Let's discuss evolution and instinct

[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? (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.

 

[Asyncritus]

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

As you can see, natural selection just can't cut it.

So what's left? as Rebecca asked.

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

No offense taken zomgwtf. I have a very thick skin: evolved from much conflict!

If you don't mind, I'd like you guys to come to your own conclusions about this instinct thing.

I'd like you to look these very solid facts right in the face, and make some accounting for them, by yourselves. My role in this is to present facts, and yours is to explain them.

Now tell me, don't you find the 'natural selection' explanation just a little thin and threadbare? Just imagine, a little fish, 3000 feet down, and 3000 miles away, finding its way back home, having NEVER BEEN THERE.

'Natural selection'? From what?

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

"Gimme a break" is not a valid stance.

Dave, please see my previous post.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

You're right, evolution won't tell you HOW what was already there got to be there in the first place, it can tell you how it evolved to that point but not where it came from ad infinitum. That's a completely different theory called abiogenesis.

You seem to have changed the goalpost from before. First you want to know how it evolved and now you are dismissing evolution on the basis that it can't answer where everything came from.
This is known as a moving the goalpost fallacy, not only that but I believe it's a Red Herring more specifically a 'texas sharpshooter fallacy' lol. Since you are introducing something irrelevant(abiogenesis) but attempting to paint evolution to it.

 

[zomgwtf]

If you don't mind, I'd like you guys to come to your own conclusions about this instinct thing.

We all already know each others opinions since it's based on what's out there in mainstream science (the general idea anyways). What we want to know is what YOUR view is. As well as what you propose in place of evolution since there are 'very solid facts' which you have 'presented' and requested an explanation for yet you don't accept since it is 'a little thin and threadbare'.

'Natural selection'? From what?

I've already answered this in the other post, it's a rediculous argument that is used by a lot of people attempting to refute Evolution and normally they have a religious agenda. It is a weak and fallacious argument and I honestly hope you do not share this view along with your 'solid facts' to other people in an attempt to spread misinformation.

 

[D H]

As you can see, natural selection just can't cut it.

You have been asked several times now to present your ideas, and you have failed to do so. The only thought that comes to my mind is that you are a trolling creationist. Your mischaracterizations of eel migration and of evolution bolster this opinion.


Anyhow, although I'm not a biologist, I'll take a crack at an answer. The eels haven't always made a journey of 3000 miles. Palm trees grew on Greenland during the Paleocene, and the Atlantic was quite a bit smaller back then. Even further back in time, the Atlantic *was* a small pond. Continental drift and climate are powerful evolutionary drivers.

 

[DaveC426913]

My role in this is to present facts, and yours is to explain them.

No it is not. You don't get to determine roles.

You have an argument "natural selection doesn't cut it" or some such. You must back up this claim. You have been requested to do so at least three times, which is more than required.

 

[BoomBoom]

As you can see, natural selection just can't cut it.

I can see no such thing. The logic and evidence for natural selection is absolutely undeniable.

I may be on the fringe as far as my interest in the possibility of Lamarckian heredity, but that in no way denies the truth of natural selection.

...hope you enjoyed your nice little troll in the woods!

 

[baywax]

It looks as though the eel in general has had from 145.5 to 65.5 million years to evolve according to fossil records.

Studies of the few known fossil eels and the comparative anatomy of adults and larvae suggest that eels arose in the Cretaceous Period (145.5–65.5 million years ago). Eels descended from two or more types that had at least some characters of the Elopiformes (tarpons and relatives) and Albuliformes (bonefishes). ...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179911/eel/63462/Evolution-paleontology-and-classification

Our knowledge of the glass eel's reproductive biology is up in the air (but not the clouds) according to this article in Nature.

Genetic evidence against panmixia in the European eel

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6823/full/4091037a0.html

It seems that there's been little interest in the glass eel and as a result there is a lack of information about the (sub)species.

Evolution of anguillid eel migration and establishment of their geographic distribution inferred by their larval distribution, morphology and early life history

Introduction
The long distance migrations of catadromous eels of the genus Anguilla consist of two different components, the larval migration toward their fresh water growth habitats, and the adult migration back to the spawning area. These components have been poorly understood due to a critical lack of information about the spawning areas and migration routes. To know the diversity of geographic distribution and its evolutionary origins, we examined the distribution, morphology, and early life history based on the otolith microstructure of anguillid leptocephali of 12 species/subspecies (N = 832) and an unknown species (N = 4) collected from the Indo-Pacific region from 1995 to 2007, and glass eels of 9 species (N =653) obtained from all over the world during from 1999 to 2002, including both temperate and tropical eels.

to find out more, go to this free article

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...+glass+eels&cd=36&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

 

[baywax]

Back on topic. Instinct has to be the result of evolution. When the first singled celled creature with a larger than normal amount of photosensitive chemicals within its membrane was alerted to an enormous amount of sunlight hitting it, it scooted away, and survived an onslaught of UV and other radiation that would have wiped it out. The single celled animals that didn't carry as much or any photosensitive chemicals would rely on perhaps the heat of the sun to warn them... and if there was very little heat but much radiation, these single celled creatures would have been wiped out.

So, we were left with (more of) the photosensitive type of single celled animal. And, what today appears as an instinct to retreat from sunlight in some animals, stems, by my reckoning, from the naturally selected, single cell animal (up to 3 billion years old) with the photosensitive advantage over those without the photosensitivity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Back on topic. Instinct has to be the result of evolution. When the first singled celled creature with a larger than normal amount of photosensitive chemicals within its membrane was alerted to an enormous amount of sunlight hitting it, it scooted away, and survived an onslaught of UV and other radiation that would have wiped it out. The single celled animals that didn't carry as much or any photosensitive chemicals would rely on perhaps the heat of the sun to warn them... and if there was very little heat but much radiation, these single celled creatures would have been wiped out.

So, we were left with (more of) the photosensitive type of single celled animal. And, what today appears as an instinct to retreat from sunlight in some animals, stems, by my reckoning, from the naturally selected, single cell animal (up to 3 billion years old) with the photosensitive advantage over those without the photosensitivity.

Well, the trouble is the middle part; the part between stimulus and response. Especially when response is no longer directly connected to stimulus.

The only conclusion is that there is a set of neurons that has "I just pooped" as an input and "I should scratch the ground" as output. This set of neurons - in this configuration - is programmed into the DNA.

 

[baywax]

Well, the trouble is the middle part; the part between stimulus and response. Especially when response is no longer directly connected to stimulus.

The only conclusion is that there is a set of neurons that has "I just pooped" as an input and "I should scratch the ground" as output. This set of neurons - in this configuration - is programmed into the DNA.

Neurons, in a multicellular organism, would develop to a point when they interpret the stimulus in more accurate ways for the organism, adding to the survivability of the species (through scratching on the ground etc..). Further back in time (billion years or more) you'd have a unicellular organism reacting chemically to their photosensitive chemical make up with no neuronal interaction because... no neurons. But flagella.. for mobility may also act as touch sensitive organelle. Because of this, they also seem to hold some promise as pre-neurons or pre-dendrites at least.