Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

Straw men upon straw men. Truly embarrassing and sad condemnation of the education system and what passes for legal evidence these days.

Where are Denny Crane or Alan Shaw when you need them?

I tought we were beyond the days of the Scopes trial. If you deny evolution and the sientific method, then you also reject quantum computing, electricity, inoculation etc. etc.

Time to ditch your car, grow a silly beard and marry your sister......and if you have time, baptise your late atheist father.

Tzieth, I suggest that you look back over the posts made earlier today and yesterday and deal with the counter arguments I have already provided in response to the range of cliched fallacies raised in your latest post.

OP here to remind you that you are all full of shit.

Even that one guy who usually makes sense.

Stop it you crazy fucks. You're making BigFooT cry

Funniest post of the day. Now I have to clean the beer off the floor that you made me spit all over the shop. Where do I send the bill?

I just hope I'm not the one who 'usually makes sense'.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Again your a condescending

Not in the least. I'm merely pointing out that your arguments are meaningless as they critique a version of science that is dishonest and incorrect. You've done it again in your latest post and continue to repeat arguments that have been pulled part.......and now I have to repeat what I have already said in the hope that you might get it this time around.

For the record I am not throwing around my belief in science, I am trying to explain how science works and that your arguments do not apply - you are tilting at windmills.

It Doesn't say its fact it says at the very beginning of it that it shows good evidence for it.

Which is the same thing within the world of science. Science doesn't deal in fixed hard facts, but rather explanations and theories that best fit the current evidence. Science doesn't del in immutable facts.

See science can not answer it, just like your question of where did god come from can not be answered.

'We do not know' is not the same as 'we cannot know'. What science actually says is 'we do not know yet' and it is actively looking for answers. Once science figures it out, it will move on to what happened prior to the start of the universe - that isn't circular reasoning, but rather expanding the scope of scientific enquiry. Science isn't about looking for ultimate answers but rather asking questions about the unknown and within a naturalistic model of reality nothing is unknowable. Saying 'we cannot know' is a cop out.

Evolution is not observable.
Mutation is. You are assuming Mutation is Evolution.

You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the term used to describe mutation/speciation which is clearly observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind speciation. And the theory of evolution is in no way comparable to mythology as like all scientific theories it is subject to falsification, it is constantly being tested, it is not just some story concocted to hide our ignorance and it is based on reasoned deduction extracted from empirical observations and data.

I really hope that I don't have to repeat this yet again.

To Mr. Woodwose: I think that you are being needlessly harsh.

How so?

I'm open to criticism and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Please bear in mind that I have repeated myself several times, so it is no surprise that I should be incised when someone try's to score points using points I have already made.

This isn't just a matter of opinion. We are talking about fundamental tenets of modern wisdom that when questioned can cost lives.

If I argue that the sky is blue and someone claims I think it is green, how should I react?

If I explain why it is blue, but I am told that I am wrong because my argument does not explain why it is green, how should I act?

If the person who disagrees that that sky is blue then puts forward an argument as to why the sky is blue (repeating what I have already said), how should I react?

This is the kind of nonsense I am dealing with on this thread and it is a miracle that I hav'nt broken down and thrown the toys from my crib.

Woodwose wrote:Straw men upon straw men. Truly embarrassing and sad condemnation of the education system and what passes for legal evidence these days.

Where are Denny Crane or Alan Shaw when you need them?

I tought we were beyond the days of the Scopes trial. If you deny evolution and the sientific method, then you also reject quantum computing, electricity, inoculation etc. etc.

Time to ditch your car, grow a silly beard and marry your sister......and if you have time, baptise your late atheist father.

Tzieth, I suggest that you look back over the posts made earlier today and yesterday and deal with the counter arguments I have already provided in response to the range of cliched fallacies raised in your latest post.

uhh no. All you did was counter your own argument while avoiding my own. And spilling out more loopy rhetoric and not touching that which I have pointed out. If the reconstructed skeletons are accurate, then you are still missing multiple variants. If they are not accurate, then where is your case to begin with? I flat out used your very own definition of "Theory" and it still proves invalid.. And yet you are not addressing this. Instead you are attempting to run in circles again. Show me where your theory was tested.. Show me where a specimen was created from inorganic chemicals and then evolved into an even single celled organism? If you can't at least show me that, then everything you are saying is "Religion".

