Origin of Instinct - Mystery or Created?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 12:15 PM by Heronumber0
Originally posted by melatonin

lol, do the birds make nests and mate all year round? Do young birds make nests as successfully as older birds? What influences their motivation to do so? Took me one search to find this...

Same reason why birds only do their mating calls during breeding season. Their biology reacts to environmental cues, which influences neuroendocrinology, which leads to mating behaviours (singing, nest-building etc). Wouldn't be much use if they just went around building nests all year round.


Thanks for the reference. - so what you are saying is that the complex behaviours and all the complex types of knots used in nest building are under the control of the neuroendocrine centres which depend on environmental cues such as photoperiod (you can compare this scenario to the way that plants that response by germinating or flowering in response to photoperiod - Long or Short Day Plants).

Originally posted by melatonin
what the study from Collias suggests is that the motivation to build nests changes over time. As the mating processes initially kick in, the motivation would likely be poorer, but as the hormones and biology hit peak, motivation would be stronger. As I said, I was speculating earlier, as I havn't researched it in birds, but it is probably mediated by the basal ganglia - which is an interface between emotion and motivation areas of the brain and the motor areas. So, for example, the dysfunctional stereotypical behaviours found in Tourette's probably result from some form of basal ganglia issue (either intrinsic or regulatory).


So, again, you are basically mentioning here that hormones affect the behaviour of young birds. However, I do not doubt the existence of systems to cause a behavioural output after an initial stimulus which is environmental - I see the effect of hormones on human behaviour all the time in my workplace that

In fact I don't even question the effect of the neuroendocrine system on human behaviour either. What I do question is whether or not the complex behaviours of something like the weaver bird to build complex knotted structures in their nests is an emergent quality of the levels of hormones. We are looking at the same phenomena with different eyes. Moreover, if we are considering behaviour of weaver birds, how on earth did it originate? The first knot tied by a weaver bird on a tree branc or twig seems to be the 'rate determining step' which must support the weight of the female and babies. How did this single starting structure get selected for by virtue of Natural selection pressures. Do you see the problem? A gradualistic model is inadequate in explaining this away and, from some of the stuff I have read, is dismissed away by semantic handwaving.

from melatonin Sorry for coming back to human brains, but I know them better. Here's the article I posted earlier...


It's okay - I know next to nothing about human brain chemistry or neurology.

from melatonin That study shows how genetic influences on dopamine (striatal - a part of the BG) alter FAP strength. And a new one on singing in birds:

Actually quite an interesting paper. So males have the pathways for singing and learning new song, whereas the females appear to have a pathway for perception and memory of male songs. An aside, of course.

But these are the areas of the brain where many instinctive behaviours are likely to be embedded in 'higher' organisms.


Interesting that there is an area of the brain where instinct may be embedded - you're not becoming Lamarckian are you because each new generation which has shown adaptive behaviour towards a basic FAP would have to add the new information to that part of the brain...

Although I agree that there are genetic factors that affect instinct and that hybridisation of two species of the same genus of bird with different instinctive behaviours will cause displacement activity or a curious mix of FAP's, my central point still remains. I question the selectionist framework for a series of instinctive behaviours which, taken alone, do not suggest an immediate survival advantage.


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 01:00 PM by Heronumber0
Originally posted by Astyanax

Oh dear. Epic fail, as the young folk say nowadays.

What is instinct? It is a kind of behaviour. What triggers behaviour? A complicated question, no doubt, but luckily we can cut to the chase and say that at some point in the chain of causation there is always an environmental stimulus to which the behaviour is the response. This is true of all behaviour, whether 'instinctive' or not.


Asty - I don't know if you are a biologist or not, but I will humour you. Please read the OP and then observe the behaviour of the weaver bird. Then come up with a solution based on the Natural Selection argument which I will summarise for you (in case you are not a biologist) as 'survival of the fittest'

Okay, now look at the first knot the weaver bird ties - the whole nest depends on this otherwise there is no reproductive success for the birds. Can you explain, and it is the same for melatonin, how the environment and hormones produced by the bird could have caused it to tie a complex knot? Can you explain, and I know you cannot, how the first bird would have kept this Fixed Action Pattern in order to survive. Did a whole series of birds tie knots at random and then a few got selected? All I want is a sensible explanation where the lack of answer is not covered up by sarcasm. If you don't know the answer-say so!

