Let's discuss evolution and instinct

[baywax]

If a species that buries its feces survives longer as a result, then humans (who mix their feces with their ground water) don't have much longer to go. Long live the composting/combusting toilet.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

I don't think humans do fare very well when they mix feces with drinking water.

In the animal world there are many ways of avoiding excessive contact with feces. Mole rats build specialized "latrine chambers" in their underground habitats. A new paper in Animal Behavior examines alternative ways to handle the sanitation issue. . .

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/tag/feces/

Cats burying their feces is a variant of behaviors found in different forms among many animals.

 

[baywax]

I don't think humans do fare very well when they mix feces with drinking water.

In the animal world there are many ways of avoiding excessive contact with feces. Mole rats build specialized "latrine chambers" in their underground habitats. A new paper in Animal Behavior examines alternative ways to handle the sanitation issue. . .

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/tag/feces/

Cats burying their feces is a variant of behaviors found in different forms among many animals.

There was a innovation that was based on our current water bourn method of waste management. I think it was out of the ever imaginative United States. This involved feeding all the sewage lines into a marsh of 1000 acres in size out side of each city. This amount of area provides enough filtration and processing by algae, plants etc... to the degree that... at the other end of the marsh, with no chemical or other "artificial" treatment activities having been required, you have pure, clean running water ready to enter the system again. I'm not sure about the aromatic quality of the system.:yuck:

 

[Rebecca Moise]

Probably sunlight also had something to do with the purification of the water, ridding it of disease producing organisms. There was a purification process, if natural rather than artificial. Without some kind of purification, the death rate in cities was high, so much so that without constant movement into the cities from the countryside the population could not maintain itself.

Beavers, by the way, do not maintain latrines in their lodges but rather defecate in water which surrounds the lodge. Probably plants, algae, sunlight, and maybe also currents help rid the water of disease producing organisms.

Different species have different methods form managing the disease/waste problem, of which the cat's burying is one variant, one presumably uniquely adapted to that species niche.

 

[baywax]

Probably sunlight also had something to do with the purification of the water, ridding it of disease producing organisms. There was a purification process, if natural rather than artificial. Without some kind of purification, the death rate in cities was high, so much so that without constant movement into the cities from the countryside the population could not maintain itself.

Beavers, by the way, do not maintain latrines in their lodges but rather defecate in water which surrounds the lodge. Probably plants, algae, sunlight, and maybe also currents help rid the water of disease producing organisms.

Different species have different methods form managing the disease/waste problem, of which the cat's burying is one variant, one presumably uniquely adapted to that species niche.

Ah ha. We've got something in common with beavers! Very cool, thank you Rebecca, the beaver is also a national symbol of Canada.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

There is probably a lot to be learned from the behavior of beavers, including the interplay between instinct and learning. If you like beavers you might be interested that a woman named Dorothy Richards observed and wrote about beavers living on her property in upstate NY. Also she raised some beavers in her house.

http://users.snip.net/~qdi/uwr_beaversprite.html

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz made an interesting distinction between what he called "models for" and "models of," as I recall actually using the example of beavers' building projects. We humans, Geertz suggests, think about what we are doing and have in our minds a "model of," for example, building a road or building a house. Geertz thinks this is not true of animals. The beaver goes though certain motions by instinct and the end result is a dam, but animals (Geertz supposes) don't ask themselves why they are doing this, or even necessarily have in their minds an image of what they are doing. Whatever, in their minds, shapes their behavior is a "model for" ending up with a dam, but it is natural selection and evolution that shapes the outcome, not their own planning.

Richard Dawkins describes seeing beavers kept in a cage in a zoo with no access to building materials going through the motions of building a dam (or lodge) with sticks that did not in fact exist. Apparently this was blind instinct, an inclination to behave a certain way that, in the natural environment, would produce dams but which still operated without any possibility of this result.

Dorothy Richards, however, reports that despite her "house beavers" being provided access to a pool of water in her basement and building materials they used to construct lodges, when the beavers discovered upstairs parts of the house, they resourcefully turned on faucets and stopped up drains producing floods. This could not be instinct due to absence of anything like faucets in the environment of ancestral beavers. It seems that in their minds there was also a "model of" creating more water in the environment, and the ability to explore alternative ways of accomplishing this.