You seem to have no problem in attacking the religion of others as it does not meet your "Science" but you are not attacking your own religion that equally does not agree with what you yourself has stated is Science.

You also still are not covering Mars which now officially confirmed, has everything needed for life to evolve lol.. Where is it?

I don't even know where to begin here.

all you did was counter your own argument while avoiding my own. And spilling out more loopy rhetoric and not touching that which I have pointed out. If the reconstructed skeletons are accurate, then you are still missing multiple variants.

I have never resorted to rhetoric and I have addressesed your point regarding intermediate fossil specimins. And you wonder why I get annoyed about creationist dishonesty.

Show me where a specimen was created from inorganic chemicals and then evolved into an even single celled organism? If you can't at least show me that, then everything you are saying is "Religion".

Another straw man. If you are going to criticise the TOE then you need to understand it.

You also still are not covering Mars which now officially confirmed, has everything needed for life to evolve lol.. Where is it?

That just reads as incoherent babble.

If you reject the scientific method, what is the empirical method of investigation you consider to be a viable alternative?

And you just did it again lol This is like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness lol.

This is not rhetoric? "As far as religeon is concerned, anyone who has studied comparative theology can see that there is no consensus and that atheism towards competing religions clearly points towards religion being entirely man made."
Hell it doesn't even make sense lol. But it was an attempt to turn this into a Creationist Vs Evolutionist argument calling in all possible Atheists to your side. Basically all Evolution is, is the Atheists Bible lol.

As for me? I am not exactly a creationist my self. I was brought up Southern Baptist and for a time even went to a Southern Baptist private school. I have Bible versus still branded into my brain taking up useful space. But an event happened in my life that had disillusioned me from everything, and because of this I put everything under the micro-scope including the Bible it's self. So I lean more towards an Intelligent Design, but I believe in Jesus.. (yeah I am screwed up that way.) But this is simply a belief.. No proof, no hard evidence, but it works for me. However I admit it is a religion. (Even though I.D. explains the gaps in Evolution)

But you are doing the same as any religion does. You are pointing out flaws of Creationist and stating Evolution proves it wrong. (The same could be done vise-versa) But not looking at the major flaws of your own religion.

This whole mess got started when I said Sasquatch has more evidence than evolution. At the time I was playing Devils Advocate as I do also feel evolution does have some evidence, but much weaker than that of a Modern unknown Hominid that may or may not be a relict one.

But the fact still remains. If you cannot create a single celled Organism from inorganic material, then you have proven nothing. If this is ever done, then the single-celled organism, will need to become a multi celled one and so on, before you have a true "Theory" by your very own definition. True or False?

At the time I was playing Devils Advocate as I do also feel evolution does have some evidence, but much weaker than that of a Modern unknown Hominid that may or may not be a relict one.

The problem here is that you are rejecting science but then using scientific terminology and evidence in an attempt to prove your point.

That's why I made my admittedly glib swipes at the Amish world view.

If you cannot create a single celled Organism from inorganic material, then you have proven nothing.-

As I mentioned previously, this has nothing to do with the TOE and is a concern of abiogenesis. You seem smart enough to take this on board (to clarify, I am not being patronising).

If this is ever done, then the single-celled organism, will need to become a multi celled one and so on, before you have a true "Theory" by your very own definition. True or False?

It's 'sort of' false. You are still alluding to the mutation of one genera to another (the TOE does not make this claim). A single cell evolving into something more complex is however something we see in the embrionic transition of every known animal. And whilst science doesn't really deal with beauty, the stages of embrionic transformation are a thing of beauty.

You really don't need religion when nature is so amazing.

You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the term used to describe mutation/speciation which is clearly observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind speciation.

What?

The problem here is that you are rejecting science but then using scientific terminology and evidence in an attempt to prove your point.

And you seem to be using terminology to avoid the questions being asked of you. You seem to be clouding the issue with scientific definitions.

So according to the first statement...Evolution (as defined as clearly observed mutations) has been proven. That I can accept. But then you go on to say the Theory of Evolution (which is an attempt the explain the mechanisms behind the proven Evolution) is a theory that has not been proven. That I also accept....in fact...it has been what everyone has been trying to tell you!! That how one organism "evolves" into another is unknown and is not observable!

