Experiments with pigeons show that their intelligence matches or exceeds that of chimpanzees.  If evolutionists can infer that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives based on intelligence, why wouldn’t it be just as logical to infer that humans evolved from birds?  As some recent articles show, such a whimsical story does not exceed in silliness what some evolutionists actually do claim.

Bird superbrain:  In Science this week (23 December 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6063 p. 1664, doi:10.1126/science.1213357), Damian Scarf, Harlene Hayne, and Michael Colombo demonstrated “Pigeons on Par with Primates in Numerical Competence.”  The abstract is short and to the point:

Although many animals are able to discriminate stimuli differing in numerosity, only primates are thought to share our ability to employ abstract numerical rules. Here, we show that this ability is present in pigeons and that their performance is indistinguishable from that displayed by monkeys.

How does an evolutionist explain this?  Joseph Castro on Live Science gave a demonstration of the storytelling flexibility available to Darwinists: “Finding the same level of numerical competence as the pigeons (and rhesus monkeys) in other species would help scientists understand if the ability evolved across species separately, or if a common ancestor shared the ability.”  A common ancestor of pigeons and primates might be some kind of early dinosaur.  Conveniently, those are not available for experimentation, although Tom Weller speculated they were pretty bright (see Science Made Stupid).

Moon monolith:  Someone at The Guardian never quite got over 2001: A Space Odyssey.  According to PhysOrg, “Professor Paul Davis and research technician Robert Wagner … published a paper … that suggests we humans begin taking a little closer look at our own moon to see if any alien life forms might have left behind some evidence of their visit.”  The reporter did not reveal whether Davis and Wager were wearing tin-foil pyramid hats or pasta strainers (7/14/2011), but tried to pre-empt laughter anyway: “Though some might see it as farfetched, or heaven forbid, lunacy, Davis and Wagner are convinced that it’s worth the small amount of investment such a search would entail.”  Their technique would be to borrow some design-detection techniques from Intelligent Design (although they would probably never admit it): “looking for anything that appears of unnatural origin,” e.g., “incontrovertible signatures of non-human technology.”  Maybe it would look like a large, black, rectangular block….

Continue Reading on crev.info