You're wrong. At least I think so. Because you're not meeting your opponent at the same level of argument. I'm simplifying somewhat, but...you appear to be say

You're wrong. At least I think so. Because you're not meeting your opponent at the same level of argument. I'm simplifying somewhat, but...you appear to be saying that, for some definition of "cause", the evolution of man is "caused" by "language, and intelligence, and motor skills, (etc, etc, etc)". It is wrong, you say, to claim that the "cause" could be "nothing but redirecting pleasure and pain" (I'm not sure from where in the original you get that "redirection" aspect, but I'll copy it over). But your argument is at a different level that that of the OP. Whereas the OP offers a theory, or maybe rather a hypothesis, of what could "cause" the evolution of language, intelligence, motor skills, &c., suggesting pleasure/pain differentiation as a primitive process, you just claim language, intelligence, &C. as somehow "primitive" processes in causing human evolution. You're not even trying to find out what "causes" them, whereas the OP is. You claim "non-falsifiability" for your opponent's claim, which I don't take for granted: it seems possible to check whether there are differences in the pleasure/pain differentiation of individual test subjects, and see whether that is correlated with those individuals reaching their goals. You just seem to want to avoid meeting the argument. Which is wrong, I think.