So Evolution is fact but the mechanism that drives it is unknown and unproven....and given that, you have trouble with intelligent design? At least intelligent design addresses the mechanism behind Evolution.

And please note that again I have not mentioned religion. This is not a religious debate.

If by TOE you mean "Theory of Everything", that deals in Physics, not biology. And I am not getting digressed into that. The topic was Evolution. One thing becoming another. A mutation of a cell is not a new organism.

"The problem here is that you are rejecting science but then using scientific terminology and evidence in an attempt to prove your point.

That's why I made my admittedly glib swipes at the Amish world view."

No I am calling out main-stream science for it's double standard, not rejecting true science. Main-stream is writing off any possibility of Sasquatch. And then you have your "Burden of Proof" guys. (The very same thing I say about Evolution being called fact.)

Evolution has some evidence. Things do mutate. But there is no proof things mutate into other things. Nor is there proof that mutation is evolution. Okay while sea iguanas might have webbed feet. Where is the proof this mutation was because they adapted? It could have just as easily been a fluke, and the things could no longer out run predators so they moved by the sea and found the webbed feet helped. Cancer is also a genetic mutation.. Where does that "Evolve" us? Or Ice Aged animals being woolly... Who's to say they did not become woolly in a tropical climate and then moved north to cool off?

That whole theory is based off of assumptions and then the evidence is retro-fitted as time goes on. That is my problem with it. You are teaching something is a fact, and then retro-fitting new finds to meet it?

Bigfoot is different.. No one but those who have seen it are calling it a "Fact". There is a mountain of evidence suggesting Bigfoot does exist that would hold up in a court of law, but yet mainstream science still says "There is no evidence." and then they use the dumbest excuses to debunk it, instead of investigate it. They openly admit that chimpanzees left no fossil evidence because they have DNA to back up their claim that chimps share 96% with humans. And these are the very same people who point lack of fossil evidence to support Bigfoot.

So Science knows how fossils are made, it knows how you need a boarder-line miracle to make a fossil. (Right place, right time, right conditions, right weather) in a flat grassland/prairie environment preferably below sea level. And it can say that Homo-Hominids died out and that there is no fossil record for bigfoot and still keep a straight face? Here is one of the only cases where you will find lack of evidence is evidence of possibility. Chimps do not have fossils because they live in jungles and Jungles and forests break down organic mater faster than any other environment. Aside from scavengers, you have all the decomposer's all present together.. The bacteria, the fungi and the ideal wet climate they thrive in.

No Hominid was ever found in a multiple cluster as Dinosaurs were found. When multiples occur, it is usually an adult and a child. "Lets add this new extinct Hominid to the tree!" Without questioning the possibility that these creatures were on the move from one forest/jungle to another.

So we have the evidence.. Foot-prints and by the way, Sasquatch prints, do match that of early hominids. We have sound clips that are unidentifiable as any known species, we have eye-witnesses, we have DNA that matches nothing known. This is more than Evolutionists have.

But then again, could this be why science is turning a blind eye? How much retro-fitting will have to be done if "Bigfoot" turns out to be every hominid on record from Australopithecines to Homo? What happens to selective design then?

By the way Theory of Everything is currently dead in the water from what I just read.

I think by TOE he meant theory of evolution

Steps of the Scientific Method ◦Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results
•It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
•While scientists study how nature works, engineers create new things, such as products, websites, environments, and experiences. ◦If your project involves creating or inventing something new, your project might better fit the steps of the Engineering Design Process.
◦If you are not sure if your project is a scientific or engineering project, you should read Comparing the Engineering Design Process and the Scientific Method.

This is the Scientific Method to prove/test a Theory.


You say that a theory needs to be Falsified

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified???

Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let me point out to you the above Science is making an excuse here. They Give us IF/Then that it can be falsified only if we discover something later on.
Anyone can create the same Falsfieds to anything. Well It can Be falsified If we discover this later on. Or Well its so complicated it takes a lot to falsifie it.
Sorry this is an excuse to justify it as Factual theory.

DPinkerton wrote:

You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the term used to describe mutation/speciation which is clearly observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind speciation.

