Hi Bob.

I'm glad that you're not actually wasting your time and are writing as little new material as possible for this discussion. Instead, you appear to just be satisfied to recycle parts of years-old blog posts from your radioshow website instead.

As evidence, I'll point the forum to this blog post on your website, which has a last update as of August 17, 2012 ( http://kgov.com/PZ-Myers-trochlea-challenge ).The content in the seventh paragraph down is almost identical to that of your fifth and sixth paragraphs in post #250 in this discussion.

However, I am a little upset that Oldskeptic, Kali, Calilasseia, ADParker and willhud9, among others, have taken the time out of their days to answer what essentially amounts to a canned response.

For shame. At least put some originality into it.

While you're at it, you might like to adjust the wording of your post #250 (or maybe not, seeing as your account is currently in suspension). It’s no longer accurate.

While Massimo Pigliucci isn't a creationist (although you've also wilfully and dreadfully/tragically misinterpreted his blog post regarding a self-assessment of the online skeptics, atheists and secular humanists community), Virginia Heffernan, who wrote that little opinion piece diatribe in the New York Times against ScienceBlogs, is.

She publically came out as a creationist in 2013 (link for the interested http://news.yahoo.com/why-im-a-creation ... 07217.html). As a result, I suspect he she had some ulterior motives in her writing about the prominently atheist and decidedly anti-creationist PZ Meyers.

Her reasoning (for lack of a better word) as to her creationist belief is that she has “never found a more compelling story of our origins than the ones that involve God” – something that flies in the face of the masses of evidence that is available and has been built through decades of patient and intelligent work. It’s also deeply worrying in someone that used to work as a science and technology writer. I make that comment as someone who has worked as a professional writer in a couple of fields.

She concluded that a story with a god is better than one without. I suspect that she just lacks imagination. Even if I was to be a creationist, the Judaeo-Christian creation story is pretty dull and would not be what I chose. Give me the Australian aboriginal dreamtime myths (rainbow serpent) or the Norse myths, at least those contain something interesting.

What, you don't think "god spoke" and then *poof* it was all here fully formed is substantive and interesting?

Rumraket wrote:What, you don't think "god spoke" and then *poof* it was all here fully formed is substantive and interesting?

probably only interesting to psychiatrists....

kennyc wrote:

THWOTH wrote:As is often the case, the argument appears to be essentially one against science and scientists. So it goes... So it goes.

I often wonder if those who argue against science on the internet ever stop to think about how science works, how knowledge progresses, and how the architecture of our cultural landscape develops and changes over time as a direct consequence of scientific endeavour.

Often they have a pet theory that goes against the grain or has been disproven (Sheldrake) or they have beliefs which run counter to established science and they think that if they can just destroy the piece of the science/scientific method that is defeating them they will be seen as correct, genius, worthy.

Some actually do understand science and the scientific method but choose to ignore it by creating excuses to mask their nonsense.

But those (usually wannabes) that post on forums such as this are often ignorant of the full understanding of science. And even when explained they choose to ignore it.

Some of that seems to refer to me, let me respond to it. There was a time when I thought I had a bright idea about human evolution and I embarrassed myself punting it. The bright idea was probably wrong anyway. But that led me to gradually uncover a perception that somehow I feel I have always believed. At one time I thought I could convince others of its truth but frankly, no longer. But I really like to be right and I don’t much care if no-one sees that I am. I date that to an episode after a school visit to the Pretoria museum, when it turned out I was the only believer in evolution – and the issue was politically charged, and we kids were shouting some reflection of the adult tumult. That was highly emotional. Another emotional event about the same time came from sleeping under a cliff where a leopard had an argument with a baboon troop. I think those events happened to present a basically true thing to me about myself and the world. Not one of success, but a kind of obduracy about a highly particular truth. Once placed on that path, internet discussions over the years have led me along threads of investigation far outside human evolution, into religion. It’s still interesting if troubling.

edit: last sentence

Sendraks wrote:

Well we know the defence systems of the termites worked, because they're still here, all over the world. Not only that, but they were here quite some time before the australopiths. So Termite defence systems are pretty solid in so far as standing the test of time.

