The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does "instinct" evolve?  (Read 149467 times)

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #125 on: 31/12/2008 09:31:32 »
Here we have a typical example of a fundie:

92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.

93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.

101-Odd Games Fundies Play by John Richards

Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

Quote
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #126 on: 31/12/2008 11:41:22 »
Congratulations on exhibiting your inability to recognise the meaning of the simple word 'fact'.

Quote
92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.

Irrefutable? Facts? Where? Let's see some. Spouting insults does not qualify as either.
Quote

93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.

More insults. No more facts. Where are they????

Quote
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

You've got this all wrong. YOU can't explain any of this. Evolution can't either. Want to make a genuine effort to explain the origin of those bee facts I listed? Instead of silly remarks?

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?


 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #127 on: 31/12/2008 11:53:18 »
Quote
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!

Quote
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Quote
Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!



Quote
Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.

Why do you do this? Just to make yourself look stupid by writing this nonsense? As the saying goes, its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubts.
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #128 on: 31/12/2008 12:00:20 »
Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #129 on: 31/12/2008 12:20:41 »
Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?

To be truthful, it hasn't. The fact is that instinct could not have evolved.

My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

I see no hope for any evolutionary explanation of this phenomenon. I have never even heard of one. I personally think that God did this to have a good laugh at the atheists, who, if they have a scrap of intellectual decency in them, must be tearing their hair out in bundles when confronted by these facts, and others like them.
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #130 on: 31/12/2008 15:34:58 »

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?




Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University)
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."
So, looks like it is just half-bee...
Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.

So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead. Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #131 on: 31/12/2008 15:56:23 »
Quote
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.

So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!

Nope, wrong! It's "We can't understand it - let's find out how it came to be!" Apparently you don't know how the scientific method works.

Quote
Quote
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells

Quote
Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.

No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!
The bee doesn't figure it out, it doesn't need to. Small changes over time (yep, evolution) have a big impact.

 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #132 on: 31/12/2008 17:36:57 »
My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.

The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.

How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #133 on: 31/12/2008 17:57:04 »
What evidence do you see for a God here and now?

Middle East
East Europe
Asia
Global warming
Hypocrisy from EU.
Hypocrisy from UN.
USA:s war on 'terror'.
Africa's child soldiers?
Slave trade

This sudden need for creationism (like ten years old, right?:)
In times of crisis, like war etc, nativity seems to rise, as well as organized religion.

And the world is definitely going into a 'depression', cause of several reasons.
And isn't that always when those people with the 'simple' solutions seems to 'pop' up?

If God exist he does not do what you expect him to do.
He's no ones hired Wizard, magicking for your enjoyment or understanding.
So human definitions of what one would like to be the 'truth' seems rather inconsequent to me.
But, if he exist, doing as the bible says, knowing us all, he will watch how you treat others and your self though:)

 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #134 on: 01/01/2009 03:04:48 »
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #135 on: 01/01/2009 14:08:41 »
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?

Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #136 on: 01/01/2009 14:21:58 »
My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.

The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.

Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.

The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.

No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.

The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.

How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.


Are you talking about the Lesser Golden Plover?



If you're correct, then I've got the details wrong,and I apologise for mis-reading this article:
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2001migration/Projects/CarpenterD/

But I'm afraid you have created an even bigger problem for yourself. But you don't seem aware of it, and are happily wand waving again, thus:

"How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting."

I am asking, and have been asking, HOW DID THE GENETIC PROGRAM GET INTO THE GENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

It couldn't be trial and error, or they would all be quite dead. Natural selection is a non-starter in this instance.

Therefore, the program was created and implanted in the birds from the beginning.

Therefore, God did it, and evolution should be abandoned as a theory of explanation, since it is unable to begin to account for this quite major phenomenon.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #137 on: 01/01/2009 14:49:01 »

And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?




Quote
Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University)
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."

It is really quite stunning how garbage is swallowed so uncritically by allegedly intelligent people. Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:

1 The digestive proteins/enzymes required for nectar digestion and protein digestion are totally different in every respect. You may or may not know that proteolytic enzymes function in highly acid environments, while sugar-digesting enzymes function in alkaline environments. The bees' stomachs digest nectar and produce honey. Wasps do nothing of the sort. How did such massive biochemical changes come about?

2 The hunting behaviours of wasps are entirely different and distinct from those of nectar seeking bees. How did those vastly different instincts arise and enter the genomes?

3 Wasps create paper to build their nests. Bees synthesise and use wax - which is an entirely different compound. How did the difference arise, and why?

And that's just for starters.
 
Quote
Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.

Since they have not a single clue as to how flowering plants arose either, I'd keep quiet about that if I were you, before I start on the origin of the angiosperms.

Quote
So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.

Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?


Quote
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.

Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:

"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.    "Billions and Billions of Demons"

I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.

.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2009 14:57:05 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #138 on: 01/01/2009 19:17:03 »
Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:
Why don't you?

 
Quote
Quote
So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.

Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?
WOW, sound scientific argument!

Quote
Quote
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.

Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:

"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.    "Billions and Billions of Demons"

I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.

Yes, I am optimistic that the current puzzles in biology and other sciences will be solved, sooner or later.

You are aware that Lewontin does not believe in creationism? He strongly disagrees with the methods of Sagan, Dawkins and others; and with some of their theories too. Oh yes... scientists disagree about the details of a theory, but that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole is wrong, like so many creationists believe.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #139 on: 02/01/2009 00:56:59 »
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion.

Quote
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion

Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".

(Vestigial features and atavisms are proof that evolution has occurred)
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #140 on: 02/01/2009 02:02:02 »
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?

Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
I thought you believed that God created every creature as they were and are today.
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #141 on: 02/01/2009 09:17:02 »
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion.

Quote
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion

Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".

(Vestigial features and atavisms are proof that evolution has occurred)

True that, I think I'll stop abusing the poor dead horsie now. 
It's getting old fast.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #142 on: 02/01/2009 14:46:59 »
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #143 on: 03/01/2009 13:17:56 »
Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:

Quote
Why don't you?[/b]

Because you need the help. I don't. 

Quote
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.

I beg to rephrase that. NOT A LOT is known in evolutionary biology. I have pointed out a multitude of extremely intractable facts, for which there is NO possible evolutionary explanation - the most recent being the migration habits of the golden plover.

If somebody has produced an explanation, I must have missed it. But the truth is that there is, and can be, none apart from divine creation and instinct implantation. Can you imagine it? Leaving the offspring to fly 2,500 miles, entirely across the ocean, without guide, experienced birds or anything to lead them, all the way back to Hawaii.

Quote
Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.

Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:

"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.    "Billions and Billions of Demons"

I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.

Quote
Yes, I am optimistic that the current puzzles in biology and other sciences will be solved, sooner or later.

You are aware that Lewontin does not believe in creationism? He strongly disagrees with the methods of Sagan, Dawkins and others; and with some of their theories too. Oh yes... scientists disagree about the details of a theory, but that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole is wrong, like so many creationists believe.

I know that Lewontin is an evolutionist (or was, if he has died). I'm not calling on him as if he was a creationist. He was smart enough to recognise Dawkins' lies and name them as such, and that is the reason for my quote.

My concern is that there are so many readers who swallow uncritically those lies and scientific untruths. Imagine, somebody constructing and peddling authoritative sounding explanations of the origin of the bats' echolocating system! And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.

I am stunned by the stupidity.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #144 on: 03/01/2009 13:26:32 »
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion.

Quote
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion

Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".

(Vestigial features and atavisms are proof that evolution has occurred)

Hmmm. Try this for size:

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."
152 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.
153 Niles Eldridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78.

.
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #145 on: 03/01/2009 13:28:57 »
Quote
And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.

I am stunned by the stupidity.

Says someone who wants us to believe in a divine creator, no further comment is needed.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #146 on: 03/01/2009 13:32:21 »
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?

I really would like a short, accurate answer to this.
Is it beyond you (or 'beneath you')?
If you are trying to be scientific, then you should have a replacement for any theory which you object to.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #147 on: 03/01/2009 13:37:09 »
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?

Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
I thought you believed that God created every creature as they were and are today.

I think that is in the main correct. I believe that each species has a considerable, but limited amount of variability built into its genome, and that has accounted for the variations we've seen, and the extinctions that have occurred.

The fact that there are explosive bursts of creative activity is proven by the palaeontologists, who simply cannot account for the vast numbers of organisms without ancestors appearing in the Cambrian layers.

As you may be unaware of the problems, here are a couple of links to have a look at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #148 on: 03/01/2009 13:41:53 »
Asyncritus, once again, you've missed the point.  It doesn't matter if we don't currently have an evolutionary explanation for something - divine creation is not a scientific explanation - it's not a valid alternative.  Instinct, as folks have said before on this forum, is chemically and biologically controlled, and so under genetic control and natural selection.  I don't know exactly how migration evolved, or how echolocation evolved, but I'm open minded enough to not assume that a deity must, therefore, have done it.

I've got to agree with Monika:
Quote
And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.

I am stunned by the stupidity.

Says someone who wants us to believe in a divine creator, no further comment is needed.

All of your beliefs come from one religion, and in particular, one book - your entire mode of thought is based on the authority of an old, often contradictory, book of parables - there is no, and can never be any scientific evidence for your god, you merely chose to believe in him - why do you think you have the right to question what other people think?
« Last Edit: 03/01/2009 13:50:32 by BenV »
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #149 on: 03/01/2009 15:40:38 »
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?

I really would like a short, accurate answer to this.
Is it beyond you (or 'beneath you')?
If you are trying to be scientific, then you should have a replacement for any theory which you object to.
Are you opting out of this one, Asyncritus?
If you can't talk Science then why come on a Science Forum?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #149 on: 03/01/2009 15:40:38 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums