[Alberta's Child]

This article doesn't refute any of my points. The difference between humans and these animals is clear -- humans do things far more complex than this, and not just to mate and/or eat lunch.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The problem is relating your point to the theories under discussion. You have stated that you point in no way makes the theory of intelligent design more plausible. So even on your own view, it's useless as part of a justification for teaching the theory or believing it true. You've suggested it's a problem for evolutionary theory, but you haven't even tried to show why. What is it about evolutionary theory that makes it more likely than not that many species would be able to do what humans can do?