Between this environmental stimulus and the instinctive behaviour it triggers lies a chain of biochemical events. They take place inside the brain and body and are not, broadly speaking, under conscious control. It is the origin of these biochemical responses, and the systems that generate them, that we are considering; behaviour is merely an emergent property of them.


Yadda, yadda, yadda...please see above.


Well, the first thing we can say about these biochemical systems and responses is that are also involved in consciously willed behaviour*. If you think instinct is too complex to have evolved naturally, so then are consciousness and will. Given your beliefs, I'm sure you have no trouble with that idea.


I have discussed these issues at length before but no resolution was reached. But you are wrong, I was willing to believe in a Creation event followed by evolution. However, the whole point of religion is to believe in a soul whose actions as a causative agent lead to certain consequences and in whom the qualities of God can be found so that he can find redemption from his wrongful actions and eventual peace in a state of mind called Heaven. Evolution denies that consciousness or any part of it is God-given and consigns us to zombie status driven by hormones and neurones, which is what you believe Asty. So I had to backtrack to something I find comfortable and this is it.

by Asty We also see that there is no intrinsic difference between the systems and responses involved in behaviour and such autonomous bodily processes as respiration, digestion, cognition and the maintenance of various homeostases. These, too, are insanely complicated, respond to environmental cues and must, likewise, have evolved or been created. If you think instinct is too complex to have evolved naturally, so too is all the complex functionality of animal bodies. Again, this is a conclusion that should cause no worries to a creationist.


I have my doubts of course, but the overall balance remains in favour of God in the machine. You have beautifully stated my argument - it is too complex to be explained by mere gradual change.

[QUOTE]So... do you get it now? There is nothing particularly special about instinct.

It has not been explained sufficiently and is not on a sufficiently rigorous scientific basis. You are asking me to follow you on simple deductive logical steps which are inherently tautological and you know this to be the case.

Your argument presupposes a distinction that does not actually exist in nature. Therefore it falls, as I said, at the first fence. QED, end of story. There is no need to go into detail about


It depends entirely upon your point of view or mine, to be perfectly honest. Your explanation uses millions of years of Time and the scientific method of the future to answer the huge question marks that underly every experimental human endeavour, I just say it's God. We are both in doubt but at least I also have the hope that there is something beyond this life - you have none.

You are not on ATS to convince others but to test yourself against your own doubts.
Precisely - let's face up to our doubts together without ad hominem attacks shall we?


[edit on 15/2/2009 by Heronumber0]


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 04:28 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by Heronumber0
Thanks for the reference. - so what you are saying is that the complex behaviours and all the complex types of knots used in nest building are under the control of the neuroendocrine centres which depend on environmental cues such as photoperiod (you can compare this scenario to the way that plants that response by germinating or flowering in response to photoperiod - Long or Short Day Plants).


Influenced by. FAPs need some sort of suitable trigger, otherwise it would be much less than adaptive. Indeed, never mind Tourette's, OCD is also linked to basal ganglia issues.

So, again, you are basically mentioning here that hormones affect the behaviour of young birds. However, I do not doubt the existence of systems to cause a behavioural output after an initial stimulus which is environmental - I see the effect of hormones on human behaviour all the time in my workplace that


I'm sure, lol.

In fact I don't even question the effect of the neuroendocrine system on human behaviour either. What I do question is whether or not the complex behaviours of something like the weaver bird to build complex knotted structures in their nests is an emergent quality of the levels of hormones.


I doubt it. The instinct would be linked with such biochemistry. They would trigger and motivate the behaviours. As noted in the the FAP study, dopamine appears to influence the strength of FAPs. And dopamine is part of the motivational system.

We are looking at the same phenomena with different eyes. Moreover, if we are considering behaviour of weaver birds, how on earth did it originate? The first knot tied by a weaver bird on a tree branc or twig seems to be the 'rate determining step' which must support the weight of the female and babies. How did this single starting structure get selected for by virtue of Natural selection pressures. Do you see the problem? A gradualistic model is inadequate in explaining this away and, from some of the stuff I have read, is dismissed away by semantic handwaving.


