"...the "absolute laws" if you will -- are the same in most social species."

So, when was the last time you saw a lion laying down with a lamb, in perfect peace and harmony?

Humankind is distinct from the animal kingdom in several ways, one of which is directly attributable to God and having been made in His image--humans alone have creative ability. Animals do not. Animals are prgrammed at birth with natural instincts--to migrate, build nests, etc. They are incapable of deviating from their inborn instincts. A goose is incapable of "creating" an alternative route of migration, for example. Humankind uniquely and alone has this creative ability. And as a result, humankind alone has the unique ability to make choices in their behavior and discern right from wrong. Except in catz's world, where we are nothing more than caged animals, living our lives only in response to the stimuli to which we are exposed, having no ability to discern or make moral choices, and as a result, being wholly exempted of responsibility for our actions and behavior.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I dunno. When was the last time you saw a human eat a chicken?

All species -- including humans -- prey on other species. Lions prey on lambs; lambs prey on grass.

Animals that don't compete can get along in "perfect peace and harmony." Llamas, for example, are put in with sheep herds. They get along great with the sheep, and protect the herd from wolves and coyotes.

Still, the point is interaction within a species, not between species.

Really. Well how about these links:

1. Creative play among primates:
http://www.animalsentience.com/featu...ns_culture.htm

2. Here's an entire paper on creativity in animals:
http://semantics.ucr.edu/~allison/A_...in_Animals.pdf

Noting that animals will, when solving problems, either put together existing behaviors in a novel fashion or display completely novel behaviors.

This is completely untrue. Not only do you have the novel behaviors linked above; there are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of learned behavior in animals. For instance:

1. Tool use among animals: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_12.html

2. The April 2005 issue of National Geographic describes learned behaviors among killer whale pods. Each pod has different learned behaviors.

3. In many predatory species, the young must be taught how to hunt.

4. Here's another link on learned behavior: http://asci.uvm.edu/course/asci001/behavior.html

5. And just as a common example, what about dogs learning tricks? Cats learning how to open doors by turning the door knob? A gorilla (Koko) being taught to "talk" using a symbol board?

Again, you are badly misinformed. For instance, here's a link on changing migratory routes among western Atlantic Brants:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v05...0110-p0119.pdf

Care to try again?

__________________
Man up.

"learned behavior" in animals is simply animals responding to certain stimuli, over an extended period of time, in order to receive some reward. The duck in the carnival didn't "learn" to play the little piano in its cage, it "learned" that by tapping its beak on certain keys it would receive a meal. Until ducks learn to compose original music, they haven't learned a thing. The same is true with all animals performing "tricks."

Birds design the same nest, particular to their species, generation after generation after generation. They don't go to school and learn how to build theses nests, it is rather out of instinct. They have no creative ability to build any other nest than the one they were born to build.

Certainly migratory routes change over time, but this is due not to any creative thought done by a migratory bird, but simply, a migratory bird resopnding instinctivly to changes in climate, environment, etc. They do not pocess the creative intelligence to purposefully and willfully migrate at will, when they want and where they want.

Humankind alone pocesses creative intelligence. A Mourning dove can sound only like a Mourning dove. It can not sound like an owl, nor even think of wanting to sound like an owl. Nor can it create its own original sound. It can only sound like a Mourning dove.

Your main problem in assigning human creative intelligence to animals is two-fold. On the one hand, if animals have creative intelligence, then they must also know right from wrong and be held morally responsible for making immoral choices. My cat killing birds when she has a bowl full of food must be punished for making an immoral decision. Second, it is more likely you are endeavoring to make humans more like animals, meaning they are only capable of certain behaviors based on certain stimuli. If this is the case, then humankind can never be held morally responsible for making any immoral choices, because they were unable to respond in any other way. We are nothing but ducks in a cage, tapping out notes on a piano in order to receive some pleasurable response.

So, which one is it? Either we assign moral responsibility to animals for making immoral choices, or we revoke all moral responsibility from humans making immoral choices.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

First, you're shifting the argument. Your initial set of assertions proved false, so you're changing your argument to account for the new facts.

That said, let's look at your current argument:

That's a circular definition of learning. You could as easily say that human learning is nothing more than responding to certain stimuli in order to receive a reward. Given how our brains are wired, satisifying curiousity is a reward.

"Learning" occurs when an organism figures out how to do something it couldn't do before -- something NOT innate. Unless you believe that ducks use pianos in food-gathering in the wild, a duck figuring out how to peck at keys in order to get food IS learning.