Beavers would thus seem to have one set of instincts involving need, pleasure, or inclination to go through the motions of building, along with other instincts involving need, pleasure or inclination to increase water in the environment. It is not that there is no instinct, in the second case, but that there are instincts which actually promote learning.

I guess the thread was confused some time ago, but not to lose it completely, consider instincts involving bodily waste. Some animals (not all) have an instinctive inclination (need?) to be clean. The cat may lick itself because it feels a need to do this, even when it is not dirty, but might also clean with special urgency when there is actual dirt. With more intelligence there can be more figuring out different means of accomplishing the instinctually-dictated end, such as a chimpanzee wiping its own or another chimp's messy bottom with leaves (as observed by Jane Goodall). Alternatively an animal might go through motions dictated by instinct without accomplishing anything other than going through these motions. Sometimes I have seen a cat make the motions of burying feces outside the litter box, with the feces still inside the box uncovered. Possibly it did not like the feel of the litter on its paws. It might be worthwhile to think about the implications of these different kinds of instincts, especially as regards the question of instincts that promote learning still influencing human behavior

Anyway beavers are interesting animals. I did not know they were the national symbol of Canada! In the United States too many people don't like beavers.

 

[baywax]

There is probably a lot to be learned from the behavior of beavers, including the interplay between instinct and learning. If you like beavers you might be interested that a woman named Dorothy Richards observed and wrote about beavers living on her property in upstate NY. Also she raised some beavers in her house.

http://users.snip.net/~qdi/uwr_beaversprite.html

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz made an interesting distinction between what he called "models for" and "models of," as I recall actually using the example of beavers' building projects. We humans, Geertz suggests, think about what we are doing and have in our minds a "model of," for example, building a road or building a house. Geertz thinks this is not true of animals. The beaver goes though certain motions by instinct and the end result is a dam, but animals (Geertz supposes) don't ask themselves why they are doing this, or even necessarily have in their minds an image of what they are doing. Whatever, in their minds, shapes their behavior is a "model for" ending up with a dam, but it is natural selection and evolution that shapes the outcome, not their own planning.

Richard Dawkins describes seeing beavers kept in a cage in a zoo with no access to building materials going through the motions of building a dam (or lodge) with sticks that did not in fact exist. Apparently this was blind instinct, an inclination to behave a certain way that, in the natural environment, would produce dams but which still operated without any possibility of this result.

Dorothy Richards, however, reports that despite her "house beavers" being provided access to a pool of water in her basement and building materials they used to construct lodges, when the beavers discovered upstairs parts of the house, they resourcefully turned on faucets and stopped up drains producing floods. This could not be instinct due to absence of anything like faucets in the environment of ancestral beavers. It seems that in their minds there was also a "model of" creating more water in the environment, and the ability to explore alternative ways of accomplishing this.

Beavers would thus seem to have one set of instincts involving need, pleasure, or inclination to go through the motions of building, along with other instincts involving need, pleasure or inclination to increase water in the environment. It is not that there is no instinct, in the second case, but that there are instincts which actually promote learning.

I guess the thread was confused some time ago, but not to lose it completely, consider instincts involving bodily waste. Some animals (not all) have an instinctive inclination (need?) to be clean. The cat may lick itself because it feels a need to do this, even when it is not dirty, but might also clean with special urgency when there is actual dirt. With more intelligence there can be more figuring out different means of accomplishing the instinctually-dictated end, such as a chimpanzee wiping its own or another chimp's messy bottom with leaves (as observed by Jane Goodall). Alternatively an animal might go through motions dictated by instinct without accomplishing anything other than going through these motions. Sometimes I have seen a cat make the motions of burying feces outside the litter box, with the feces still inside the box uncovered. Possibly it did not like the feel of the litter on its paws. It might be worthwhile to think about the implications of these different kinds of instincts, especially as regards the question of instincts that promote learning still influencing human behavior

Anyway beavers are interesting animals. I did not know they were the national symbol of Canada! In the United States too many people don't like beavers.

My brother blew up the beaver dams on his property up in northern BC. They just keep coming back. The firstnations people hold the beaver in high esteem. Their carvings of them are incredible.

I've swam with beavers at the bottom of a buffalo jump. They are very private and they don't chew your leg off. They like the little shoots of new trees best. But they took down some bigger ones probably for building their lodge. I feel sorry for them when the jet skis and other crap like that screw with their habitat.