Not so for the australopith.

Australopiths existed between 3.9mya-1.7mya, longer than any other known hominoid genus ancestral to man. If you try to model their relation with other species that is to take a snapshot. Time only comes in by one having to assume fully developed familiarity between species. If a leopard came around a corner and saw a troop of hominids foraging, then assume she knew where they slept, where they were going, how they would react if they saw her. On the other side one can assume that a typical troop often had a habituated predator that had successfully lived off the troop for some time, and it had set reaction tactics that worked somewhat. Evidence for that comes e.g. from the shikari tales of Jim Corbett.

Sendraks wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:OK, if the whole troop got involved, the more effective their choice and use of sticks, the more trauma to the predators and the less damage to themselves.

This makes all kinds of assumptions that australopiths were able to select suitably weighty and durable sticks for beating leopards with, given leopards are pretty durable creatures. So your expectation is that australopiths are able to select sticks that make suitable weapons, rather than pointlessly flail away with sticks that break upon contact with the Leopard and do it no significant harm.

This is a fairly sophisticated level of tool selection and use you're talking about here.

Well what exactly do you do then if you try to model the australopith-leopard relation? Throw up your hands at the implausibility of their selecting suitable defensive weapons? Seeing that their descendants to this day, can defend themselves using simple hand-held weapons? Let’s turn the argument around: suppose a primate were optimized to defend itself using simple hand-held weapons- can you imagine a better body plan than Australopithecus? Chimps have been observed to use sticks to demonstrate against leopard – banging on its hiding place. But their use is conspicuously not optimized. They don’t really have a clue. Chimps on patrol groups don’t carry sticks and stones. What would happen if a hominoid species needed to do so while foraging? The great doors of logic would shift around them into a new of co-evolution with those sticks.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.

^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.

Death. Death was the mercy.

I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.

Cor, you fail right at the beginning. Only people who believe in God in the first place acknowledge that there's anything to rebel against. Seriously, why do ostensibly intelligent people keep making such monumentally stupid fucking comments? The arrogance is unreal. Get this into your head - your little god is of no relevance to anyone outside of your religion. Rebelling against God isn't a concept we recognise because we don't think there is a god to begin with. You might as well deride us for rebelling against the Pink Panther. The response would be the same - "oh noes, well I certainly wouldn't want to do that. " These god types are always banging on about how bitter, selfish and hateful non-theists are, but the number of theists who spew out intolerant and hateful shit at people simply because they have the nous not to believe in the kind of fairy tales a 7 year old can work out are just stories is great.

I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness,

You seem to me to be one of the very last people who should be asking for human decency. Given this, it's hard to see your subsequent spittle flecked rantings as anything other than projection on a truly massive scale.

from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men,

You have an irrational fear and hatred of gay people which for some reason is far beyond any negativity you might be able to muster against people who eat shellfish. Well golly gosh, I wonder why that would be the case...In any event, you contradict yourself. Acknowledging and accepting people for who they are, regardless of whether their nature aligns with one's own or not, is the polar opposite of the kind of nasty shit you accuse atheists of.

women dismembering their unborn children,

I wonder what your position is on the death penalty. Obviously causing harm to actual children doesn't bother you much so you can't have anything against violence per se. Violence against actual people is no problem for you, but heaven forfend anyone should have an abortion. Note the way you focus on late term abortions by the way. Your thoughts are a jumbled mess. I don't know if it's religion that's done this to you or whether you'd still think such idiotic things if you weren't a theist, but it's a damn shame to see a grown man throwing his toys out the pram when confronted with people doing things he doesn't agree with.

the euthanizing of others,

Perhaps they should have stopped short at just beating them bloody. You wouldn't have a problem with that after all. Do you ever bother to think at all?

and the mocking of Jesus Christ

If Jesus Christ is God, why the fuck would he care if people mock him? Don't you realise how pathetic you make your deity sound when you imbue such meaning to people making fun of it? Is your god so feeble that it can be adversely affected by this? I don't fancy yours much.

who died for them.

