How does "instinct" evolve?

  • 270 Replies
  • 150889 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« on: 17/08/2008 23:37:59 »
THE EVOLUTION OF INSTINCT

In my humble opinion, instinct is the most remarkable feature of the natural world: second only to the existence of life itself.

It is the force powering behaviour in animals.

We may argue and dispute about whether something evolved or not, but the one thing that is beyond dispute is the fact that instinct  exists, and that there is no evolutionary accounting for its existence.

Looking at the lowliest forms of life the viruses and phages, we see the viruses entering cells, and taking them over, turning them into virus factories. We know the details of how they do this - how they shed their protein coats, invade, and take over the genetic machinery of the cell and compel it to produce more virus material. And so on.

The biochemistry of much of this is well known, but there is one thing that will forever elude description. The WHY of their action. The REASON for what they do.

WHY do they enter the cell? WHY do they take over the genetic machinery?

There is no obvious compulsion for them to do so, yet they are driven to do this, somehow, and by something that cannot be identified. It can be called, even at this level, some form of INSTINCT.

An amoeba approaches a diatom. It's chemotaxis recognises it as food, and it moves toward it, engulfs it, then digests it. But WHY? Why didn't the chemotaxis make it turn in the opposite direction and run away? The amoeba recognises that it is food, it can be 'eaten', it will do it (the amoeba) good. but how does it 'know' this?




INSTINCT again. But what is that? And where does it come from?

The most startling examples come from the more complex animals, and I will present a few examples of the ones that have startled me the most. In every case, no evolutionary explanation can be sensibly offered. The sheer improbability of what actually happens, the fact that at every step of the way any mistake would have resulted in disaster for the species, argue powerfully that these examples originated in one blow, and not by any gradual evolutionary process. At  least none I've ever heard about, but it is up to readers to correct me.

We will begin with the Yucca Moth (Tegeticula spp).

« Last Edit: 13/10/2008 08:47:45 by chris »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #1 on: 18/08/2008 00:03:13 »
THE LIFE HISTORY OF THE YUCCA MOTH

The adult female  moth emerges from the ground in June through July, at the time that the yucca plant is in flower (!!!), and mates shortly after emergence.

She collects the pollen of a yucca plant, using her specially shaped mouthparts, shaping it into a kind of horseshoe-shaped mass. She then flies to another inflorescence (on another plant.) There, she selects a flower, inserts her ovipositor through the wall of the carpel, and lays an egg next to the developing ovules.

She then climbs to the top of the style, and, using her specially shaped mouthparts, called maxillary tentacles (which are unique to the yucca moth), she actively transfers the pollen on to the top of the stylar canal. She repeats the process, several times, thus ensuring that the plant is adequately pollinated, and can produce seeds on which the survival of her young, and the plant, depends.

She then drops off the plant and dies.

The eggs hatch out into larvae after 7 -10 days, and they feed on the developing seeds, leaving one uneaten. After about 40 days, the 4th instar larvae eat their way out of the developing fruit, and drop to the ground using a silken thread. They then burrow their way into the soil, pupate after a year or so, and emerge as adults at the time of the flowering of the yucca plant.

The instinctive behaviours in this life history are nothing short of astounding.

Consider:

1 The young never see their mother or father, and therefore cannot copy what they did. They are born with the behaviour somehow programmed into their genes.

2 The female moth somehow knows that pollination of the flower is essential to the formation of the seeds, which are going to become the food for her offspring. She knows where the pollen needs to be placed in order to effect fertilisation.

3 Her mouthparts are shaped precisely to create the mass which is to fit into the stylar canal.

4 She somehow knows that the ovary contains the food her developing larvae will need to eat. If the plant is not pollinated, the seeds cannot develop.

5 The larvae, it has been observed, never eat all of the developing seeds, but always leave one or more to perpetuate the plant.

6 She ensures cross-pollination of the flowers, by flying from one plant to another after collecting the pollen.

7 The larvae, the grubs, pupate. That means, they dissolve entirely into a fluid within the pupal case, and reform into a flying creature, the moth. This by itself is a major, miraculous feat.