So this instinct to build and to slap the tail as a warning and all these specific traits are found only in the specific species. Its also seen in the specific markings of each species. Lions and tigers are marked differently, you'll never see a striped lion. Each adapting to the light and shade of their region... in an autonomic fashion. Cool

 

[Rebecca Moise]

The first nations people were wise to hold the beaver in high esteem. They are both intelligent and extremely social. Both parents help raise the kits. When offspring become sexually mature, they leave their mother and original home to go off on their own. Mrs. Richards observed, however, that the father beaver accompanied them on their initial journey remaining with them a while longer. Each species has its own way of doing things, and there is probably much to be learned about different ways, for different species, of avoiding, or limiting, incestuous matings.

Our family became interested in beavers when we bought a lake in Michigan where there were beavers. The realtor was talking about blowing up the lodge to "make a nice beach" and we hoped, by getting enough family members to contribute that we could buy the whole lake, to prevent any such thing from occurring. As we learned more about beavers we were glad we had made this effort.

 

[baywax]

The first nations people were wise to hold the beaver in high esteem. They are both intelligent and extremely social. Both parents help raise the kits. When offspring become sexually mature, they leave their mother and original home to go off on their own. Mrs. Richards observed, however, that the father beaver accompanied them on their initial journey remaining with them a while longer. Each species has its own way of doing things, and there is probably much to be learned about different ways, for different species, of avoiding, or limiting, incestuous matings.

Our family became interested in beavers when we bought a lake in Michigan where there were beavers. The realtor was talking about blowing up the lodge to "make a nice beach" and we hoped, by getting enough family members to contribute that we could buy the whole lake, to prevent any such thing from occurring. As we learned more about beavers we were glad we had made this effort.

My brother's land was a new thing to him. And he fancied himself a settler. I was a bit hard on him about his intervening with the beavers but he's also 6'8" tall so I didn't press it. Besides, they were flooding the cabin he built. It only took about 2 winters to get him out of there anyway. I'd be more concerned about the logging practices in that area. Clear cuts don't leave anything for the beavers, including their lodges. This has slowed to a dead halt now because of the Pine Beetle infestation. It has devastated the forest and forest industry in BC. Another challenge to the survival of many species in the area... including the human species.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

It can be difficult, even confusing, to think about instincts in the abstract. If I could venture, again, into this seemingly forbidden territory: if we say a cat's burying and cleaning behaviors are "instincts" what are we saying? What do we know about instincts generally?

Instincts help shape behaviors promoting survival and reproduction. Animals, however, possesses different sets of instincts some of which may conflict with others. Lorenz wrote: "all imaginable interactions can take place between two conflicting drives." Observation of conflicting impulses of rage and fear in the body language of dogs or geese do not speak to the evolution of burying-feces behavior in cats, but arguably tell us something about instincts generally. I wrote in an earlier post: "There are times when one set of instincts might be altered or suppressed by a different set of instincts." This elicited the maybe surprising comment, "More BS. Where's the data supporting this latest round of speculation?" Surprising because I thought this point relatively uncontroversial, supported as it is by old and recognized data of Lorenz, Tinbergen and others. I cited just two studies providing what seems to be careful evidence for their contention (which I learned from reading their works) that animals possesses different sets of instincts which infuence one another and may conflict with one another.

I thought it was worth responding in detail, actually citing a fraction of the evidence, in part because this seems so fundamentally important to understanding instincts generally. We think of instincts as "fixed" but then see variation in apparently "instinctive" behaviors. How to explain this? Maybe interaction between different sets of instincts, as demonstrated by work the value of which was recognized by the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1973.

Where, now, is the argument? Bodily waste can carry disease. Many animals (not all) in many circumstances (not all) behave in way to limit contact with bodily waste. The exact method of limiting contact varies across species. At least part of this seems to be "instinctive." A kitten, only a few days old, was observed using the litter box. The question was raised whether this supports Lamarckian methods of transmission, the kitten's behavior reflecting what past generations of cats had been taught. I ventured to suggest this was Darwinian natural selection. Animals that avoid products possibly carrying disease tend to be healthier, live longer, and thus have more offspring. Given survival advantage of avoiding potentially disease-carrying material, over millions of years, genes promoting such behavior would tend to become more frequent. Instincts may act without the animal having, in its mind, any idea of any connection with disease.

