Somehow missed this response earlier... anyway...
See, now if they are in the wild do you thin that they would of done that? I dont think that they would of. big difference.
Captivity alone wouldn't cause that reaction; worse, it has a greater chance of the opposite reaction. Jambo wasn't trained to care for other creatures by his handlers, and as a fully grown male gorilla - quite dangerous if he wants to be. The fact that he protected the child was proof of empathy on his part.
Also, most examples of empathy will be from captivity for two reasons:
1) We'll be in a position to actually observe it. Much harder to find in nature since primary interactions will be between predator and prey (whom we can expect a lack of empathy between - after all, human hunters don't really care that the target is suffering. They just care that they got a target.)
2) Less competition for survival. Since captive animals have their primary needs taken care of they would not have enough incentive to ignore their empathy. Likewise, humans stuck out in the wild with less than minimal supplies and a need to gather things will almost universally become less empathetic. What do you think the cause of early tribal warfare was? It wasn't a lack of empathy, but a need to overcome it to survive.
Not really, If we knew how life began then we would understand how evolution worked in part to create us.
Incorrect. It doesn't matter how life began; all that early life needs is DNA (or something that can become DNA) and a basic cellular form. From there, the chemical reactions with the DNA (or DNA-alike) within the cell will cause reproduction and evolution.
Evolution can work with abiogenesis or god-magic. Also, the initial life form would not have evolved from anything (because there was nothing to evolve from). Therefore evolution is a seperate subject from abiogenesis.
True, we have more detailed dreams rather then a cat that dreams about catching a meal or being loved by his owner.
And how would you know the detail of a cat's dreams? Or the content? Cat dreams could just as easily be recreations of Alice in Wonderland (with a Cheshire Human). We just know they dream, the actual content and details are still a tad beyond our reach.
then why does the Rhine Research Center or other major universities like Virgina school of medicine , Arizona or Koestler at University of Edinburgh. So apparently there are frauds, but then again there are real ones also. Other wise they would not study it.
There are people who study Scientology. Does that mean that it is true, or that people believe
that it is true?
Just because someone studies it doesn't mean it is true. No psychic has been able to display any significant power under controlled circumstances. If you can find a well-done study that says otherwise I would be quite happy to look at it.
Lastly; some universities have taken on paranormal courses not because of merit, but because of money. There are enough gullible rubes out there willing to shell out cash in the hopes of becomeing ghost-busters that any sane capitalist would happily sell them a proton pack - or as in this case, paranormal classes.