8 The pupae hatch out in June/July, at the very time that the yucca plant is in flower. Although they were underground, they are somehow aware of the correct time to hatch out and fly.

I have used the word ‘knows’ several times in this account. A moth cannot ‘know’

1 How to dissolve its grub character into a fluid enclosed in a case which is somehow going to reconstitute itself into a flying moth fully armed with instincts.

2 When to emerge at exactly the right time that the yucca plant is flowering

3 That pollination is essential to the fertilisation of the seeds and the survival of her larvae. How could she know? She never lives long enough to see either take place.

4 That the pollen she collects with her peculiarly shaped mouthparts is shaped exactly correctly to fit the stylar canal.

5 That the ovary contains ovules, which are going to develop into seeds on which her young can feed.

6 That cross pollination will ensure the continuance of the yucca plant

7 If the larvae do not have the silk thread, they would probably perish on impact with the ground.

Without the moth, the yucca species will perish. Without the yucca, the moth will perish. Each is entirely dependent on the other for its survival, because the moth lives on no other plant, and the plant is not fertilised by other insects. No moth, no yucca. No yucca, no moth.

The instinct displayed defies belief. Yet several reputable observers have described the behaviour in detail and published their findings, mithering foolishly about 'co-evolution' when they try to explain the origin of the behaviour.

It's like a lock and a key. Without the key, the lock is useless. Without the lock, the key is useless. Both have to be present at the same time for the device to work - and both are the work of an intelligent designer.

Here, we have several miracles rolled into a single life cycle. The moth would perish without the plant, and the plant would perish without the moth. Which came first? Answer: neither. They appeared there at the same time, fully formed and fully functioning. There's no evolution here, that's for sure.



The moth is collecting the pollen.




She is placing the pollen on the stigma of the plant.




If you look carefully, you'll see the moth inserting its ovipositor into the ovary of the plant.

Source of photographs:
http://www.morning-earth.org/Graphic-E/INTERLIVE/Images-Interliving/inter_yucca_moth.jpg
« Last Edit: 18/08/2008 00:47:05 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #2 on: 19/08/2008 09:36:19 »
I have to confess that when I consider the phenomena of the natural world, I am always gobsmacked at the incredible things that happen, especially when they concern instinct.

Here is another gobsmacking example which has me respectfully doffing every hat that I have at the brilliance of the Creator.

THE EUMENES WASP


This wasp occurs in my country of origin, so I'm happy to be able to say that I can testify to the accuracy of some of this from what I personally saw. However the full details are taken from various authors, such as Henri Fabre, whose observations carry more weight.

After mating has ocurred, the female wasp begins the process of confounding evolutionists (and amazing me, when I saw it doing this).

She actually builds what looks like a hollow igloo made out of mud, and sticks it on a wall or the underside of a roof. The mud is made of her own spittle, dust, and small stones. It’s quite a structure, too: about 1 cm in diameter, and 1 cm deep.

At the top, she creates an opening, and curves the lip of the opening backwards, much like the lip of a round ornamental vase. She decorates the nest with shiny pebbles too!

She then catches and stings small green grubs.

Now hear this you unbelievers, and marvel with me. She stings them - but does not kill them, merely inducing partial paralysis. This keeps the game fresh and not putrefying. I wonder how many wasps take degrees in anaesthesiology!!

Somehow, the wasp knows what sex her offspring is going to be!!! If male, she catches fewer grubs, and if female she catches more. Here's J H Fabre describing the Ammophila wasp:
http://www.pdbooksonline.com/free_books/The_Wonders_Of_Instinct_by_J_H_Fabre/page_23.php

'But the egg is laid when the provisions are stored; and this egg has a determined sex, though the most minute examination is not able to discover the differences which will decide the hatching of a female or a male.

We are therefore needs driven to this strange conclusion: the mother knows beforehand the sex of the egg which she is about to lay; and this knowledge allows her to fill the larder according to the appetite of the future grub.