If the animal has a "choice" is this an instinct? Cats and other animals mark territory using urine and feces. Urine and feces may also be a sign of dominance. Under some circumstances even household pets may defecate on their owner's possessions. Is this the animal "choosing" to override the instinct? Or are there conflicting sets of instincts such as instincts governing body waste avoidance and instincts governing dominance? Can one set of instincts "turn off" another? Here studies of Tinbergen, Lorenz and others shed light, suggesting properties of instincts generally, although not this specific case (as far as I can remember). These studies might help explain how individual cats manifest urges related to cleanliness, one the one hand, and dominance on the other.

Actually there are several dimensions: limiting contact with bodily waste, marking territory, dominance, and expressions of other social (or antisocial) impulses such as using urine or feces to express displeasure toward another member of the group.

 

[JorgeLobo]

lol - she's still at it - such trash, and so much of it!

 

[BoomBoom]

If the animal has a "choice" is this an instinct? Cats and other animals mark territory using urine and feces. Urine and feces may also be a sign of dominance. Under some circumstances even household pets may defecate on their owner's possessions. Is this the animal "choosing" to override the instinct? Or are there conflicting sets of instincts such as instincts governing body waste avoidance and instincts governing dominance?

There is always a choice to override an instinct IMO. An instinct would be just a tendency to react or behave a certain way in certain situations, but there is always a conscious choice. Animals can certainly be trained to not act on their instinctive behaviors. I see no reason why anyone would want to, but I bet you could train a cat NOT to use a litter box. :yuck:

After all, humans tend to avoid feces...is this instinctive, or does it just smell really bad to us? Which brings up another interesting point: are sense of taste and smell and what we consider good and repulsive instincts?

I see no reason in genetic heritage why instinctive bahaviors being passed down should be any different than the nature of any other gene or regulatory element being passed down.

 

[baywax]

I would imagine that an instinct would develop (read ''evolve") in each species that is directly related to a natural selection resulting in fewer deaths from infection etc... (due to contact with each respective species' feces).

So that the related behavior we observe in various species is a result of natural selection. However, it can be modified in a de-evolutionary manner as can be observed in the Human species with regard to their tendency to contaminate their drinking water with the specie's feces (:rofl:) .

 

[Rebecca Moise]

There is always a choice to override an instinct IMO. An instinct would be just a tendency to react or behave a certain way in certain situations, but there is always a conscious choice. Animals can certainly be trained to not act on their instinctive behaviors. I see no reason why anyone would want to, but I bet you could train a cat NOT to use a litter box. :yuck:

After all, humans tend to avoid feces...is this instinctive, or does it just smell really bad to us? Which brings up another interesting point: are sense of taste and smell and what we consider good and repulsive instincts?

I see no reason in genetic heritage why instinctive bahaviors being passed down should be any different than the nature of any other gene or regulatory element being passed down.

"It smelling really bad to us" IS the instinct. At least if we define instinct as something like "genetic behavior mechanism." Taste, smell, things striking us as good or repulsive, are the means by which instincts manifest themselves. Instincts consist of emotions, feelings, sensations, tendencies to act, not thoughts, although it becomes interesting when animals such as human beings reach the point of thinking about their own instinctual impulses. And yes indeed, transmission of instincts from one generation to another should be like any other gene being passed down.

I don't know if there is always a choice with instincts even for human beings. It would be interesting to find examples when choice seems to exist, and when it doesn't.

Also, at some point, there might be a need to consider the definition of "instinct." Should this word be used for any genetically-shaped behavior, or only some genetically-shaped behaviors? If only some, what other words might be used? Drive? Impulse? Urge? "Genetic-behavior pattern"?

JorgeLobo, I see your not going to let me forget the visceral dislike many experience talking about instincts. If you felt like it, however, you might also discuss your own evidence, thoughts or speculation for or against specific ideas. What do you make of the work of Tinbergen and Lorenz? Was this not "scientific" by any reasonable standard? Tinbergen, I would say, from what I have read, was appropriately careful talking about both human and animal behavior. Lorenz was OK talking about animal behavior, perhaps not so much trying to apply his ideas to humans, but at least he tried to tackle an important topic.

 

[BoomBoom]

I don't know if there is always a choice with instincts even for human beings. It would be interesting to find examples when choice seems to exist, and when it doesn't.