But you just have to look at predatory species where parents teach their young to hunt. If hunting were instinctual, such teaching would be unnecessary.

Judging by your duck example, you're mixing up "learning" with "creating."

Again, you are wrong: http://www.elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk...0048-p0061.pdf

"Scott (1902, 1904) hand-reared American Robins (Turdus migratorius)
and Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) and found
that these birds were totally unsuccessful at building nests when presented
with appropriate materials at one to two years of age."

Domestic canaries seem to have some innate nest-building ability. But even among them there were signs of learning. "Verlaine (1934) has obtained evidence which suggests that some learning might occur during the nestling-fledgling period of canaries; birds that were reared in nests constructed by their parents made better nests upon reaching sexual maturity than birds reared in artificial containers."

Even migration appears to have a learning component: "Young birds commonly return to breed in the general area of their birthplace (e.g., Nice, 1937; Werth, 1947; Austin, 1949). Various workers have studied this tendency by transplanting the eggs and young of various species from one geographic area to another, and then checking both areas in subsequent years for returning birds. These studies indicate that birds will often return to breed in the area where they are fledged."

There are also countless studies showing birds readily adopting non-standard nesting sites and materials. Further, such behaviors have been shown to be heritable -- passed down to their young. Give a bird green yarn to build a nest with, and thereafter it will show a preference for green yarn -- and so will its kids. That's clearly more than instinct and genetics at work.

There simply isn't enough evidence to prove that point one way or the other. If a duck suddenly chose a different migratory route, is it due to external stimuli or free will? Further, when a human chooses a different migratory route, is it a conscious choice or a response to external stimuli -- such as "the regular mountain pass is blocked" or "the traditional oasis has dried up"?

You're applying different standards to humans and animals, based on your assumptions about both. No wonder you reach flawed conclusions.

Like I said above, you seem to readily mix up "learning" and creating". Animals learn; get over it.

As far as creating, I've given you multiple examples of tool-use among animals and innovative behavior among animals. There are other examples, too, where animals engage in creative play -- apparently out of boredom. Both boredom and play are consequences of creativity.

You err in applying human standards of creativity to animals. We are more intelligent than most animals, and have developed written languages. No matter how creative a duck might be, how would you expect it to write a symphony, given its mental and physical limitations? A given organism's creativity can only be expressed within its specific limits.

There are many species of parrots that can and do sound like anything they want to sound like. A mourning dove's inability to sound like an owl is a physical equipment problem; it CAN'T sound like an owl, even if it wanted to. Do you fault the drum for not sounding like a trumpet?

Thus you're assertion that it can't even think of wanting to sound like an owl is pure speculation. I might agree, given that mourning dove's aren't the brightest bird on the branch. But it's still just speculation.

Clearly, instinct plays a large part in both animal and human behavior. Your mistake is in asserting that with animals, instinct is ALL there is.

That's completely illogical. Morals as we know it are a human construct. It doesn't make sense to apply human standards to animals, just like it makes no sense to apply animal standards to humans.

As a domestic pet, she is certainly subject to human morals being applied to her. But frankly, her birdacide would only be immoral if cat society (if there were such a thing) deemed it so. Perhaps feline religion requires the killing of birds.

This is your logical shortcoming, not mine.

I believe that all animals are a mixture of learned and instinctual behavior. Humans, given their big brains and complex social structure, are way at one end of the spectrum, with more learned behavior and less instinctual influence than, say, a mourning dove. But both exist in both animals.

But I believe morals are developed by society, within a species. So it is wrong to say I'm endeavoring to make humans nonresponsible for their actions. Humans are subject to human morality; what is moral among lions or trout is irrelevant, except perhaps as examples of how other species regulate themselves. But what lessons we choose to take from such examples are up to us, as humans.

Since I believe morals are humanity's way of regulating itself, I disagree. We have a big enough brain that instinct, while it influences us, does not have to rule us. Societal rules -- morals -- are a way to suppress harmful instinctual behaviors, encourage helpful instinctual behaviors, and develop noninstinctual behaviors that are beneficial.

So I have no logical quandary. You do, but only because of your complete misunderstanding of animal behavior and untenable assertion that the only thing standing between humans and depravity are "absolute", God-given morals.

__________________
Man up.

Again, a goose cannot migrate when it wants and where it wants; or choose not to migrate at all. It does what it does because it cannot choose to do otherwise.

