• @wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I already gave them to you.

      There is no “primitive” or “modern” species. Ant, or otherwise. Thats not a thing, biologically speaking, for extant species.

      And, again, lacking cognitive testing is not proof of lack of cognition. Even if we do ignore the examples of play, a behavior that requires developed thinking.

      Youre making up blind assumptions based on your belief that insects are below humans. Its a false assumption, one with no facts to support it, and it flies in the face of the actual facts.

      • lol3droflxp
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago
        1. I used primitive and modern as a way to refer to more basal or derived traits in ant colonies that I hoped would be more accessible. This is commonly used in literature although a bit dated.

        2. Where did I say ants don’t have cognition? You just assumed this. Also, there are no examples of playing behaviour in ant species so far. Only the bumblebee paper. If you know of any publications on this topic that I don’t know about, please feel free to share. Maybe they do, still doesn’t really change much.

        3. Show me an insect manufacturing or using tools. Or one learning new techniques by watching others, or one teaching its offspring. These are some of the complex cognitive traits found in mammals and birds that have not been shown for insects as far as I know.

        Believe me when I tell you that I have a profound interest and appreciation for insects, enough to shape career and education choices around them. But claiming that insects are cognitively even remotely on the same level as humans is not supported anywhere and a bit of a silly hill to die on.

        • @wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago
          1. you used it incorrectly, both originally and now.

          2. you heavily implied this, and are doing so again here. Again, lack of research is not proof of null.

          3. leafcutter ants teach each other the neccessary steps for fungal feeding. They do not naturally know how to prepare the leaves. As far as you know is not a far distance, and is not a basis for dismissing an entire branch of the animal kingdom as lesser.

          The silly hill to die on is you acting like your lack of knowledge is equivalent to fact. It spits in the face of scientific research.

          • lol3droflxp
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago
            1. I didn’t. I meant it, to use another terminology, as ancestral/derived traits. Maybe you get that.

            2. I didn’t, also you can’t prove absence of something as you should know.

            3. Do you actually believe ants have closely similar cognitive abilities to humans? Where does this idea come from? At the beginning of the century entomology textbooks actually featured flowcharts to predict insect behaviour. We found out that there is more individuality and adaptability but it’s still not comparable to animals with more complex brains.

            You have provided effectively 0 evidence to prove anything as wild as ants forming some elaborate society that would be even nearly as complex as that of humans. Show me this research that you speak of or maybe try to lay off the pop-sci a little.