Well let's say someone has a tendency to be really shy. They could make a conscious effort to change their behavior and become more outgoing. Although I'm not sure if this example could be considered an "instinct", but it would be a genetic behavioral tendency that they inherited, and I see no reason why it should be any different than an instinctive behavior that is inherited.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

As a psychotherapist I work every day to help people change response patterns that are partially instinctive. It would be sad to deny the possibility of change and choice. I have a problem defining instinct as a fixed and unalterable. The pattern itself may be fixed, but how this translates into behavior can change.

There are, however, limits. There is a response sometimes called the "sauce Bearnaise" effect, a genetic behavior pattern shared by humans and many animals. Sometimes one develops an aversion to eating again a particular food if one experiences severe nausea shortly after consuming this. The response may offer instinctual protection against poisoning. The effect has been studied with rats, probably other animals as well.

My daughter once developed severe stomach flu shortly after eating a kind of submarine sandwich which, until then, she had particularly enjoyed. She would not again eat that kind of sandwich. She knew perfectly well the sandwich was not the cause of her nausea and vomiting; she knew her illness was unrelated. Her mind, however, could not, or at least did not, overrule the physiological response. I've heard this can be a problem for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, when there may be many different kinds of foods they come to associate with nausea, so their diet becomes uncomfortably restricted. If they really tried could they learn to disregard this instinct-driven behavior? Could they find ways to change this? I don't know.

Some instincts may be easier to overrule than others. Some may be impossible. Sometimes there is cost to an individual's mental health if one tries to thwart completely an instinct-driven behavior. Better to reach some kind of compromise.

I suppose that possibilities for change and choice are more limited for animals than for human beings.

 

[JorgeLobo]

more BS

 

[BoomBoom]

Sometimes one develops an aversion to eating again a particular food if one experiences severe nausea shortly after consuming this.

...just the mention of Southern Comfort makes me gag to this day! :yuck:lol

I've heard this can be a problem for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, when there may be many different kinds of foods they come to associate with nausea, so their diet becomes uncomfortably restricted. If they really tried could they learn to disregard this instinct-driven behavior? Could they find ways to change this? I don't know.

I believe that's why they get medical marijuana.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

I did not know marijuana could help with this. This introduces a new dimension, the human ability to change or override an instinctual response by the use of drugs or chemicals.

 

[BoomBoom]

I did not know marijuana could help with this. This introduces a new dimension, the human ability to change or override an instinctual response by the use of drugs or chemicals.

It's well known for it's appetite stimulating properties...

Of course, we can suppress instinctive tendencies in many ways. We can also train animals to not follow those behaviors (like training your dog not to "make it's bed" when it lies down, for example).

I think the more interesting question here is how are instincts adapted and passed down? If a change in behavior can be passed down from an adult to it's offspring, and the genetics of instinctive behavior is really no different than than the genetics of physiology, then doesn't that sound a lot like Lamarck's ideas about the heritability of acquired traits?

 

[Rebecca Moise]

Well, yes, the appetite stimulating properties of marijuana is known, the "munchies." I hadn't thought of it in this context, but makes sense.

The idea of Lamarckian transmission emerges in works on human evolution, including places you might not expect this. Sigmund Freud believed in Lamarckian theories, to the great embarrassment of his followers (who avoid mentioning this), and despite Freud's admiration for Darwin. I think followers of Jung do not suppress this aspect of his thought: "collective unconscious," "archetypes", etc. Even some contemporary theorists writing about human evolution seem to steer perilously close. I still believe this is an error to be avoided, except in perhaps some very exceptional circumstances. Adaptation looks like learning, and one has to look beyond appearances, to try to think abstractly on a subject that does not lend itself to abstract thought. Freud somehow seems not to have mastered the logic of Darwin's natural selection.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

Interesting discussion of the "Sauce Bearnaise phenomenon" in Melvin Konner's 1982 book The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. Konner explains the term was coined by experimental psychologist Martin Seligman who happened to eat filet mignon with his favorite Sauce Bearnaise 6 hours before becoming violently ill with stomach flu. He then developed. . . well you know what happened next.

Konner also calls this the "Garcia effect" from experiments conducted in the 1960's by John Garcia and collaborators. Here are specifics in Konner's words only slightly abbreviated (sorry for the length. I fear a briefer description would be more confusing than enlightening):

Take 4 groups of rats and subject them to avoidance conditioning. Have them drink water, and while they are drinking, give them a punishment, but precede the punishment with a signal. They will stop drinking when the punishment occurs and, it is expected, gradually learn to stop drinking before the punishment when the signal is given.