What a strange world, so wholly different from ours! We fall back upon a special sense to explain the ™ hunting; what can we fall back upon to account for this intuition of the future? Can the theory of chances play a part in the hazy problem? If nothing is logically arranged with a foreseen object, how is this clear vision of the invisible acquired?'

Fabre asks a question it's impossible for evolution to answer.

But the wonders aren't over yet.

Where is the mother to lay her extremely fragile eggs? If she lays them in the mass of grubs, then they might squash it as they wriggle around.

Fabre says that he and his friends were astonished at the answer, and admits that he was unable to guess it. Before you read further, can you guess it?

The mother suspends the egg by a silken thread from the ceiling, out of reach of the grubs. When it hatches, it is suspended by its hindquarters, and can raise itself out of danger if a grub becomes too frisky.

She has also built an escape route for it, a protecting sheath that he failed to observe initially, because it was so well hidden.

Now wasps have a brain the size of a mustard seed. And yet, the mother is able to do all this - without having been taught - after all, she never sees her own mother, who dies after all the above is done.

How can she possibly

1 know how to make mud?

2 know how to build an igloo?

3 know which grubs to catch?

4 know how much venom to inject, and where to inject it so it paralyses, but doesn't kill?

5 And who thought up the idea of hanging the egg from the ceiling?

6 And how does a wasp learn how to manufacture a silk thread?

7 And how did all that get into the chromosomes?

The only answer is that the whole thing was carefully and competently designed.

And if it was designed, then there was a Designer.
« Last Edit: 19/08/2008 16:16:22 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline mario

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 17
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #3 on: 20/08/2008 11:21:17 »
i'm sorry to say that there is no WHY in evolution. It just is. there is no direction or reason for the results of evolution. It occurs randomly...as evolutionary theory suggests.

Whilst seeking reason is comforting, you could argue that it is an inherently human trait, to nicely compartmentalise our world and classify it into neat categories. Evolutionarily speaking, our abilty to categorise the world is what has allowed us to profliferate like we have. But our abilities and life itself is a an artifact of chance. Any reason there is for the existence of life or instincts will be what we decided to project upon it.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #4 on: 20/08/2008 13:30:39 »
I'm sorry you take that view, Mario.

It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.

Shame that, especialy when we have such beautiful examples to the contrary.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #5 on: 20/08/2008 14:18:13 »
Quote
It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.

I'll remind you that you are saying that these species were created by magic, so you're in no position to talk about reason.

And it doesn't mean life is meaningless  (in fact, it quite clearly gives the meaning of life - reproduce, and do what you can to help those who share your genes survive), though it does mean that creationism is meaningless.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 20/08/2008 18:54:26 by RD »

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #7 on: 20/08/2008 19:10:17 »
It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.

I'll remind you that you are saying that these species were created by magic, so you're in no position to talk about reason.

Let's assume that they were. Would it make you feel any better if I then kept on talking about evolution? I thought science was about truth, verifiable truth?

I'm simply presenting facts. In my opinion, there's no evolutionary theory  that can possibly explain them. PLEEEEZZE put up one instead of leaping on me. Get Dawkins here if you like, and I'll subject him to the same treatment and we'll see what he has to say. Yeah, you guys probably will have some pull with him - more than I have anyway. Beg him to come over here and let's hear him on these topics.

Quote
And it doesn't mean life is meaningless  (in fact, it quite clearly gives the meaning of life - reproduce, and do what you can to help those who share your genes survive), though it does mean that creationism is meaningless.

How sad that all were here for is to reproduce. Dont you think that's a bit pathetic?
 
« Last Edit: 20/08/2008 19:23:51 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!


*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #10 on: 20/08/2008 19:17:48 »
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ?

D-uh?


The blue text is a hotlink Asyncritus.

There's obviously some genetic abnormality, probably induced by mans polluting agents. But that's all I can say without a few more facts.

What's your explanation?

