Can you see what you did here? That's another strawman. Has absolutely nothing to do with evidence that Kingfishers may train their young to hunt even moving minnows to water that facilitates their success. Has absolutely nothing to do with whether a GBH might intentionally transport fish. Your argument that these can't happen is that people that observed them are somehow far below you in intelligence.
If human bias was not the norm, then designing experiments to minimize its effects would not be such an integral part of science education and practice.
Sunil and Dono provided their evidence. Where is yours?
To be sure, matters such as these are not so easily subjected to experiment. It may also be difficult to find agreement as how to infer meaning from these types of observations. In any event, you may only object to their inferences as needing further study and evidence. You simply cannot object on the basis of better explanation without being subject to providing that evidence (which is notably lacking). If the explanation can't be proven incorrect by experiment, then it isn't scientific. In other words, if you can't propose an experiment which would invalidate your explanation, it isn't science. As I said before, hypothesizing that intelligence is responsible for a behavior can be subjected to experiments if we can agree on what constitutes intelligent behavior. On the other hand, the conjecture that a behavior is devoid of intelligence isn't a scientific hypothesis because you can't devise an experiment that demonstrates _no intelligence_ contributes to the behavior.