Give the 4 groups of rats different combinations of two signals and two punishments. One group gets a noise-and-light signal followed by an electric shock. A second gets a distinctive flavor in the water, followed by an artificially induced feeling of nausea (caused by X rays and having nothing to do with the flavor). Up to this point the experiment and the results are conventional. The rats in Group 1 and Group 2 acquire the avoidance response.

The surprise comes with Groups 3 and 4. In these groups, the pairing of signal and punishment is reversed. Group 3 gets the noise-and-light signal followed by the X ray-induced nausea. Group 4 gets the distinctive flavor followed by the electric shock. These two groups do not learn the avoidance response. In other words, it is very easy to teach a rat an association between taste and nausea, so it will avoid the taste thereafter; and it is easy to teach it to associate a light or sound with an electric shock, with similar results in avoidance behavior. But it is very difficult indeed to make the rat learn the converse associations. It simply will not get the idea that the taste signals a forthcoming shock, or that the light or sound signals forthcoming nausea. As Garcia and co-author suggest, the rat seems to have a "genetically coded hypothesis" when it feels sick to its stomach, "It must have been something I ate." Similarly, when it feels external physical pain, it is not designed to "think" in terms of flavors by way of "explanation."

Consider the kitten using the litter box. Previous discussion suggests this is either totally instinctive or learned very quickly, from cues that are very minor. Either way there is something clicking with the kitten's genetic code.

Consider also that Garcia's original finding was controversial. It first appeared in relatively obscure journals after being rejected by major journals. One investigator, who had worked on similar problems for years, said publicaly, "These findings are no more likely than birdgarbage in a cuckoo clock." Konner comments (p. 28), "They were not only likely, they were true; they have turned up many times in many laboratories."

When I suggested a cat's genetic propensity to bury feces was a behavior mechanism based in instincts for avoiding potentially disease-carrying material, I thought the idea in itself was rather ho-hum. A place, perhaps to build further, starting with something very likely: There is usually a survival advantage to instinctive behavior; here is a plausible survival advantage and here is an instinct. Just put the two together. The behavior, while not universal, is not unique to cats. Also we can sense within ourselves the aversion instinct, including what we experience as a bad smell. Before science taught us about disease-carrying organisms, there was survival value in humans sensing "something bad to be avoided" through smell and other senses.

I don't mean to minimize the value of considering contrary evidence; what seems obvious might be an optical illusion. Also there are numerous other factors to be considered: How does dominance behavior complicate the picture? How similar is this to behavior in other species? Why is it not shown by all species? Why is the behavior pronounced among cats? etc. But perhaps some of the questioning of what I still consider an unremarkable idea is that it seems to imply a level of thought incongruent with what we believe about animals, in other words the same feeling of impossibility that greeted Garcia's findings. Everyday experience seems to show that animals don't "think" like that. I don't believe Garcia's rats were "thinking" in terms of cause and effect, and I don't believe that cats make any connection between feces and disease. Rather the results of natural selection give a deceptive appearance, creating an impression of rational thought where this does not necessarily exist. The behavior may "make sense", but instincts themselves, whether in human beings or in animals, are not sensible. They rather fit, or in some cases don't fit, the environment in which they emerge. It is when they don't fit that we can discern more clearly the irrational force of instinct.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Migration of the European Eels

The recent BBC program about eel migration has highlighted another great defeat for evolutionary theory by the phenomenon of instinctive behaviour.

In essence, eels (which grow to maturity in freshwater rivers, pools, streams, ponds) leave their growing areas, and make their way down to the sea. They even swim across wet grasslands in order to get into the rivers which will take them down to the sea.

Question: How do they know that they have to get to the sea, and how do they know that the rivers are flowing to the sea?

When they reach the sea off the coasts of the UK, they are immediately faced with a huge problem.

Salt water is extremely different in physical and chemical properties to fresh water, and usually, an organism which lives in the one kind of water will not survive in the other kind. The osmotic factors alone are very, very different.

But they survive somehow. How did natural selection produce such an organism one wonders.

They then swim to join one of the great south-flowing currents of the ocean, and in that way piggy-back on it, and save energy, and increase their speed of travel. I wonder how they figured that one out?

"The researchers suggest that what they do is swim down to Africa and then hitch a ride on a fast-moving ocean current which helps them to speed up and get the rest of the way much more quickly." http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/1817/

They are headed for the Sargasso Sea, no less, all of 3,000 miles away to the south west.

