Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
And yet you're the only one on this thread making unevidenced assertions.
So: Many experts now agree ... some birds use fire as a weapon.
- Thread starter Ron Swanson
- Start date
And yet you're the only one on this thread making unevidenced assertions.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Scientific observation is a lot more than a mere claim having seen something.
The irony is that I am far from the only one "who gives FF about footage." One of the main proponents of the idea that birds spread bushfires, Bob Gosford, actually gives FF about footage. Macdoc and smartcooky are the only ones who don't:
But let's congratulate Bonta, Gosford & Co:
That's the spirit!
'We didn't get the the footage to prove that raptors spread fire, so now we pretend that it's not a problem that we didn't, and that the only problem is that we didn't prove intentionality! And so we can get on with our lives, and the rest is up to you, dear reader: Please help us prove we're right!'
Yes, I don't doubt that Bob and his colleagues would love for you to do that!
Nowadays, Gosford still takes photos, but they are of things like streetsweepers, homeless people, urinals and clouds. All very real.
He still likes to reminisce about the good old days.
And he still doesn't like Trump. We have that in common.
He still likes to reminisce about the good old days.
And he still doesn't like Trump. We have that in common.
Another one of those videos:
The complexity of emotions that a killer whale can express with nothing but its dorsal fin! Incredible, indeed! It's just gotta be intelligent!
Close, but still not there:
I hope the fire-spreading-birds fans have their video cameras ready this season.
Begins at 8:48.
I hope the fire-spreading-birds fans have their video cameras ready this season.
macdoc
Philosopher
I wonder what the world did before video cams were invented......
oh wait.....observers. Including Darwin on the Beagle or Wallace establishing the Wallace line....observers that wrote about what they saw....fancy that
only took 150 years to get this one sorted.
www.theguardian.com
oh wait.....observers. Including Darwin on the Beagle or Wallace establishing the Wallace line....observers that wrote about what they saw....fancy that
only took 150 years to get this one sorted.
Moth tongues, orchids and Darwin – the predictive power of evolution | Dr Dave Hone
It took nearly 150 years to prove that a suggestion by Charles Darwin in 1862 was correct writes Dr Dave Hone
www.theguardian.com
angrysoba
Philosophile
I wonder what the world did before video cams were invented......
oh wait.....observers. Including Darwin on the Beagle or Wallace establishing the Wallace line....observers that wrote about what they saw....fancy that
only took 150 years to get this one sorted.
Moth tongues, orchids and Darwin – the predictive power of evolution | Dr Dave Hone
It took nearly 150 years to prove that a suggestion by Charles Darwin in 1862 was correct writes Dr Dave Hone
As the piece makes clear, Darwin did not observe the particular moth but predicted it based on the long nectary of the orchid. Also, it is a bad analogy because Darwin suggested that an insect like this particular moth MUST exist according to natural selection. If the insect did not exist the length of the nectary would be inexplicable. This is NOT the same as fire-starter birds. I don’t think anyone here has made a case that the birds have an evolutionary requirement to start fires. In fact, it has even been asserted by some proponents here that they probably hardly ever do it which conveniently explains why nobody gets video of it. But that is untrue of these moths which must do it every year.
Finally, not only did Darwin not observe it, nobody claims to have observed it until about thirty years ago when, unlike with the birds, they did manage to get stills and video….
macdoc
Philosopher
You miss the point. I'll just leave it at that. 
angrysoba
Philosophile
The Beagle also didn't go to Madagascar.You miss the point. I'll just leave it at that.
Anyway, my point is that it is all well and good to say that there are some things that may happen that we have never caught on film. This is certainly true.
BUT...
The Darwin analogy is a poor one because Darwin made a prediction based on the theory of evolution.
So I think it is fair to ask if you are asserting that the birds have developed the ability to start fires because it gives them an evolutionary advantage. I understand that there could be other explanations too. We might think of their ability to light fires, if it is true, as stemming from a general intelligence that is higher than we might otherwise think, such as with octopuses climbing out of their tanks to raid other tanks, etc...
That said, I don't see why anyone should be compelled to believe in it unless there has been some form of reliable verification such as a video recording. Why is it so hard to come up with this evidence?
Macdoc loves the moth story. It's a pity he doesn't understand it.
I tried to teach him in post 760.
I tried to teach him in post 760.
macdoc
Philosopher
Arrogance writ large ....grow up.
Once more you deny what you clearly do not understand, have very limited real world experience and no respect for those in field who do.
Once more you deny what you clearly do not understand, have very limited real world experience and no respect for those in field who do.
Since pathetic ad hominem is all you've got, let me help you out: Fire Breathing Cormorant - Scientific Research (Kurucz.ca)
Why indeed! But before you start investigating motivation, it might be a good idea to first establish as a fact that they actually do start fires.
I can't even blame these two dumbasess for thinking that birds start fires. They have just taken the word of alleged experts for it, but that is still the wrong thing to do for a researcher.
The ones who should be blamed are guys like Mark Bonta and Bob Gosford (see post 711), who should have made it clear to the world that all they had was myths and anecdotes, no real evidence of any birds starting (or spreading) fires. Instead, they pretended that the fire-spreading raptors were a fact and managed to convince naïve ornithologists around the world of their idea. Their intentions may have been good, but now would be as good a time as any for them to acknowledge the lack of evidence, especially because even Gosford seems to have entirely given up on the idea.