What?

What is there not to understand? I don't think I could have explained the distinction in simpler terms.

And you seem to be using terminology to avoid the questions being asked of you. You seem to be clouding the issue with scientific definitions.

You seem to be missing the point. What questions have I avoided?

So according to the first statement...Evolution (as defined as clearly observed mutations) has been proven. That I can accept. But then you go on to say the Theory of Evolution (which is an attempt the explain the mechanisms behind the proven Evolution) is a theory that has not been proven.

Not quite. The TOE is currently the best explanation we have for evolution and it has withstood the rigours of more than a century of falsification. That's as close to fact as you get in science.

That how one organism "evolves" into another is unknown and is not observable!

Please provide a single reference which cites that the TOE claims one genera can spontaneously mutate into completely different genera. The TOE deals with speciation and there isn't even a scientific term for what you are describing (that in itself should tell you something).

At least intelligent design addresses the mechanism behind Evolution.

It doesn't offer a solution that is testable, verifiable and repeatable. It just says 'God did it'. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker?

This is not a religious debate.

It is when people keep equating science with religion.

CMcMillan wrote:You say that a theory needs to be Falsified

Correct. How do you falsify 'God did it'?

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified???

Precisely. The alternatives cannot.

Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.

Here you have the facts staring you in the face, but you still don't actually understand what you are referencing. You now know what is required to falsify the TOE; care to take a stab at it.

They Give us IF/Then that it can be falsified only if we discover something later on.

Yes, that's what is known as a reasoned argument. We are limited to what can be tested and repeated and you have been given the criteria by which we can determine whether ANY scientific theory can stand up to scrutiny.

If you reject this, then you reject all of science and all post-enlightenment thinking......and you already know where I stand in that regard. What you believe to be an excuse is in fact a blueprint for understanding how things work in a way that does not come down to faith or mere opinion. It is something that allows us to view the world unencumbered by bias or wishful thinking.

Wow wood

You totally don't get it.
Ok, lets see look at this.

Simple:
If it can be shown where the Singularity came from then God can be proven to be a none issue and is their for falsifiable.

Let me be a bit more specific for you.

Intelectual design:

Some people believe that Evolution had a Intellect behind it.
We have several reasons of proof here.
Order of the Universe. Evolution breaks the laws of thermaldynamics, DNA these all point to a Intellect

Now to falsify this
If Evolution didn't break the laws of thermaldynamics.
It is shown DNA does not have all the Information we think it does.
All Fossiles are accuratly and evey single creature is shown the transitions of its Mutation and evolution.
If we are able to create a single cell organism and create different new animals from it with just forcing enviroment changes.

So Intellectual Design is a Theory

And no I am not twisting Science to fit it If you say I am then so is Evolution.
I gave ways that It can be proven to be falsfied and that is all Evolution askes of as well

Tzieth wrote:If by TOE you mean "Theory of Everything"

TOE = Theory of Evolution.

Main-stream is writing off any possibility of Sasquatch.

Science has not written off the existence of BF. Many esteemed academics take it seriously (have you forgotten about the likes of Sykes?). Individual scientists may right it off, but they do not speak for science as a whole (no one does).

But there is no proof things mutate into other things. Nor is there proof that mutation is evolution.

Mutation is the term used to describe 'things' turning into other 'things' i.e. speciation. Evolution is the term used to describe this process of mutation.

Where is the proof this mutation was because they adapted?

I have already provided a link to examples of current examples of speciation occuring in response to environmental pressure.

It could have just as easily been a fluke

Yes, mutation is essentially a series of flukes. Flukes that happen to useful are passed on to future generations.

Cancer is also a genetic mutation.. Where does that "Evolve" us?

Evolution has no direction. It is random and some mutations are not beneficial.

That whole theory is based off of assumptions and then the evidence is retro-fitted as time goes on.

That isn't how it works. The TOE makes predictions and then science looks to see if there is any evidence to support that evidence. Sometimes these predictions are verified, sometimes they are not and science has to go back to the drawing board.

.....but yet mainstream science still says "There is no evidence."

No. Science says that there currently is not sufficient evidence to classify BF as a real animal. However it does accept that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation as the evidence suggests that BF could exist.