And about the yucca moth and the Eumenes wasp too. Any comment?
« Last Edit: 20/08/2008 19:23:03 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #11 on: 20/08/2008 19:31:07 »
What's your explanation?

The legs on the whale are an atavism, like these...

Quote
Many famous examples of atavisms exist, including (1) rare formation of extra toes (2nd and 4th digits) in horses, similar to what is seen in the archaic horses Mesohippus and Merychippus, (2) atavistic thigh muscles in Passeriform birds and sparrows, (3) hyoid muscles in dogs, (4) wings in earwigs (normally wingless), (5) atavistic fibulae in birds (the fibulae are normally extremely reduced), (6) extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, (6) the atavistic dew claw in many dog breeds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

Either atavisms prove evolution has occurred, or alternatively your competent and careful "designer" was having an off-day.

If evidence of atavism doesn't convert you to evolution, have a look at vestigial anatomy,
in humans vestiges include wisdom teeth and appendix from our herbivore ancestors, and of course our tail (coccyx).
« Last Edit: 20/08/2008 19:59:25 by RD »

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #12 on: 20/08/2008 23:54:58 »
Um, I missed your comment on the moth and the wasp.

How about it?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #13 on: 21/08/2008 01:00:13 »
You have acknowledged the existence of genes...

There's obviously some genetic abnormality

You have acknowledged genes can change...

genetic abnormality, probably induced by mans polluting agents


If you can accept that on rare occasions those genetic changes can be advantageous then you will be an evolutionist.


Re: Moth & Wasp, genes define the anatomy which controls behaviour, e.g. nervous system, endocrine system,
     so genes can produce the pre-programmed "instinctive" inherited behaviour patterns you have described.


Um, I missed your creationist "intelligent design" explanation for the examples of atavism and vestigial anatomy I listed.
« Last Edit: 21/08/2008 01:06:01 by RD »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #14 on: 21/08/2008 13:54:36 »
I'm simply presenting facts. In my opinion, there's no evolutionary theory  that can possibly explain them. PLEEEEZZE put up one instead of leaping on me. Get Dawkins here if you like, and I'll subject him to the same treatment and we'll see what he has to say. Yeah, you guys probably will have some pull with him - more than I have anyway. Beg him to come over here and let's hear him on these topics.

You're not presenting facts at all.  You're saying 'god did it' - no facts, no evidence, no logic, no reason. That's why you get leapt upon.

And what is your fascination with talking to Professor Dawkins?  That's the second time you've suggested we invite him here to discuss evolution with you - surely the forum on his website would be a much better place?  I don't think he would have much time for you, as I'm sure he's had this debate a number of times already - you still don't realise that you can't hold evolution up to the highest standards of evidence whilst saying "god did it, and I don't need to have any evidence for that, because god did it."

The examples you've posted above are not evidence against evolution, merely examples that you feel evolution can't explain.  I don't have time to fully research them, but you clearly do - maybe if you took the god blinkers off they would make sense to you.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #15 on: 21/08/2008 16:58:46 »
BATS AND ECHOLOCATION

There are 3 groups of flying animals in existence today: the birds, the bats and the insects. Each of these presents evolution with insuperable problems, but my especial favourite is the bat.

It’s a shame they have had such bad press with such films as Dracula etc, because these creatures possess some of the most stupendous and miraculous pieces of biological engineering on the planet. For those who are convinced that evolution did occur, this will make not the slightest difference. For those who believe otherwise, this will be another club to beat their heads with.

Remember, the title of Darwin’s book was ‘On the Origin of Species’. That was what he set out to do, and it is what he singularly failed to achieve. It is on the origin question where he and his theory have failed most lamentably. 

Fossil bats

There aren’t all that many of them, that’s for sure, and that may have something to do with the fact that they are flying animals. But what IS remarkable, is that the very first fossil bat looks remarkably like the bats of today: and has the echo-location apparatus in its head.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/bat_fossil.jpg

The author says: ‘These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.’

Remember, these are the earliest specimens of bat fossils ever found. Maybe earlier ones have been found since, but I don’t know.