It has not been observed, but scientists believe that they spawn there - and then, the adults die.

Millions of young eels are produced: transparent slivers of tissue: so transparent in fact that they are called glass eels. One can read a newspaper through them, it is claimed.

And these little pieces of living tissue now begin their 3,000 mile journey back to the freshwater pool, stream, lake where their parents came from.

And they make it.

The details are sketchy, but in outline this is what happens, and is well known.

At once, evolution theory is rendered impotent. I have yet to see mention of the word 'evolution' in the accounts I've read - though there's got to be some plank who will mention the E word.There is no number of 'small beneficial variations' which can bring this titanic migration about. Consider - there is a journey of about 6,000 miles involved here.

Underwater, at that.

In the air, as with the Capistrano swallows, it may be possible (though unlikely) for the birds to use visible landmarks to help in their navigation - maybe the stars or whatever.

The eels swim at a depth of 3000 feet during the day, and come up to shallower waters during the night:

"But one of the really intriguing bits of data was that the eels change their height in the water column between day and night. So during the daytime, they swim much deeper. They go down to about a thousand metres and at night time, they come up close to the surface." http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/1817/

So stars,landmarks, whatever are unavailable - and yet they do it.

Navigating at a depth of 3000 feet in a submarine is a tricky business, requiring some very sophisticated equipment, especially if the destination is 3000 miles away. Yet this is exactly what the eels do, WITHOUT any equipment at all, in that pitch darkness, with nothing visible at all.

Just as remarkable as the Pacific Golden Plover, which we already described http://www.got.to/belligerentdesign", the young migrate back home with no guidance whatsoever, and make it (apart from those, of course, that die, or are trapped in their millions by fishermen).

There is no way evolution can account for the phenomenon. The information is obviously inborn into the fish. But how did it get there? And again, we note that the whole information packet had to spring full blown to birth, or the eels and their young would have been lost long, long ago in the trackless depths and wastes of the deep ocean.

If the information is correct, there are fossil eels dating back 95 million years. So they haven't got lost in all that length of time. Whether they were making the same journey then is obviously unknown, but there's no good reason to suppose that they didn't.

So we have another evolutionary brick wall. When are we going to discard this useless theory?

http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=404


One of the mysteries of the animal kingdom is the long-distance migration (5000–6000 km) of the European eel Anguilla anguilla L. from the coasts of Europe to its spawning grounds in the Sargasso Sea. The only evidence for the location of the spawning site of the European eel in the Sargasso Sea is the discovery by Johannes Schmidt at the beginning of the previous century of the smallest eel larvae (leptocephali) near the Sargasso Sea. For years it has been questioned whether the fasting eels have sufficient energy reserves to cover this enormous distance. We have tested Schmidt's theory by placing eels in swim tunnels in the laboratory and allowing them to make a simulated migration of 5500 km. We find that eels swim 4–6 times more efficiently than non-eel-like fish. Our findings are an important advance in this field because they remove a central objection to Schmidt's theory by showing that their energy reserves are, in principle, sufficient for the migration. Conclusive proof of the Sargasso Sea theory is likely to come from satellite tracking technology.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/1817/

 

[Chronos]

Er. aside from the logic bombs, circular reasoning, moving the goal posts and assuming facts not in evidence - I think you might be on to something. Are you seeking an autopsy? If so, will you agree to admit to any assertions demonstrated to be unreliable?

 

[Asyncritus]

Er. aside from the logic bombs, circular reasoning, moving the goal posts and assuming facts not in evidence - I think you might be on to something. Are you seeking an autopsy? If so, will you agree to admit to any assertions demonstrated to be unreliable?

Sure. Go ahead.

But remember, the main point is: HOW did the instinct evolve? And enter the genome (if that's where it is).

 

[baywax]

Sure. Go ahead.

But remember, the main point is: HOW did the instinct evolve? And enter the genome (if that's where it is).

Through natural selection.

Similar behaviour is seen in salmon... fresh water to salt water transition and back again.

Their navigation is based on chemical and current sensing. A trait developed over millions of years of trial and error... and natural selection. This is a result of evolution.

 

[Rebecca Moise]

Through natural selection.

Similar behaviour is seen in salmon... fresh water to salt water transition and back again.

Their navigation is based on chemical and current sensing. A trait developed over millions of years of trial and error... and natural selection. This is a result of evolution.