No, I know exactly what you are saying. The problem is that you are looking at the final behaviour and throwing your arms in the air and saying 'oh, it's too complex'. No different than would be said by another creationist for the eye or the bac flag. The behaviour would have evolved from more basic components.

Interesting that there is an area of the brain where instinct may be embedded - you're not becoming Lamarckian are you because each new generation which has shown adaptive behaviour towards a basic FAP would have to add the new information to that part of the brain...


Not much different than having new information 'added' to the genome over time. If the behaviour is maladaptive, then it would be filtered out the population, if adaptive, more ingrained.

Although I agree that there are genetic factors that affect instinct and that hybridisation of two species of the same genus of bird with different instinctive behaviours will cause displacement activity or a curious mix of FAP's, my central point still remains.


Interesting claim/question. Maybe someone should try such an experiment.

I question the selectionist framework for a series of instinctive behaviours which, taken alone, do not suggest an immediate survival advantage.


A bird population builds nests by basic nest weaving (like any old sparrow). Over time the nest building becomes more complex and intricate, guided by natural (predators eating eggs) and sexual (mates preferring particular nesting sites and nest forms). Don't see the problem. Only if you expect complexity to just drop out of fresh air (or from think n' poof) is it an issue.

If you find such design 'arguments' compelling, good for you. But it's not much more than an argument from incredulity, and is just a negative argument ('I think evolution can't do X, therefore god'). That is, the same old gap-filling.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 12:43 AM by Astyanax
I don't know if you are a biologist or not, but I will humour you. Please read the OP and then observe the behaviour of the weaver bird. Then come up with a solution based on the Natural Selection argument which I will summarise for you (in case you are not a biologist) as 'survival of the fittest'.

I have already stated that I am not a biologist. Clearly being one is no guarantee that one understands natural selection, so humour away.

I read the OP. As for 'observing the behaviour of the weaverbird', I have done so often enough, since I live in a country to which they are endemic.

Melatonin has already explained exactly how your idea of the evolution of complex traits is faulty. Look:

Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that you are looking at the final behaviour and throwing your arms in the air and saying 'oh, it's too complex'. No different than would be said by another creationist for the eye or the bac flag. The behaviour would have evolved from more basic components.

And again:

A bird population builds nests by basic nest weaving (like any old sparrow). Over time the nest building becomes more complex and intricate, guided by [selection both] natural (predators eating eggs) and sexual (mates preferring particular nesting sites and nest forms). Don't see the problem. Only if you expect complexity to just drop out of fresh air (or from think n' poof) is it an issue.

There it is, plain and simple. No need for me to repeat what has already been said.

Instead, let me show you how the evolution of the weaverbird's nest might have occurred in a much shorter space of evolutionary time than that presumably demanded by the plodding, one-knot-at-a-time process you envision.

Remember those doped-up spiders and their webs that you were talking about earlier? Within the brain of every spider resides an algorithm that specifies the structure of its web. How that algorithm is encoded I do not know, but it is plainly there, since every spider spins the web peculiar to its kind. From what may loosely be called a systems point of view, instinct is an algorithm.

Now I don't know how much maths they teach biologists nowadays - quite a lot, I hope - but I imagine you're familiar with the practice of graphing equations*. If you are, you'll know that changing the equation - the relationship between the variables being graphed - alters the form of the curve.

It looks as if something analogous happened to those webs. The drugs administered to the spiders caused changes to the webmaking algorithm - changed the instructions in the algorithm - with tragic but hilarious results.

Recall what I said earlier: instincts are algorithms. And instincts are open to modification through gene mutation. Changing one gene could quite conceivably cause radical changes to the behaviour in question.

Now here's a just-so story for you.

THE STORY OF HERO ZERO


Once upon a time there was a bird named Hero Zero. As you will see, the name suited him well.

Hero belonged to a species of bird that, unlike the koels and the emperor penguins, wove a nest at breeding time. Their nests were crude, cup-shaped aggregations of grass and twigs and other rubbish, no different from the nests woven by other common birds. All except for Hero's.

Hero, you see, was a mutant. He had been born with his nest-making algorithm lightly scrambled. So when the time came for Hero Zero to build his nest, he built a different nest.

It wasn't that different: it was still crude, it was still essentially cup-shaped. But Hero built the lip of the cup up higher, and curving in a bit, so the nest formed a deeper enclosure for whatever was in it.

This not only protected any eggs that might end up in it: it also turned out to be a big hit with a certain lady bird. She and Hero Zero made sweet music together and, in fullness of time, they made babies.

And their babies grew and thrived and had babies in their turn, diffusing genes for building deeper nests and for preferring deeper nests through the population. And since the nests did protect baby birds rather well, these genes eventually diffused through the whole population. And everyone lived happily ever after, except, of course, the silly old outdated shallow nest builders, who died out. And so ends the story of Hero Zero, the origin, the Onlie Begetter of weaverbirds.

* * *


The progression to ever more enclosing nests, and even more finely-woven ones, is easily explained thereafter by runaway sexual selection. I believe we have Darwin to thank for the original concept of sexual selection (see The Descent of Man), while the runaway model was introduced by R.A. Fisher.


*For those who aren't, here's a graphing calculator to help you get the picture.


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 05:17 AM by Heronumber0
Originally posted by Astyanax

I have already stated that I am not a biologist. Clearly being one is no guarantee that one understands natural selection, so humour away.
Agreed upon.

I read the OP. As for 'observing the behaviour of the weaverbird', I have done so often enough, since I live in a country to which they are endemic.

That is not the issue - the issue is the inheritance of highly complex instinctive behaviours, which are hard-wired into the brains of the recipients.

Instead, let me show you how the evolution of the weaverbird's nest might have occurred in a much shorter space of evolutionary time than that presumably demanded by the plodding, one-knot-at-a-time process you envision.


Finally, now it gets interesting.

Remember those doped-up spiders and their webs that you were talking about earlier? Within the brain of every spider resides an algorithm that specifies the structure of its web. How that algorithm is encoded I do not know,


Finally, an admission, there are only two possibilities - design or Darwinism.

Now I don't know how much maths they teach biologists nowadays - quite a lot, I hope - but I imagine you're familiar with the practice of graphing equations*. If you are, you'll know that changing the equation - the relationship between the variables being graphed - alters the form of the curve.


Intriguing ... Go on...

It looks as if something analogous happened to those webs. The drugs administered to the spiders caused changes to the webmaking algorithm - changed the instructions in the algorithm - with tragic but hilarious results.

Recall what I said earlier: instincts are algorithms. And instincts are open to modification through gene mutation. Changing one gene could quite conceivably cause radical changes to the behaviour in question.


All you have done so far, and I understand it, because you are not a bioloigist, is to reduce remarkably complex biochemistry down to algorithms without elucidating a single process. You have basically commented on the change of a curve from x=y to x=1/y or some analogous change. There is non-scientific comment on the phenomenon but no explanation. It is the equivalent of tracing the movements of a cheetah, drawing a graph and then commenting on the changes of the graph if it is injured. It tells me nothing about the series of processes from sensory input to output on a biological basis.

I have gone through, with melatonin the idea of one gene causing more than one change to an organism so you cannot tie down single gene instinctive behaviour unless you have the whole range of proteins before and after the single gene change ( called proteomics) and the whole range of genes changed before and after the gene knockout (called genomics).

Now here's a just-so story for you.

THE STORY OF HERO ZERO


Once upon a time there was a bird named Hero Zero. As you will see, the name suited him well.

Hero belonged to a species of bird that, unlike the koels and the emperor penguins, wove a nest at breeding time. Their nests were crude, cup-shaped aggregations of grass and twigs and other rubbish, no different from the nests woven by other common birds. All except for Hero's.

Hero, you see, was a mutant. He had been born with his nest-making algorithm lightly scrambled. So when the time came for Hero Zero to build his nest, he built a different nest.

It wasn't that different: it was still crude, it was still essentially cup-shaped. But Hero built the lip of the cup up higher, and curving in a bit, so the nest formed a deeper enclosure for whatever was in it.

This not only protected any eggs that might end up in it: it also turned out to be a big hit with a certain lady bird. She and Hero Zero made sweet music together and, in fullness of time, they made babies.