Therefore, they could fly. Now a bat does not fly using feathers, it flies using the skin between its fingers. That’s the origin of the name ‘chiropteran’ – hand-wing.

Here is a diagram to show what that means. Notice the vast difference between the bird’s wing and the bat’s:
http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/wings.htm#bat

There is absolutely NO indication of any fossil ancestor of the bat, which hopped, jumped or leapt. There is absolutely NO indication of where and how they could have obtained the power of flight. None whatsoever. This, of course, is what the creation model predicts.

They fly at  speeds of about 11.14 mph. In itself that doesn’t sound like much, but when we compare that with the body length of the animal, it is quite startling. It’s 234432 times its body length (say 3 inches) per hour, as compared with a car 20 ft long which at the same speed is only traveling 36000 times its length per hour.

Evolution is helpless to explain how this could have arisen so swiftly, so unexpectedly and so perfectly. Dawkins has laughably conceded that this gives the appearance of being designed, and then goes on to propound his pathetic fantasies about how this could have evolved. Have a look in Blind Watchmaker.

Flight is one thing – marvelous as it is – but the echolocation system the animal uses beggars description.

In essence, the bat emits a squeak, which like radar, bounces back to the source. Knowing the speed of the radio wave emitted we can work out very accurately how far away an object is. That’s us. The bats do this as well, but better than we can.

Let’s say that a bat is not moving, and emits a shriek. The sound wave travels to the insect it’s interested in, hits it, and bounces back. Let’s also say the insect is still. What happens then? We know the speed of sound and can calculate the distance to the object from the time it takes for the shriek to get there and reach back to us.

But the bat doesn’t know the speed of sound. So how can it calculate the distance of the insect? Evolution does not know.

Notice 2 things: it has a sound emitter, and a sound receiver, and a computer connected to the two things which is able to calculate at phenomenal speeds, and immediately communicate those results to the muscles and nervous system.

But recall that both the bat and the insect were still. That is not the case when the bat is hunting. The bat is flying at up to 11 mph, and the insect is dodging and on an uncertain flight path. The calculations immediately begin to defy belief. Bear in mind too, that there are other bats emitting shrieks. How does our bat keep track of, and identify its own signal?

Answer, it possesses the necessary equipment. That equipment is of extraordinary high quality, as we’ve seen from the requirements.

“From a computational neuroscience perspective, bats are remarkable because of the very short timescale on which they operate.  The barrage of returning sonar echoes from a bat's near-environment lasts approximately 30 milliseconds following a sonar emission with the echo from a specific target lasting, at most, a few milliseconds.

From an engineering standpoint, biosonar systems (e.g. bats and dolphins) have inspired the design of very sophisticated sonar and radar systems that can map distant surfaces and track targets with great precision.  Even with powerful mathematical tools and decades of experience, however, our best systems still do not rival the perceptual capabilities of dolphins.  Many bats demonstrate incredible aerial agility, flying in complete darkness through branches and caves while hunting evasive insects.  These animals perform such tasks in real-time with a total power consumption (including flight) measured in Watts, not hundreds of Watts.  In addition to the ability to navigate in complete darkness by echolocation, both bats and dolphins live in very social environments using echolocation in group situations without any obvious problems with interference.  All of these capabilities are highly desired by current military programs developing unmanned-aerial vehicles (UAV) especially since many of the target environments are in places where Global Positioning System (GPS) signals are unavailable and obstacle locations are not mapped.”

It gets extremely technical, as we might guess, but the biggest points are very obvious.

Clearly, there is extremely high order design and implementation in this system. The military want to copy the design – which means that the bats’ system is superior to any of their own.

We have high order flight engineering and acoustic engineering allied to extreme efficiency of power consumption (measured in Watts, not hundreds of watts). And meanwhile, the animal is alive, growing, breathing, excreting, responding, moving, feeding, and reproducing. So successful is the group, that they are one of the most numerous sets of animals on the planet, as far as the numbers of species is concerned. They are estimated to be about 20% of all mammalian species.

There is not even a reputable theory to account for the evolutionary origin of bats that I have been able to find. The writers content themselves with mumbling about the as yet undiscovered ancestors of bats.Too soft, they say. But they've found birds, and jellyfish, and spiders and...

The instincts involved: flight and use of this incredible sonar system are mind boggling. Imagine putting an ignoramus in the cockpit of a modern jet fighter aircraft! Because the bat has a brain the size of a brazil nut, or less.

Evolution has failed miserably here, as usual when presented with a concrete case. The animals scream ‘We are designed’ and each little creature is a small hymn of praise to its Maker.

Thomas Addison said it well: “In reason’s ear, they all rejoice, and utter forth a glorious voice….. the Hand that made us is divine”.

Well said, Thomas.


« Last Edit: 22/08/2008 21:36:00 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #16 on: 21/08/2008 23:26:21 »
*yawn*

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #17 on: 22/08/2008 19:52:48 »
Try waking up atrox.

You may learn something!

Hey RD,

Got anything to say about these? Useful, I mean.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #18 on: 22/08/2008 22:03:53 »
Your batty post did not attempt to answer my question...

Um, I missed your creationist "intelligent design" explanation for the examples of atavism and vestigial anatomy I listed.

PS
just because behavior or form is mind-bogglingly complex does not mean it was designed.
Incremental evolutionary changes over billions of years is plenty of time to produce extreme complexity.
« Last Edit: 22/08/2008 22:06:27 by RD »

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #19 on: 23/08/2008 10:16:13 »
Ah, the old argument from Credulity and Gullibility strikes again.

We don't know how it evolved, we don't have a clue how it could have evolved, but we believe it anyway.

Nuts to the facts. Why should we let a nasty fact spoil a perfectly nonsensical theory?

Ah well.[:-\]

 
« Last Edit: 23/08/2008 10:17:55 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #20 on: 23/08/2008 11:23:43 »
But the facts are that these species exist.  As we know that their actions and physiology are determined by genes, and we know that a population's genes change over time and are subject to natural selection, we can determine that these species evolved from ancestors through a process of evolution.

Evolution explains the facts perfectly well.

No-one is ignoring the facts, except you - ignoring the fact that there is no, and can never be any evidence for your creator, so it will never be a valid explanation for how things on earth arise and thus is not a valid alternative to evolution.

*

blakestyger

  • Guest
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #21 on: 23/08/2008 12:10:35 »
Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #22 on: 24/08/2008 19:55:33 »
Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.

Blake

There are literally hundreds of millions of fossils. Fossil formation is not the problem. The ones that have been formed in the Cambrian alone amount to over a billion, if we count the bacteria and unicells.

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

Here's Darwin:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Darwin_ever_say_that_he_was_wrong_for_coming_up_with_the_theory_of_evolution


They are the only rock-solid facts we have. There are theories aplenty, but the fossils represent the bedrock of any evolution theory, and if they contradict the theory, then it should be abandoned.

We don't have a choice really.
« Last Edit: 26/08/2008 07:49:32 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #23 on: 24/08/2008 22:56:31 »
no, evolution dont live or die with the fossils and no evolutionist would say so... but in fact, they do help to support the theory, thats right.
But that doesn´t mean in reverse, that the absence of some fossils in some parts (don´t forget the the lots of fossils, intermadiate forms ands so on we do have..) proves that evolution is wrong...
because then we wouldn´t have to discuss about creation.... I never saw god or any part of him/her/it... but in your mind, that doesn´t proove your wrong...

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #24 on: 26/08/2008 07:40:58 »
If the police are investigating a murder case, the first thing they look at is the corpse, and analyse it carefully.

Here we have hundreds of thousands of corpses, and not one of them says that evolution occurred. What does that prove?

That Something Else happened. What?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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".
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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?

.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8172
    • 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
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #31 on: 27/08/2008 17:05:00 »
 [;D]
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

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
  • ****
  • 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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline mario

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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!
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

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
  • ****
  • 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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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?  [::)]
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!