Papagalii demonstreaza un lucru—dar ateii nu pot (sau nu vor) sa il vada

de David Catchpoole
26 Septembrie 2006

Multi dintre profesorii care predau copiilor sunt deseori frustati atunci cand primesc intentionat raspunsuri incorecte sau cateodata nici macar atat, de la tineri inteligenti care evident stiu raspunsul corect, dar nu o recunosc.
parrots Am vazut in asemenea situatii copii care prefera sa ramana tacuti in mod sfidator decat sa dea un raspuns, sau dand in mod intentionat orice alt raspuns gresit posibil, evitand in mod deliberat pe cel corect.

Ei bine, se pare ca si papagalii se comporta la fel.

Profesoara Irene Pepperberg de la Brandeis University, USA, spune ca rezultatele unui studiu foarte indelungat al papagalilor ne arata ca acestia au o inteligenta impresionanta, cam aceeasi cu a unui copil de cinci ani.¹ Un papagal african gri numit ‘Alex’ care a participat la studiu a fost capabil sa identifice corect 100 de obiecte, sa faca adunari simple si sa identifice sapte culori, la fel cum fac si copii.

Dar cum comunica Alex—pot papagalii sa vorbeasca?

‘Daca pui limbajul in citate, da, acestia folosesc vorbirea in limba engleza,’ a spus Pepperberg. ‘Asa ca daca il intreb pe Alex … cate chei?; el imi va spune “doua”. Daca il intreb ce culoare, imi va spune “verde” si daca il intreb ce forma, el imi va spune “trei sferturi”.’

… din intamplare nu putea face asa ceva.

Dar daca Alex nu vrea sa coopereze, ne arata ca poate "sa joace acelasi teatru" ca un copil mic, asa cum explica Pepperberg:

‘Acesta indeplineste aproape la perfectiune primele 12...15 teste, dupa care pur si simplu nu mai vrea sa o faca... sta acolo degeaba sau vocifereaza, sau imi da toate raspunsurile gresite unul dupa altul, ceea ce necesita multa inteligenta deoarece acesta evita mereu raspunsul corect.

‘Daca imi da sase raspunsuri gresite la rand, stii sigur ca el evita cu grija acel al saptelea raspuns corect.

‘Asa ca stii ca el il stie, pentru ca doar din intamplare nu putea face asa ceva.’

Chiar asa. Nu din intamplare. Insa evolutionistii sutin ca din intamplare papagalul si-a ‘evoluat’ aceste abilitati, si ca insusi papagalul (alaturi de toate celelalte animale) este rezultatul unor procese intamplatoare intinse pe perioade de milioane de ani.² Dar papagalul-destept ‘Alex’ si alte exemple documentate de inteligenta ridicata la alte pasari (vedeti de ex., ‘Ciorile sunt mai abile in folosirea instrumentelor decat cimpanzeii’) scoate in evidenta o mare problema cu ideea evolutionistilor. Daca cimpanzeii sunt ‘cele mai apropiate rude ale evolutiei noastre’, atunci cum se face ca pasarile (care nu sunt presupuse a fi rude apropiate ale evolutiei noastre, si care au creiere cu mult mai mici), pot sa intreaca cimpanzeii in multe masuri ale ‘inteligentei’?

Din pacate, partizanii vocali ai evolutiei cum ar fi ateii parrots Richard Dawkins si Sir David Attenborough, evident oameni foarte inteligenti, fie evita arogant sa raspunda problemelor evolutiei cum ar fi ‘Alex’³ fie dau ‘raspunsuri gresite’. Comportament nu prea departe de cel al unor copii mici razgaiati —sau al unor papagali ciorovaitori. Ca si cum asemenea evolutionisti ignora in mod deliberat realitatea unui Creator (2 Petru 3:5) si al adevarului Cuvantului Sau.

Destul de rusinos, pentru ca daca ar dori sa caute adevarul, cu siguranta l-ar gasi (Luca 11:9). Si ar fi recompensati corespunzator (Ioan 3:36).

Referinte

Veness, K., Papagali ‘la fel de inteligenti’ ca si copii mici , ABC News Online, 21 July 2006. Return to text.
Evolutionistii protesteaza deseori si spun ca nu din urma intamplarii, ci in urma unor mutatii+selectie. Totusi, ceea ce spun de fapt e ca: De orice accidente genetice s-au nimerit sa aibe parte aceste animale dealungul timpului (din intamplare), filtrate de ‘potrivirea’ lor la oricare mediu in care acestia s-au nimerit sa traiasca (din intamplare). Intamplare + intamplare = intamplare. Return to text.
Aceasta nu e prima data cand ‘Alex’ a atras atentia agentiilor de stiri, fiind de ceva ani buni subiectul cercetarii profesoarei Pepperberg, lucru pe care l-am evidentiat mai devreme in articolul de mai jos. Vezi ‘Bird-brain matches chimps (and neither makes it to grade school)’, Creation 19(1):47, 1996. Return to text.
A Thinking Bird, or Just Another Birdbrain? New York Times, October 9, 1999
Pepperberg reports that Alex has the concept of zero. July 2, 2005 Special to World Science
http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.htm
Petulant parrot proves a point-but atheists can't (or won't) see it