The idea of morality is simply the end result of our arguments. If animals can choose, then they must be held responsible for the choices they make. If they cannot choose, then they cannot be held responsible for their behavior. The vast majority of the population opts for the latter explanation. That is why we do not assign moral blame to a cat that kills a bird when it has a bowl full of food. The cat is killing out of instinct and is unable to act otherwise.

The difference between human and animal learned behavior is animals have no choice in the process. They are compelled to behave in a pre-determined fashion, and are unable to "not" learn. Human learning, on the other hand, always provides for choice and freedom. Moreover, humans are empowered to continue, stop or un-due any learned behavior as they choose. Because of this, we can assign moral responsibility to human behavior. It is a false claim to say a human could not have acted otherwise, unlike the case of animals. A human can always act otherwise. An animal can never act otherwise.

A Mockingbird instinctively "mocks" the sounds of other birds (like a Parrott). It always has and always will, world without end. The same is true of the Mourning dove, except it can only sound like a Mourning dove. I seriously doubt there are any physiological differences that would account for this difference in the two species of birds. Nor do I think Mockingbirds receive some sort of special training while the Mourning dove is excluded from this training. So, how come Mockingbirds can mock the sounds of other birds, and the Mourning dove can only sound like a Mourning dove? It's simply they way the birds are wired at birth, and they can do nothing about it.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Assertion doesn't make it true. Here are a few more links:

http://www.carynews.com/front/story/...-8607140c.html
Here, a flock of geese CHOSE not to continue their migration because they found a pleasant place to stay midroute.

http://www.house.gov/petri/radio/mar08rad.htm
Geese have to LEARN to migrate. If they don't have other geese to teach them, they DON'T.

Animals learn and display varying degrees of creativity. Every single example you have given in an attempt to argue otherwise has been specifically refuted.

By whom? You seem to think it should be humans. I find that absurd. In a moral sense, geese can only be held responsible by other geese.

Again, an assertion that has been robustly and specifically refuted.

Wait. I though animals couldn't learn. Now you're saying they're unable to NOT learn? Huh. Ever tried to teach a dog a trick it didn't want to learn?

Please show me evidence, other than unproved or refuted assertions, that animals have no choice or freedom in learning. It would also be very helpful if you would be more clear what you mean by that.

At least you now admit that animals can learn.

Again, an unproved assertion. Please show me proof that animals are unable to make choices.

I raised the parrot as an example of a bird that is physically capable of imitating other birds, and thus does, in response to your assertion that a mourning dove can only sound like a mourning dove, and is incapable even of framing the concept of sounding like something else.

My point was that such an assertion may well be true, but is unprovable. Saying a mourning dove can sound only like a mourning dove is silly; it is physically incapable of sounding like anything else (see below).

If you want to claim the parrot and mockingbird are acting purely on instinct, fine; it's irrelevant to the point I was making. If you think it's got larger significance, I'll see what I can find on parrot calls.

You're right in one sense; the ability to make complex sounds is more of a mental one than a physical one. But the physical is a factor. Most bird voiceboxes (called a "syrinx") are similar in design, but they're not identical.

Here's an interesting answer on the subject: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/...&F=&S=&P=11732

A mockingbird is both physically and mentally capable of sounding like other birds; a mourning dove is not.

That sheds very little light on the matter of choice. All we know for certain is that when a bird combines a complex brain with a versatile syrinx, it can (and does) make a wide variety of sounds. Duh. But is the bird instinctually forced to make those sounds, or does it choose to? There's no proof either way.

Since a broad song repertoire (by the way, mockingbirds learn new songs their entire lives, up to as many as 200, and there's wide variance in each bird's repertoire) is essential to mating success, and may also be simply enjoyable, there are all sorts of rational reasons for a mockingbird to sing, and very few reasons for it to refrain. So the only way you could prove singing is a "choice" is if you could find an ascetic, genetically suicidal mockingbird who chose NOT to sing -- or could somehow demonstrate that a particular bird chose NOT to imitate a particular sound while the others around it did.

That would be akin to finding a celibate human who chose not to learn to talk.

__________________
Man up.

well seeing as how our brain is just chemical & eletrical signals, all emotions thoughts etc are purely scientific wholly apart from any spiritual influence. love is from the brain, the only thing that creates diversity there is our intelligance - intelligance is from the brain not 'spirit' so as you can see, it's pure science baby!

p.s where exactly is the spirit in the human body, i mean if i was t odisect someone...where out i extract it to take samples from it?

__________________
I am a stone, I do not move. I take my time, I let him come closer. I have only one bullet. I aim at his eye. I do not tremble, I have no fear.

You are a stone. Congratulations.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill