• wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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.