Ciorile sunt mai inteligente in folosirea instrumentelor decat cimpanzeii parrots

Cioara New Caledonian, faimoasa pentru faptul ca isi mestesugareste unelte din materiale improvizate pentru a-si extrage hrana, este cunoscuta a fi capabila sa isi imbunateasca designurile anterioare pentru a-si fauri alte intrumente mai specializate.

Cercetatorii au studiat 4 designuri ale uneltelor de proba pe care pasarile le taie din frunzele de Pandanus , si au descoperit ca ciorile au invatat sa isi imbunatateasca designul existent si apoi sa se imite una pe alta.

Cand a mediatizat aceasta 'insusire de gandire umana' a ciorilor, New Scientist a recunoscut ca 'Nici macar cimpanzeii nu fac acest fel de imbunatatiri pas cu pas ale uneltelor lor.'

New Scientist, 15 Martie 2003, p. 15.

Evolutionistii sunt deseori surprinsi de astfel de descoperiri, din moment ce ei se asteapta ca cimpanzeii, 'rudele noastre apropiate cele mai apropiate in evolutie', sa prezinte o inteligenta apropiata de cea a oamenilor.

Ciorile isi fac carlige din fire pentru a-si prinde hrana
New Caledonian crow tool manufacture and use

Omul desigur, este in mod clar diferit de animale si pasari, fiind facut dupa asemenarea lui Dumnezeu (Geneza 1:27).

Creation Archive > Volume 19 Issue 1 > Bird-brain matches chimps
Bird-brain matches chimps (and neither makes it to grade school)

Chimpanzees have some similarities to people in their appearance and behaviour—which really excites evolutionists desperate to show that any differences are really trivial, especially in those areas which seem to make people uniquely created in the image of God.

Not surprisingly, a popular research interest has been in comparing the language and reasoning abilities of chimps with ours.

Pointing to our alleged 'genetic closeness' (see Human/chimp DNA similarity), some have said that we are just a third species of chimpanzee, while others have recently called for chimps (and gorillas) to be reclassified as Homo.

However, just when evolutionists were riding high about their success in getting some chimps to use a very basic but definite (sign) language, some notable dampeners to their enthusiasm have appeared.

First, it turns out that there is at least one parrot that can rival chimps (and dolphins) in creative language use and complexity of reasoning. Birds aren't supposed to be our close evolutionary cousins, and they have much smaller brains.

Perhaps Irene Pepperberg at the University of Arizona forgot all that when she trained an African gray parrot named Alex, who 'speaks English and means what he says'. He can count up to six, and can recognize and name some 100 different objects, as well as their colour, texture and shape. (Scientific American, April 1996, p. 23.)

Furthermore, increasingly sophisticated tests have been carried out to discern whether chimps can 'discern motives, plans and strategies behind observed behaviours'. That is, can they form a concept of their own and others' mental states, as even young children do?

Some had said that this was obviously the case if they were able to use language. However, there is now a growing tide of skepticism based on these latest tests.

It has long been believed that both chimps and orangs are self-aware, because when they see themselves in front of a mirror with unexpected markings on their bodies, they clearly show that they can recognise themselves by inspecting the marked areas on their own bodies, for instance.

However, more than one experimenter is coming to the conclusion that self-recognition may not be the same as true self-awareness, after all.

For instance, Daniel Povinelli from the University of Southwestern Lousiana says that over the last few years he has 'become much more open to the possibility that chimps may not develop a mental understanding of themselves and others, at least not to the extent that preschool children do'.(Science News, Vol.149 No.3, January 20, 1996, pp. 42-43)

Povinelli remains a committed evolutionist, and his negative results on chimps are reported with cautious, almost grudging wording at times. Nevertheless, the results of his studies indicate that 'humans operate in a mental realm that may stay off-limits to apes and other animals ... By 3 to 5 years of age, children conclude that their peers behave according to unseen beliefs, intentions, and other mental states'—while 'chimps may not try to decipher others' minds in this way'.

Next time you delight in the antics of chimps at a zoo, why not reflect with joy on the way they have been made? Their similarities to us, and to other apes and monkeys, confirm that we are all the product of the one Designer. The profound differences in their mental abilities reinforce the biblical reality that only people were created to commune with their Maker, who communicated His love to us in that 'while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us'.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/153/