Great article about how wildfires actually spread by means of firebrands:
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
My youngest son is autistic, when he was little we used to shut off the circuit breaker for the stove any time we left the house.
In the rare time the building is empty I also shut off the water heaters, and the water pressure main valve.
I'm not sure that would have helped here
with so many people in the home .. you can't really expect guests to follow unusual protocols, like that. Plus a gas stove? it would not be simple to shut it off ....
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
My youngest son is autistic, when he was little we used to shut off the circuit breaker for the stove any time we left the house.
In the rare time the building is empty I also shut off the water heaters, and the water pressure main valve.
I'm not sure that would have helped here
Plus a gas stove? it would not be simple to shut it off ....
My dog sits in the front seat of my car when we go for a drive anywhere.
If I have to leave the vehicle for any reason, I put the car in park, set the hand brake and turn the car off.
It would be ludicrously easy for him to accidentally bump the gear stick and put the car into drive if I left it 'on'.
That would only cause the car to go into 'creep' mode, but that could be sufficient to damage the car, or cause an accident.
Note that the 'key' and electronic fob never leave my pocket, I've seen too many youtube videos of people who've been locked out of their cars by pets or children.
angrysoba
Philosophile
"So, many experts agree... Dogs drive cars now."
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the claim turns out to be true.
But I don't think just so stories are a good substitute for video records.
One of the these days, a fire spotting drone is going to capture footage. And on that day, I'll be the first to say, "those so called experts who demanded we believe without evidence are still jackasses."
Until that day, though...
But I don't think just so stories are a good substitute for video records.
One of the these days, a fire spotting drone is going to capture footage. And on that day, I'll be the first to say, "those so called experts who demanded we believe without evidence are still jackasses."
Until that day, though...
I know too little about autism in this respect. Would an autistic child left unsupervised be more likely to turn on the stove, intentionally or accidentally, than any other child?My youngest son is autistic, when he was little we used to shut off the circuit breaker for the stove any time we left the house.
In the rare time the building is empty I also shut off the water heaters, and the water pressure main valve.
I'm not sure that would have helped here
Plus a gas stove? it would not be simple to shut it off ....
My 79-year-old aunt with early-stage dementia and apparently some kind of fever on top of it - a neighbor had lent her a thermometer earlier that day - managed to turn on the gas and kill herself and almost also the family living in the apartment over hers if the youngest child hadn't complained about the smell. The police ruled out intentional suicide because of the disorganized way she had done it, apparently thinking that on was off.
Fortunately, my love birds mentioned earlier in the thread were too small to turn on the gas unlike the pitbull in the video.
And we've got the footage to prove it!
Now all they have to do is learn to live until they're old enough to get a driver's license.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
I would put nothing past corvids. Just saying. I bet the crows that often sit watching me unlock the car are only a spare car key away from stealing it, and driving off by themselves to buy their own dog treats (I sometimes offer them something, and dog treats are the favourite).
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Well, our intelligence had to start somewhere.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,427
I don't believe that these birds are starting fires.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,427
There's still no evidence to support this.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Spare a thought for the poor aliens, traveling all those light years to make first contact. They arrive at here, and can't figure out who to make contact with. On the one hand, these guys have fire, skyscrapers, jet airplanes, and an internet. But on the other hand, those guys also have fire. What a dilemma!
angrysoba
Philosophile
obvs it would be the humpback whales. Hope we still have some then.
I would go with dolphins. Primarily because they are good at cooperation and communication. Kurt Vonnegut got it wrong. Under water, bigger brains are not the disadvantage that he (and Leon Trotsky Trout) thought they would have to be in order to make body shapes hydrodynamic.
Vonnegut didn't consider how streamlined dolphins' heads are - despite the size of their brains. And under water, the weight of brains doesn't matter much.
In the air, however:
The evolution of flying creatures favors reducing the weight of everything: scales become feathers (large surface, minor mass), bones become hollow, and brains are reduced in size but not in function. Imagine a bird brain the size of mammal brains but with the brain power per cm2 still at the same level as now! If that would even be possible. I don't know how bird brains get rid of excess heat. It's much easier in small brains with a relatively larger surface area. Evolution had to come up with a couple of work-arounds to solve that problem in humans.
Crows are pretty smart. I usually give them peanuts. They prefer the shelled ones.
However, birds (and dolphins even more so, obviously) are at a disadvantage in comparison to humans when it comes to prehensility (Wikipedia). They use their beaks for picking up and holding on to most things. Corvids can hold on to shelled peanuts with their claws while hacking away at them with their beaks, but in this respect, i.e. holding on to things, (large) parrots appear to be superior to corvids.
If we are looking for a species to replace primates as the dominant species, my money would be on parrots.
angrysoba
Philosophile
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Psh. Whales don't even have fire!
Yes, there is! You just told us that you don't believe that these birds are starting fires!
I believe you!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Ah, dolphins. The rapists of the sea. Maybe the aliens can impart to them a higher ethics than aquatic dedovschina.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
They are not the rapists of the sea, many aquatic mammals "mate coercively", as the marine biologists like to call it, but it is harder for fish, so I don't suppose nonconsensual sex is a fishy thing. Although it is, of course, in other contexts... The world is a very confusing thing.