The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does "instinct" evolve?  (Read 149249 times)

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #25 on: 26/08/2008 07:52:18 »
Your batty post did not attempt to answer my question...

My batty post? (Very funny, RD, very funny!).

But how did you say the bats evolved, and from what? And have you got any evidence?
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #26 on: 26/08/2008 11:50:27 »
You just keep ignoring or refusing to accept what we say. What's the point of you posting here? You are constantly refuted, yet you return each time with posts that demonstrate your ignorance even more. Perhaps a more receptive, uncritical forum is where you should be.

Meanwhile, you still have not made a POSITIVE case for ID. Even if you proved evolution wrong, the answer is not automatically ID. It is fallacious to think that "X is wrong, therefore Y is correct".
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #27 on: 26/08/2008 14:57:57 »
Come on Stefan.

You haven't refuted anything. The bats still fly and echolocate.
The yucca moth still pollinates.
The swallows still fly to Capistrano.

And so on.

Where's the 'refutation'?

Take any one of those, and refute it. I challenge you.

If the US military is copying the bat's systems, and the whale's systems of echolocation, that proves superintelligent design. The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it. They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Now what does that prove? Intelligent Design, or none at all?

.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8128
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #28 on: 26/08/2008 17:41:45 »
The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can

Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry).

Engineers have also copied evolution...

Quote
Evolutionary computation

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
 
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation



[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.

Quote
On 28 July 1976, an SR-71 broke the world record for its class:
 an absolute speed record of 1905.80993 knots (2,193.1669 mph, 3,529.56 km/h)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Records
« Last Edit: 26/08/2008 17:43:29 by RD »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #29 on: 26/08/2008 19:15:46 »
Quote
The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can

Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry).

Engineers have also copied evolution...

So the engineers could see intelligent design, because they would  certainly not copy unintelligent design. Would you, if you were an engineer?

Evolutionary computation
Quote

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
 
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation


Do I need say any more?

Quote
[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.

How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales. Don't decontextualise me.

But here's one for you. The simplest living thing can reproduce itself. How about the military then? Have they managed that yet?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8128
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #30 on: 27/08/2008 11:56:03 »
Quote
Evolutionary computation

In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.

Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.


Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation


Do I need say any more?  

The selection process in evolutionary computation is artificial not natural: the computer programmer has defined the criteria on which the partially random computer-generated prototypes will be assessed, the fittest ones being selected to "breed" from to produce successive generations, i.e. evolutionary computation is directed toward a final result by the criteria set by the programmer.
There is no such teleology in the natural selection which has created all the life on Earth: no design, no plan, the prevailing environment has selected which forms survive and reproduce.


Quote
[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.

Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.
 

How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales. 

Ultrasound imaging equipment used to inspect metal castings, like gun barrels, uses sound frequencies which are fifty times higher than that of a bat, so will have echolocation which has a resolution fifty times better than a bat.

(Bat about 100KHz, Ultrasonic inspection apparatus 5MHz, i.e. 50x higher frequency than bat)

Laser rangefinders are far more accurate than sonar, they still use echolocation but use light instead of sound.
Laser rangefinders were used to create this music video, (sorry it's a "Radiohead" dirge).
« Last Edit: 27/08/2008 12:35:49 by RD »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #31 on: 27/08/2008 17:05:00 »
 ;D
 

blakestyger

  • Guest
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #32 on: 27/08/2008 20:25:32 »
Asyncritus, you said -

Darwin himself, and all evolutionists since know full well that evolution lives or dies by the fossils.

This is not the case. Fossils provide evidence for evolution but what about all the countless soft-bodied creatures that never made it to being a fossil and yet managed to evolve without leaving a trace other than fragments of their genomes in successive creatures further along in the evolutionary 'tree'?

Also, evolution is going on as we correspond and has been seen to occur over a number of years in the Galapagos Islands by the Grants in the 1990s; and then there's the work of Mike Majerius on the Peppered Moth that is ongoing at Cambridge.

Fossils are a useful tool, that's all.
« Last Edit: 27/08/2008 20:42:35 by blakestyger »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #33 on: 28/08/2008 22:32:50 »
Glad you mentioned that. I was reading Gould's Wonderful Life just today. Here's a relevant quote:

"This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the miniscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.

The Burgess Shale represents a period just after the explosion, a time when the full range of its products inhabited our seas.

These Canadian fossils are precious because they preserve in exquisite detail. down to the last filament of a trilobite's gill, or the components of the last meal in a worm's gut, the soft anatomy of organisms... hence the rare soft bodied faunas of the fossil record of the fossil record are precious windows into the true range and diversity of ancient life. The Burgess Shale is the only extensive, well-documented window upon that most crucial event in the history of animal life, the first flowering of the Cambrian explosion."

He's saying that they don't have an awful lot of soft bodied fossils, but the Burgess shale is a huge exception, and there are plenty of them there.

So I'm afraid your point is valueless.

Fossils provide no evidence for evolution, but the opposite.
 

Offline mario

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #34 on: 05/09/2008 11:38:10 »
Asyncritus, your last example doesn't make much sense. Please could you be more clear.

And besides, fossil records do not neccesarily have to illustrate a gradual chain of fossils that reflect gradual change. This is a misconception.

Some changes may happen that are random and rapid. For example, the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', proposed by elderidge and gould in 1972, suggests that localised speciation events can occur in apparently stable sexually reproducing population.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #35 on: 12/09/2008 09:30:15 »
Glad you mentioned Eldredge and Gould.

Those two have shot the whole idea of gradual evolution right in the horse's patoot.

They said that gradual evolution just doesn't happen - there's no fossil evidence that it does. So score 1 for the creationists.

They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.

They show that species appear, stand still evolutionarily, and then either disappear, or remain till today. Score 3 for the creationists.