Unsupported assertion that no one but you accepts as true. You can believe your vile bullshit all day long and good luck to you. But don't think for a second that just because you believe it we all have to fall into line and do the same. You're judging people by using a set of principles and claims that has absolutely no meaning to them. You might as well be telling us how your pet rock Geoffrey is cross with us.

But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites

I think we all recognise at this stage that you're not interested in telling the truth or in silly little things like facts. Neverthelss - this is not an atheist website. It doesn't have a demeanor because it's not a living entity. I doubt very much that this site or any other "atheist" site can beat the sort of bigotry to be observed on any number of theist websites, so my conclusion here is that you're simply trolling with not only this comment but pretty much everything else you've coiled down here.

as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness.

No you can't. Unless you'd accept me claiming that I can use the demeanour of Fred Phelps as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim god belief. You're just lying. I don't know if you think we all came down in the last shower or what, but you should probably know that you're bringing nothing new or noteworthy here. We've been here for years, seen it all time and time again. People like you can never substantiate your claims and have to resort to using fallacies and nasty personal attacks to prop them up. That means you've lost the argument. You can accept that or not, but the fact of you having lost is not dependant upon you acknowledging it.

You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.

The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].

willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy.

The irony. It burns.

Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts.

Are we supposed to be outraged about that? Again - just because you get all pearl-clutchy whenever someone mentions a bodily function, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to share your outlook. Perhaps you should grow the fuck up, then people wouldn't keep offending you everywhere you turn.

If you think you're just an animal,

What do you mean "just" an animal? We're all animals dear, you included. Again - the fact that you don't accept this does not impact on reality. Why don't you stop trying to bend the world to fit your precious fee-fees? That's incredibly arrogant behaviour.

you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got.

You'll pull those pearls clean off your neck if you carry this on. Grow up, man! People screw and shit and piss. The way you go on one would be forgiven for thinking that humans are Barbie and Ken dolls with smooth flat surfaces where their genitalia should be.

These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.

I have to ask - why are you telling us this? Why have you joined? Do you think you're imparting something new? You wouldn't believe how many theist types we've had here whining on about how nasty atheists are. So much so that it's just white noise at this stage. I feel I have to tell you that I wouldn't trust your opinion of me or other atheists as far as I could throw you, because you have shown yourself to be someone who will believe any old shit that's chucked your way as long as it endorses your own bigotry. You're as far from an unbiased party as it is possible to get. Throw in your trolly tendencies and general air of hypocrisy and hopefully you can see how your opinion is worse than useless to me.

So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another. Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)

Why would you agree to the FUA only to spectacularly break it? Lies make baby Jesus cry. Your preaching is not welcome here.

willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?

It is in death willhud9.

willhud9 wrote:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)

The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.

No one here is going to run around after you. Do your own homework.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.

willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways. To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him. Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan. So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.

Isaiah 45:7 wrote:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Stop making excuses for your nasty little god. He fesses up to everything.

It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given. There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.

Most of us understand your daft beliefs better than you do. Finding it utterly bereft of any value is not the same thing as not understanding it.

Thanks willhud9, again, for the opportunity to discuss such monumentally important questions as suffering and freedom.

- Bob Enyart

I think you meant "thank you for the chance to display my tiny minded bigotry in front of all the nice people here, thank you for allowing me to lie for Jeebus and thank you for then tearing me a new one and putting me out with the rest of the rubbish." What a truly odious little shit.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
Many of the posters on this cite are some of the most h

I think something went wrong with your post here....

Many of the posters on this site are some of the most joyful, charitable, and caring people I know. Of course there are exceptions and while I generally disagree with the severity many here treat those whom live in accordance with a religious worldview, that does not mean they express the personality traits you point out.

Fixed it as best as I remembered.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Well we know the defence systems of the termites worked, because they're still here, all over the world. Not only that, but they were here quite some time before the australopiths. So Termite defence systems are pretty solid in so far as standing the test of time.

Not so for the australopith.

Australopiths existed between 3.9mya-1.7mya, longer than any other known hominoid genus ancestral to man.

So what?

Jayjay4547 wrote:If you try to model their relation with other species that is to take a snapshot. Time only comes in by one having to assume fully developed familiarity between species.

What's this gibberish supposed to mean?

Jayjay4547 wrote: If a leopard came around a corner and saw a troop of hominids foraging, then assume she knew where they slept, where they were going, how they would react if they saw her.

1. Leopards didn't exist back then.
2. Leopards as most animals only think on instinct. They don't know what other animals do or will do.

Jayjay4547 wrote: On the other side one can assume that a typical troop often had a habituated predator that had successfully lived off the troop for some time, and it had set reaction tactics that worked somewhat. Evidence for that comes e.g. from the shikari tales of Jim Corbett.

More assumptions, presented without evidence whatsoever.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:OK, if the whole troop got involved, the more effective their choice and use of sticks, the more trauma to the predators and the less damage to themselves.

This makes all kinds of assumptions that australopiths were able to select suitably weighty and durable sticks for beating leopards with, given leopards are pretty durable creatures. So your expectation is that australopiths are able to select sticks that make suitable weapons, rather than pointlessly flail away with sticks that break upon contact with the Leopard and do it no significant harm.

This is a fairly sophisticated level of tool selection and use you're talking about here.

Well what exactly do you do then if you try to model the australopith-leopard relation?

You're begging the question there was anything that can be reasonably characterised as a relation.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Throw up your hands at the implausibility of their selecting suitable defensive weapons? Seeing that their descendants to this day, can defend themselves using simple hand-held weapons? Let’s turn the argument around: suppose a primate were optimized to defend itself using simple hand-held weapons- can you imagine a better body plan than Australopithecus? Chimps have been observed to use sticks to demonstrate against leopard – banging on its hiding place. But their use is conspicuously not optimized. They don’t really have a clue. Chimps on patrol groups don’t carry sticks and stones. What would happen if a hominoid species needed to do so while foraging? The great doors of logic would shift around them into a new of co-evolution with those sticks.

Still no evidence I see. Assumptions aren't going to get you anywhere.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: If a leopard came around a corner and saw a troop of hominids foraging, then assume she knew where they slept, where they were going, how they would react if they saw her.

1. Leopards didn't exist back then.
2. Leopards as most animals only think on instinct. They don't know what other animals do or will do.

Jayjay4547 wrote: On the other side one can assume that a typical troop often had a habituated predator that had successfully lived off the troop for some time, and it had set reaction tactics that worked somewhat. Evidence for that comes e.g. from the shikari tales of Jim Corbett.

More assumptions, presented without evidence whatsoever.

In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example) and in the lab (all those clever problem solving birds, notably various corvids and pigeons), to indicate some level of understanding of what other animals are likely to do. Whether, or to what extent, this applied to Hominids and/or Leopards (or equivalent species back then) I have no idea, but I think it wrong to write off all animal behaviours as 'instinct'.

DaveScriv wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: If a leopard came around a corner and saw a troop of hominids foraging, then assume she knew where they slept, where they were going, how they would react if they saw her.

1. Leopards didn't exist back then.
2. Leopards as most animals only think on instinct. They don't know what other animals do or will do.

Jayjay4547 wrote: On the other side one can assume that a typical troop often had a habituated predator that had successfully lived off the troop for some time, and it had set reaction tactics that worked somewhat. Evidence for that comes e.g. from the shikari tales of Jim Corbett.

