps are absolutely useless. You only need to do the first and the last and you'll get your candy. But this is never shown. They show the full 6 step sequence.

The result?
All human children repeated the 6 steps, without questioning.

Meanwhile all chimps skipped steps 2 to 5. They didn't bother with the useless nonsense. They just did 1 and 6 and got their candy.


In any other circumstances, I would say that the chimps exhibit higher intelligence here as opposed to the humans. The thing is... the humans also realize those steps don't do anything. But they still carry them out. Because we blindly follow authority. We absorb. We listen. We learn everything - even the seemingly useless.

And that is how we have build up this vast vast library of knowledge in the collective of humanity.

So the ironic conclusion of the experiment is that we have so much more knowledge then chimps because in a sense we are actually dumber.

 

[gnostic]

But one can have a father who is very wise, and have a son who has inherited that potential, while at the same time, have a son who did not inherit that potential and who fails to be a wise person like his father because he just didn't have it in him.

Is really "inherited" genetically, or was the son "taught" or "nurture" to make wise decision?

There are difference. I don't think intelligence and wisdom, or knowledge, be imprinted into DNA, which is what carry genetic information of a person, from parent to child.

You are making judgment call as if they were one and the same, but really they are not.

Your argument in this example, is very tenuous at best.

The way I see, a son learn many things, some from his parents and even siblings, some from school, and others from other external sources. The decision is his, whether they be right or wrong, but real wisdom come from learning not repeating past mistakes.

That to me, sounds like a son's journey, hence being taught or nurture while growing up.

It not possible to demonstrate that it is DNA. Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not inheritable, cannot be encoded in DNA.

 

[Tiberius]

You don't understand what chinese people are talking about.
Does that make you less intelligent then chinese people?

To clarify: yes, humans are more intelligent then chimps.
What I object to is the metric you seem to be using to quantify that.

In truth, humans are more intelligent then chimps, but not that much more intelligent.
In truth, the difference between manipulating a stick with intent and pre-planned purpose to fashion it into a termite catching device, isn't that far behind building the Hubble Space Telescope.

It requires the operating presence of all the same types of cognitive faculties which allow for planning, reasoning, organization, etc.

Actually, the main reasons why we humans build such telescopes while chimps don't come much further then termite catching sticks, is 2-fold:
- our motoric and general anatomy allows for more finesse in manipulation of things
- we humans tend to learn everything blindly. Regardless of short term gains. A chimp will generally not bother with learning things that don't yield immediate benefit.

That last one, is pretty much the reason of our vast knowledge. We tend to learn our children everything we know. Including seemingly useless stuff. We recognize long term accomplishments. And as children, we also don't question the teaching authorities. We absorb all that we are told.

There's this infamous experiment conducted with young humans and chimps.
They are given a black box and are shown a couple manipulations with it. Like 6 steps one has to go through. When you get to step 6, a piece of candy comes out.

Both the humans and chimps are shown the steps. Both carefully repeat those steps to get their candy. Both learn those steps easily.

In part 2 of the experiment, the same box is given. Only this time it's not black.. it's made from see-through plastic. So you can see what goes on inside. The subjects are shown the 6 steps again with the new box. It's immediately clear that 4 of the 6 steps are absolutely useless. You only need to do the first and the last and you'll get your candy. But this is never shown. They show the full 6 step sequence.

The result?
All human children repeated the 6 steps, without questioning.

Meanwhile all chimps skipped steps 2 to 5. They didn't bother with the useless nonsense. They just did 1 and 6 and got their candy.


In any other circumstances, I would say that the chimps exhibit higher intelligence here as opposed to the humans. The thing is... the humans also realize those steps don't do anything. But they still carry them out. Because we blindly follow authority. We absorb. We listen. We learn everything - even the seemingly useless.

And that is how we have build up this vast vast library of knowledge in the collective of humanity.

So the ironic conclusion of the experiment is that we have so much more knowledge then chimps because in a sense we are actually dumber.

Fascinating account, have you got a source for further reading?

 

[David Davidovich]

Okay then, how about this question...

You keep talking about how Humans are more intelligent than some particular species because we can do some particular thing and the animal in question can't.

But what about comparing the intelligence of two different species of animals? Can you show me if one species is more intelligent than another species? For example, is a raven more intelligent than a chimp?

Hello, Tiberius. Well, off the top of my head, dolphins came to mind as being one of the smartest animals. Plus, after I watched the second video that I am about to post, I remembered that I had read information before about how intelligent octopuses/octopi are.

But as far as the dumb animals are concerned, I thought I'd post videos to represent my answers. Also, in this first video, I got a good laugh when they explained ostriches, flamingoes, and turkeys. However, the funniest and most surprising was the dumbest animal that came in at number one. LOL

And here is the second video. Also, I chose this video because it did actually explain further what you have been trying to get across to. Therefore, sir, I stand corrected. Also, poor Jake (the dog). Bless his heart.

 

[David Davidovich]

Additionally, the first video that I posted in my previous post has a sister video about the most intelligent animals. However, the one that got the top spot on that list is speculative. However, the video does make an interesting point:

 

[David Davidovich]

Is really "inherited" genetically, or was the son "taught" or "nurture" to make wise decision?

There are difference. I don't think intelligence and wisdom, or knowledge, be imprinted into DNA, which is what carry genetic information of a person, from parent to child.

You are making judgment call as if they were one and the same, but really they are not.

Your argument in this example, is very tenuous at best.

The way I see, a son learn many things, some from his parents and even siblings, some from school, and others from other external sources. The decision is his, whether they be right or wrong, but real wisdom come from learning not repeating past mistakes.

That to me, sounds like a son's journey, hence being taught or nurture while growing up.

It not possible to demonstrate that it is DNA. Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not inheritable, cannot be encoded in DNA.

You must not have understood what I meant when I mentioned the word "potential' multiple times in my post and when I underlined it and used bold font. But I can further explain what I was saying to you if you want me to.

 

[David Davidovich]

You don't understand what chinese people are talking about.
Does that make you less intelligent then chinese people?

To clarify: yes, humans are more intelligent then chimps.
What I object to is the metric you seem to be using to quantify that.

In truth, humans are more intelligent then chimps, but not that much more intelligent.
In truth, the difference between manipulating a stick with intent and pre-planned purpose to fashion it into a termite catching device, isn't that far behind building the Hubble Space Telescope.

It requires the operating presence of all the same types of cognitive faculties which allow for planning, reasoning, organization, etc.

Actually, the main reasons why we humans build such telescopes while chimps don't come much further then termite catching sticks, is 2-fold:
- our motoric and general anatomy allows for more finesse in manipulation of things
- we humans tend to learn everything blindly. Regardless of short term gains. A chimp will generally not bother with learning things that don't yield immediate benefit.

That last one, is pretty much the reason of our vast knowledge. We tend to learn our children everything we know. Including seemingly useless stuff. We recognize long term accomplishments. And as children, we also don't question the teaching authorities. We absorb all that we are told.

There's this infamous experiment conducted with young humans and chimps.
They are given a black box and are shown a couple manipulations with it. Like 6 steps one has to go through. When you get to step 6, a piece of candy comes out.

Both the humans and chimps are shown the steps. Both carefully repeat those steps to get their candy. Both learn those steps easily.

In part 2 of the experiment, the same box is given. Only this time it's not black.. it's made from see-through plastic. So you can see what goes on inside. The subjects are shown the 6 steps again with the new box. It's immediately clear that 4 of the 6 steps are absolutely useless. You only need to do the first and the last and you'll get your candy. But this is never shown. They show the full 6 step sequence.

The result?
All human children repeated the 6 steps, without questioning.

Meanwhile all chimps skipped steps 2 to 5. They didn't bother with the useless nonsense. They just did 1 and 6 and got their candy.


In any other circumstances, I would say that the chimps exhibit higher intelligence here as opposed to the humans. The thing is... the humans also realize those steps don't do anything. But they still carry them out. Because we blindly follow authority. We absorb. We listen. We learn everything - even the seemingly useless.