If this fascinating behavior of eels and salmon does not result from evolution and instinct, where does it come from? Perhaps I should know better than to ask that question. God put it there? Creationism? Is that the alternative theory? If not, then what? As someone said in an earlier post, this is a science forum.

 

[baywax]

As someone said in an earlier post, this is a science forum.

They are right.

 

[Asyncritus]

Through natural selection.

Yeah. That tired old catch-all 'explanation'!

Here's a little diagram for you:

Fish 1 (doesn't know where to go)------X------> Fish 2 (knows exactly where to go)

What happened at X?

Remember, natural selection can only 'select' from WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

Similar behaviour is seen in salmon... fresh water to salt water transition and back again.

Their navigation is based on chemical and current sensing. A trait developed over millions of years of trial and error... and natural selection. This is a result of evolution.

Oh yeah? How come their errors didn't kill them all?

An original few made it, let's say from the UK to the Sargasso Sea. That's 3000 miles.

Then they died.

Now the young somehow have to get back 3000 miles, in pitch blackness, to the UK.

How did they do it? Chemical and current sensing.

Gimme a break, willya?

 

[Asyncritus]

If this fascinating behavior of eels and salmon does not result from evolution and instinct, where does it come from? Perhaps I should know better than to ask that question. God put it there? Creationism? Is that the alternative theory? If not, then what? As someone said in an earlier post, this is a science forum.

Good questions Rebecca.

What's your answer?

 

[BoomBoom]

At once, evolution theory is rendered impotent. I have yet to see mention of the word 'evolution' in the accounts I've read - though there's got to be some plank who will mention the E word.

Huh?? How could you possibly come to that conclusion? What is your alternative explanation then? :uhh: (or are you just a trolling creationist?)

 

[zomgwtf]

Good questions Rebecca.

What's your answer?

I think you do not understand the forces you are discussing. At least when other people attempt to show that evolution in a particular sense isn't true they KNOW what their talking about. You just seem to be using a whole lot of fallacies in a seeming attempt to make some point... which I'm not exactly sure is. Are you a creationist Asyncritus?

Do you assert that in your description of Fish 1 to Fish 2 that 'X' was caused by God(s)? Or maybe you would like to attempt to show that there were no steps and that the fish always knew because that's the way they were created?

Maybe you're just trolling?

I think you should make a point by now and come out and say specifically what YOUR point is and what specifically you would like to know about the OTHER points. Right now your coming across as slightly arrogant and ignorant. No offense.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you should make a point by now and come out and say specifically what YOUR point is and what specifically you would like to know about the OTHER points. Right now your coming across as slightly arrogant and ignorant. No offense.

Seconded.

Asyncritus, you have expressed your dubious opinion of natural selection, but have not provided an alternate explanation. Please come forth with your alternate explanation so that we can understand your stance on the issue.

"Gimmee a break" is not a valid stance.

 

[baywax]

Yeah. That tired old catch-all 'explanation'!

Here's a little diagram for you:

Fish 1 (doesn't know where to go)------X------> Fish 2 (knows exactly where to go)

What happened at X?

Remember, natural selection can only 'select' from WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.



Oh yeah? How come their errors didn't kill them all?

An original few made it, let's say from the UK to the Sargasso Sea. That's 3000 miles.

Then they died.

Now the young somehow have to get back 3000 miles, in pitch blackness, to the UK.

How did they do it? Chemical and current sensing.

Gimme a break, willya?

Trial and error as in "over millions of years".

The ones that made it back provided the mutations and traits for the next generation to make it back by "instinct" or "genetic survival superiority" to the ones that didn't make it back.

That's natural selection. Its a slightly better explanation than the bearded Dumbldorf in the clouds waving his wand and creating the migration of fish.

 

[Asyncritus]

Trial and error as in "over millions of years".

The ones that made it back provided the mutations and traits for the next generation to make it back by "instinct" or "genetic survival superiority" to the ones that didn't make it back.

That's natural selection. Its a slightly better explanation than the bearded Dumbldorf in the clouds waving his wand and creating the migration of fish.

It a pretty useless 'explanation'.

Trial and error as in "over millions of years".

That gives 'em a pretty fair amount of time to get lost and never be seen again, doesn't it?

As I said, natural selection can only select FROM WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

So, how did 'what's already there', GET THERE.

That's the question that evolution has no hope of answering. But I look forward to hearing.