More assumptions, presented without evidence whatsoever.

In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example)

All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

DaveScriv wrote: and in the lab (all those clever problem solving birds, notably various corvids and pigeons), to indicate some level of understanding of what other animals are likely to do.

Yes, those animals themselves, but there is no evidence that one animal has knowledge of or conciously thinks about what another animal of a different species does or will do.

DaveScriv wrote:Whether, or to what extent, this applied to Hominids and/or Leopards (or equivalent species back then) I have no idea, but I think it wrong to write off all animal behaviours as 'instinct'.

Much, if not all of if it is.
Just because it appears clever, doesn't mean it's a process of concious thought.

Guys and gals, you're not properly appreciating the sacred bodily fluids of our dear mr. Bob@GibberishRadio.

Our forum is dripping with bodily fluids and celebrations of men "sodomizing" each other.

Dripping.

Also, vagina. Human female vagina. Dripping human female vagina. Dripping with sacred bodily fluids.

Ok I'll stop now, wouldn't want to have poor mr. Bob@GibberishRadio's head explode. We are so intolerant that we don't tolerate mr. Bob's fundamentalist religiously based discrimination towards people who are different than him.

Rumraket wrote:Guys and gals, you're not properly appreciating the sacred bodily fluids of our dear mr. Bob@GibberishRadio.

Our forum is dripping with bodily fluids and celebrations of men "sodomizing" each other.

Dripping.

Also, vagina. Human female vagina. Dripping human female vagina. Dripping with sacred bodily fluids.

Ok I'll stop now, wouldn't want to have poor mr. Bob@GibberishRadio's head explode. We are so intolerant that we don't tolerate mr. Bob's fundamentalist religiously based discrimination towards people who are different than him.

Will there be 'squirting' as well as 'dripping' ?

I suggest that this thread be renamed in some way, to eliminate subjects, such as "eyes" and "Dawkins", that have not been discussed in it for a very long time!

DaveScriv wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Guys and gals, you're not properly appreciating the sacred bodily fluids of our dear mr. Bob@GibberishRadio.

Our forum is dripping with bodily fluids and celebrations of men "sodomizing" each other.

Dripping.

Also, vagina. Human female vagina. Dripping human female vagina. Dripping with sacred bodily fluids.

Ok I'll stop now, wouldn't want to have poor mr. Bob@GibberishRadio's head explode. We are so intolerant that we don't tolerate mr. Bob's fundamentalist religiously based discrimination towards people who are different than him.

Will there be 'squirting' as well as 'dripping' ?

Dunno, let's ask Bob@SacredBodilyFluids

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example)

All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

What is the evidence that humans make "conscious choices" about any of the complex behaviours they display?

Shrunk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example)

All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

What is the evidence that humans make "conscious choices" about any of the complex behaviours they display?

They conciously design things like weapons, tools. They conciuosly consider their environment and the creatures within it most of time.
For example if a hunter hunts a deer, he/she will conciously consider their strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Rumraket wrote:What, you don't think "god spoke" and then *poof* it was all here fully formed is substantive and interesting?

probably only interesting to psychiatrists....

Nope. Not even to us.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example)

All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

What is the evidence that humans make "conscious choices" about any of the complex behaviours they display?

They conciously design things like weapons, tools. They conciuosly consider their environment and the creatures within it most of time.
For example if a hunter hunts a deer, he/she will conciously consider their strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly.

How do you know any of that is done consciously?

Shrunk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

What is the evidence that humans make "conscious choices" about any of the complex behaviours they display?

They conciously design things like weapons, tools. They conciuosly consider their environment and the creatures within it most of time.
For example if a hunter hunts a deer, he/she will conciously consider their strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly.

How do you know any of that is done consciously?

From my own life and from talking with other people about how did they did this or that or how they arrived at a decision.
Are you seriously suggesting humans do everything subconciusly?