And that is how we have build up this vast vast library of knowledge in the collective of humanity.

So the ironic conclusion of the experiment is that we have so much more knowledge then chimps because in a sense we are actually dumber.

You mentioned that young humans performed in the infamous black and clear box experiment. Well, has the experiment ever been performed with adult humans vs adult chimps? Because if so, I could guess which species performed the best in that experiment... And a hint would be the species that created the experiment in the first place, which the other species could not have possibly conceived of.

 

[gnostic]

You must not have understood what I meant when I mentioned the word "potential' multiple times in my post and when I underlined it and used bold font. But I can further explain what I was saying to you if you want me to.

I know what you have meant.

The points I’ve made, these are not inherited biologically, as in knowledge, skills, intelligence and wisdom cannot be genetically imprinted into the DNA, and then pass on from father to son.

A father can nurture and teach his son, and the son may or may not choose to follow his father’s path or career, but these have nothing to do with Natural Selection or Mutations or with Evolution, or even with genetics.

So do you understand my points?

 

[David Davidovich]

I know what you have meant.

The points I’ve made, these are not inherited biologically, as in knowledge, skills, intelligence and wisdom cannot be genetically imprinted into the DNA, and then pass on from father to son.

A father can nurture and teach his son, and the son may or may not choose to follow his father’s path or career, but these have nothing to do with Natural Selection or Mutations or with Evolution, or even with genetics.

So do you understand my points?

Actually, the statement to be made is: you don't understand my point. Because having a knack or potential to gain... (gain, gain, gain, gain, gain) wisdom can be inherited. Because I can say with confidence that an adult male chimp could never father a son who had the potential to learn calculus or play the piano. It's just not in the adult chimp's genes to pass that on to a son (or daughter). However, a human adult could be very proficient in calculus or some other skill, and could father a son who inherited the knack or the potential... (potential, potential, potential, potential) to learn that same skill. But at the same time have a second son who could never learn that skill no matter how hard he tried to learn it. Because the one son is a chip off the old block, where the second son isn't. But I don't know how much different I can explain that to you. Also, it sounds as if you didn't click on any of the links that I provided in my one post and didn't look through any of those articles. Therefore, I don't know if it's a matter of you not understanding what I'm saying, or if it's you having your own preconceived idea of what's what, and you just don't have the 'potential' to understand someone else's viewpoint that is different from yours.

P.S. And I hope that a few posts later, I won't be reading that you said the exact same thing.

 

[Tiberius]

Hello, Tiberius. Well, off the top of my head, dolphins came to mind as being one of the smartest animals. Plus, after I watched the second video that I am about to post, I remembered that I had read information before about how intelligent octopuses/octopi are.

But as far as the dumb animals are concerned, I thought I'd post videos to represent my answers. Also, in this first video, I got a good laugh when they explained ostriches, flamingoes, and turkeys. However, the funniest and most surprising was the dumbest animal that came in at number one. LOL

And here is the second video. Also, I chose this video because it did actually explain further what you have been trying to get across to. Therefore, sir, I stand corrected. Also, poor Jake (the dog). Bless his heart.

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't asking fore examples of animals considered intelligent and animals considered unintelligent.

I was asking how we could determine which of two different animals had a higher intelligence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fascinating account, have you got a source for further reading?

Found a clip about it

This is not the same box mechanism as the one I saw some years ago though, but it's the same principle.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mentioned that young humans performed in the infamous black and clear box experiment. Well, has the experiment ever been performed with adult humans vs adult chimps?

Since it's an experiment about "learning", there would be no point in that.

Because if so, I could guess which species performed the best in that experiment...

Not "best". Instead: the same. Both would skip the useless steps.

Although, tbh, it wouldn't surprise me at all that some human adults would simply repeat the nonsense steps also.

Note how I also said that most human kids understood that what they were doing did not contribute to getting the candy. They knew it was nonsense. They did it anyway.

The thing is: chimps don't mindlessly ape others. But humans do.