They openly admit that chimpanzees left no fossil evidence because they have DNA to back up their claim that chimps share 96% with humans. And these are the very same people who point lack of fossil evidence to support Bigfoot.

I agree, anyone who makes such a claim is clearly a hypocrite. Then again, so are those people who accept the reason for a lack of BF fossil evidence but then wail on about there being no transitional fossils to support the TOE.

No Hominid was ever found in a multiple cluster as Dinosaurs were found. When multiples occur, it is usually an adult and a child.

That's because herd animals exhibit different socialisation behaviour. You won't find multiple remains of Tigers for the same reason.

So we have the evidence.. Foot-prints and by the way, Sasquatch prints, do match that of early hominids. We have sound clips that are unidentifiable as any known species, we have eye-witnesses, we have DNA that matches nothing known. This is more than Evolutionists have.

Yes these are compelling reasons to believe that BF may be real - have I said otherwise? Evolution (there is no such thing as an evolutioninst!) is however supported by a mountain of evidence and it sets the bar for what we need with regard to BF.

How much retro-fitting will have to be done if "Bigfoot" turns out to be every hominid on record from Australopithecines to Homo? What happens to selective design then?

That's about as likely as circumventing the third law of thermodynamics (that would be a law - not a theory or hypothesis).

CMcMillan wrote:And no I am not twisting Science to fit it

I agree. What you have done is misrepresent/misinterpret the scientific method and demonstrated that you don't understand what falsification means.

This is all the more worrying as you are actually capable of finding references that explain all this to you, but you somehow get it completely wrong all the same.

It is very easy to falsify ID. If someone produces flagellum in labs through an undirected process they would've effectively falsified ID. Since they would've shown that flagellum is best explained by an undirected process rather than an intelligent cause.

Intelligent Design is realistically more falsifiable than say the string theory, which has no directly testable predictions.

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect--finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It's clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:And no I am not twisting Science to fit it

I agree. What you have done is misrepresent/misinterpret the scientific method and demonstrated that you don't understand what falsification means.

This is all the more worrying as you are actually capable of finding references that explain all this to you, but you somehow get it completely wrong all the same.

Bullshit
You don't understand what it means.
You don't want to admit that ID is a Theory it follows all the proper science that Pure Evolution does.
I used the exact same falsification that you agreed on with Pure Evolution and you say I don't understand it.
I used it in the same way.
So who doesn't know what it means it is you.
stop being intelectually dishonest. Which is what you are being.

CMcMillan wrote:You don't want to admit that ID is a Theory

ID is not a scientific theory as there is no way to falsify it (can you point me in the direction of a single peer reviewed paper that supports ID?). As I stated above you don't actually understand what that term means or how falsification applies within the scientific method.

stop being intellectually dishonest. Which is what you are being.

I just posted several ways.

It is very easy to falsify ID. If someone produces flagellum in labs through an undirected process they would've effectively falsified ID. Since they would've shown that flagellum is best explained by an undirected process rather than an intelligent cause.

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect--finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It's clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

This is the same way that Pure Evolution is falsfieable. Its If we discover this then it is.

Sorry you don't want to admit that ID is a working theory but it follows the requirments of scientific method. Just looks at the data differently than Pure Evolution.
I really don't understand why we can't have 2 Theories since like Quantum Gravity we have 3 theories on it.

So now It needs to have a Paper?
you can go look them up your self if your intrested. I am tired of showing you things that back up what I say.

ID is a working theory.

If you create life in a Dish and watch it mutate and evolve with no help to a creature with a brain then you can say it is wrong.

Like I said you don't understand what he term 'falsifiable' means. How do you empirically test whether or not there is an intelligence guiding evolution?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having competing theories (they actually serve to push science forward). Unfortunately ID doesn't meet the minimum requirements for it to be considered a scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory.

There is a very good reason as to why there has never been a peer reviewed paper supporting ID.

you can go look them up your self if your intrested. I am tired of showing you things that back up what I say.

I'm tired of you providing references that actually back up my point of view, only to dishonestly misconstrue and distort the information and turn it on its head.

If you create life in a Dish and watch it mutate and evolve with no help to a creature with a brain then you can say it is wrong.

That makes no sense. What does "no help to a creature with a brain" mean?