Well that only leaves mutations. Which will produce sudden advances. But that's wrong too - because 95% of mutations are destructive, and the other 5% are neutral. So what does that leave? Score 4 for the creationists.

I only recently read about Lenski's experiment. He cultivated 33,127 generations of E.coli over a period of 26 years. He wore out his prayer mat by the refrigerators praying for a new species to show up. Did it? Like hell it did. Score 5 for the creationists.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

So all told, evolution is in a very bad way, and should be discarded forthwith.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2008 09:33:29 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #36 on: 12/09/2008 11:32:18 »
Well, Lenski's work did show a new species of e.coli - one that could use citrate as a food source. (not using citrate is one of the defining features of e. coli as a species)

It also showed clear evidence of evolution within the species, as later populations were better able to compete in that environment than ancestral populations.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #37 on: 12/09/2008 12:40:20 »
Hi Ben

No, Lenski didn't show a new species, merely a new variant which, as you say, could metabolise citrate.

Michael Behe showed that the capacity to do that had already been there, and all that was required was activation of an already existing enzyme.

E coli remained E coli, and didn't become E lenskii!
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #38 on: 12/09/2008 15:57:23 »
Does the name really matter?  In Lenski's lab, bacteria evolved.  That's all there is to it - observable evolution through natural selection. Your creationist ideas can't explain that, or chose to ignore what it means.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2008 16:02:16 by BenV »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #39 on: 12/09/2008 18:18:14 »
Ben

It does matter. Speciation is a bottom line feature of evolution. If no new species are produced, how can evolution proceed from lower to higher orders?

Answer: it can't.

Therefore, that is why they're scratching round so desperately to find new-species production - but it just doesn't seem to happen. Lenski's desperate and prolonged effort (26 years' worth) ended in a great success for us creationists. Dobzhansky had a good go, and the nuclear effects of Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't done so either.

Lenski established what Luther Burbank said so long ago - that species have a very strong pull toward the mean, and that he couldn't transgress species limits.

So where do you go from there? Nowhere, I suggest, apart from abandonment.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2008 18:20:35 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #40 on: 12/09/2008 18:32:01 »
Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant.  Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.

As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #41 on: 12/09/2008 22:38:40 »
They did not evolve. Not even Lenski claimed a new species. Have a look at the wiki accountand you'll see that E coli remained E coli.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=254372

Unless,of course the taxonomists don't know their job either.

This is simply an example of variation within a species, nothing more and no help to evolution at all.
 

blakestyger

  • Guest
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #42 on: 12/09/2008 22:57:15 »
They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.

No ancestors? Could that perhaps mean they haven't made it into the fossil record?

What exactly is it about evolution that frightens you? - And where did you learn to argue like that?
« Last Edit: 12/09/2008 23:27:37 by blakestyger »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #43 on: 13/09/2008 07:12:12 »
They didn't make it into the fossil record? The ancestors of all 6,000,000 species existing today?
Not one of them made it? Is that really possible? Darwin said they should be littered everywhere. They're nowhere to be found.

C'mon Blake - get real willya.

Scared of evolution? No, scared of swallowing scientific gibberish. And of pushing God out of His own Universe. I'll have no truck with that.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #44 on: 13/09/2008 12:15:10 »
Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant.  Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.

As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?
Did you choose to ignore my entire post?

The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved - into new varieties of the species if you like, but being pedantic isn't a good arguement.  Ancestral populations were less able to compete with modern generations - evolution by natural selection - once again it doesn't matter if they didn't form a new species in this instance it is a concrete example of the mechanisms of evolution in action.  It's simply nonsense to say that evolution can produce variation within species but not speciation - there's only so much variation before the variants become sexually incompatible.
« Last Edit: 13/09/2008 12:21:53 by BenV »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #45 on: 14/09/2008 10:33:28 »
Ben

I don't quite know what your definition of evolution might be.Perhaps you'd like to distinguish between 'variation' and 'evolution' for me.

Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'

So a Pakicetus could eventually evolve into a whale (ho ho!).

That's what I think about when I use the word 'evolution'.

You clearly don't think so, but accept the production of insignificant new variants of the same species as 'evolution'. So you would probably regard a bunch of monkeys with longer tails as 'evolution'. I'm afraid the taxonomists whose business it is to define species etc won't agree with you.

They have reasonably well defined criteria for naming new species, and Lenski's 'new' bacteria didn't meet them. Not even Lenski claimed they did.

But that creates an enormous problem for you.

If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.

Whatever the answer, that represents rather more time than evolution has got.
« Last Edit: 14/09/2008 10:37:47 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #46 on: 14/09/2008 11:17:58 »
;D
LOL owned! You really are the very thing evolution is going to ditch.

Btw, which of the competing gods has your balls in a vice. I am pretty sure it is just jebus. Other religions tend to conduct themselves with more dignity, not going onto science forums looking to get into fights.

The only ID I need is the one that made this lovely iPod touch keyboard. So sexy!
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #47 on: 14/09/2008 11:24:09 »
oh. I forgot to mention that this forum never fails to cheer me up. It's nutters like you that push science onwards. In hundreds of years we will look back and laugh at ancient humans with it's silly warring religions.
We will all then toast to our mastery of nature and drink alchopops from the holy Grail. 
 

blakestyger

  • Guest
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #48 on: 14/09/2008 12:02:16 »
Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'

Then you'd be wrong - a new species does not have to appear for evolution to occur.

Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.
« Last Edit: 14/09/2008 12:12:11 by blakestyger »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #49 on: 14/09/2008 14:46:29 »
Quote
Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.

You overlooked just one little thing, didn't you?

What's that?

Well, maybe two.

1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.

2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!

So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you?  ::)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #49 on: 14/09/2008 14:46:29 »

 

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