And their babies grew and thrived and had babies in their turn, diffusing genes for building deeper nests and for preferring deeper nests through the population. And since the nests did protect baby birds rather well, these genes eventually diffused through the whole population. And everyone lived happily ever after, except, of course, the silly old outdated shallow nest builders, who died out. And so ends the story of Hero Zero, the origin, the Onlie Begetter of weaverbirds.

* * *


The progression to ever more enclosing nests, and even more finely-woven ones, is easily explained thereafter by runaway sexual selection. I believe we have Darwin to thank for the original concept of sexual selection (see The Descent of Man), while the runaway model was introduced by R.A. Fisher.


Awwwwww - isn't that cute!!!! I will give you the same sort of answer I would give to a young student who turns in a nice bit of work without fully understanding it.

Well done Asty. What a lot of effort went into that story. To improve next time and get a better level, you should consider the process in more detail and not regurgitate the same old familiar Darwinian story without understanding the very first step in nest building which is in tying the knot. How do you think your story helps in answering the story of the first knot Asty - it is unfortunately very basic and speculative. However, if you listen more in class and answer the question, you will go far.




[edit on 16/2/2009 by Heronumber0]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 06:42 AM by Astyanax
Originally posted by Heronumber0
All you have done so far, and I understand it, because you are not a bioloigist, is to reduce remarkably complex biochemistry down to algorithms without elucidating a single process.

And why not? One treats the internal process of the organism as a black box. In at one end goes the stimulus or set of stimuli; out at the other comes the instinctive response. Nothing unscientific in that.

You have basically commented on the change of a curve from x=y to x=1/y or some analogous change.

More specifically, something like a change from

If x > a then go to R



to

If X > (a-1) then go to R



It tells me nothing about the series of processes from sensory input to output on a biological basis.

That was not my intention.

How do the details of the process make a difference? The organism is there. Given certain environmental stimuli it behaves in a certain predetermined way. Plainly it is following an algorithm. Then some mutation takes place: some allele codes for a different protein from the one it coded for before, or doesn't code at all. As a result, some biochemical process plays out differently from the way it usually does. Let the process in question be part of a complex of such processes involved in initiating and sustaining instinctive behaviour. Because it is altered, the behaviour is altered.

Natural selection does the rest.

you cannot tie down single gene instinctive behaviour unless you have the whole range of proteins before and after the single gene change (called proteomics) and the whole range of genes changed before and after the gene knockout (called genomics).

I know that. And I'm not I trying to; it's not necessary. Get your head out of the trees and look at the wood.

Awwwwww - isn't that cute!!!!

Thank you, I'm glad you found its little floppy ears appealing.

I will give you the same sort of answer I would give to a young student who turns in a nice bit of work without fully understanding it.

Well done Asty. What a lot of effort went into that story. To improve next time and get a better level, you should consider the process in more detail and not regurgitate the same old familiar Darwinian story without understanding the very first step in nest building which is in tying the knot. How do you think your story helps in answering the story of the first knot Asty - it is unfortunately very basic and speculative. However, if you listen more in class and answer the question, you will go far

How thoroughly patronizing. Is that really how you treat your pupils? They must be very little indeed to put up with it without complaining. Here, Teach - go and read a few Just So Stories. Surprised you haven't heard of them, especially in the context of evolutionary biology.


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 02:12 PM by Heronumber0
Originally posted by Astyanax

How thoroughly patronizing. Is that really how you treat your pupils? They must be very little indeed to put up with it without complaining. Here, Teach - go and read a few Just So Stories. Surprised you haven't heard of them, especially in the context of evolutionary biology.


I only treat students in that manner who are obstinate and insulting as well as closed-minded. And those who don't pay attention but rush ahead to formulate opinions without listening. I like the just so stories and will award you a star for your efforts.

Are we moving to nursery rhymes next? I did try to avoid ad hominem attacks but obviously you are cannot refrain from it Asty - how sad.

from melatonin

This Daw article compares a number of algorithims to actual behaviour and neurobiology (finding the 'softmax' model most predictive of our own decision-making).

www.cns.nyu.edu...

But here's another more general discussion of RL algorithms and DM.

www.cns.nyu.edu...

All still embryonic, of course. But the brain can readily be seen to be a computational organ. It's a cross-disciplinary field with AI. And I, for one, will welcome our new Skynet overlord!


I have tried to read the references but they are too complicated for me and I would only understand very broad outlines. Not my field melatonin. However, I take the point that the brain can be regarded as computational. The question remains then, who donated this formidable power to man - God or evolutionary funnelling?

I have read something vaguely from a suggestion by Rren about the dawn of AI but it was also pointed out that the appearance of human like intelligence in all its frailty (including the motivation to swap insults) in AI had a problem with the Turing halting problem and also Penrose's tiling problem.


Penrose is very much the mathematician. Not only does he mathematically model Black Holes, he solves extremely difficult math puzzles in his spare time. In the 1960’s it was mathematically proven that you could tile a surface without having the pattern ever repeat. They called it non-periodic tiling and the race was on to figure out who could find the least number of tile shapes that could be used for non-periodic tiling. The number started out with over 20,000 tile shapes which was quickly reduced to 104. In 1974, Penrose had reduced it to six tile shapes. Shortly after that, he identified non-periodic tiling was possible with just two tile shapes. Penrose maintains that his solution to non-periodic tiling could not have been found via an algorithmic process. Ergo, his brain is not an algorithmic computer. He formalized this by claiming strict algorithmic artificial intelligence (Strong AI) was impossible. Penrose wrote several books that revolved around this theme. He also generalized that the quantum wavefunction is not algorithmic. So even if “God doesn’t play dice” quantum effects are not deterministic, in the sense that it isn’t a lack of knowledge that is preventing us from being able to fully characterize them, quantum effects can’t be fully characterized, period.


Link

In fact, if memory serves me right melatonin, we have discussed this before at length until we got to a standstill.

If God existed and did not guide us at all, then we would have to bow to Science as a way of achieving an objective Truth. However, all the Theistic revelations and books, including the Abrahamic faiths point to a central idea of a God who created the Universe (Big Bang? I don't know) and then finished it with an Apocalypse. Both the Bible and the Quran give details of the end of the World. Why? Because the way the world will end has already been written so that all the points where there was a necessity for Divine intervention have already taken place in God's Plan and He has also seen the end of humanity. So, as long as there is a Prime Mover, there should be no real problem with the idea of evolution, IMHO. My only problem is with the evolution of the soul or the existence of the soul and atheists will not give way on this problem and suggest that there is no such entity and at this point I am then forced to look away from the beauty of Science to something higher.

Anyway, back to Science for now. When did birds suddenly decide to make nests? How would a behaviour change find its way into the genome by inheritance unless it is taught. You would say melatonin, that a bird covered its eggs with some grass material and then this aided its survival when other birds around it were eaten by predators. Therefore it mated with other females and spread its genes amongst the population. However, its adaptibility to the environment would then have to be genetically transmitted to its progeny. The younger birds could learn from the parent and the cycle would continue. However, the definition of instinct states that it is unlearned and hard-wired. Which genetic or biochemical mechanism exists to allow FAP to become an instinct? At this point I would exclude human FAP's as having little survival advantage according to the Natural Selection dogma.

Now, back to the Yucca moth and other species, if you want to mention them. We would have to posit a mechanism where the yucca flowers would die if they were not pollinated by the yucca moth as part of this life cycle. This is not as easy to answer because there does not appear to be any initial selective advantage in this process. Technically, any aerial species should be able to pollinate the yucca plant yet if the moth does not do it, the flowers have to be hand pollinated.

[edit on 16/2/2009 by Heronumber0]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 03:31 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by Heronumber0
I have tried to read the references but they are too complicated for me and I would only understand very broad outlines. Not my field melatonin. However, I take the point that the brain can be regarded as computational. The question remains then, who donated this formidable power to man - God or evolutionary funnelling?


Heh. Evolution would be the best bet. God is a non-answer. The studies have also been applied to 'lower' mammals. Indeed, they are the best subjects, as sticking electrodes in human brains and checking single neural firing is not as easily done as in marms and rats.

I have read something vaguely from a suggestion by Rren about the dawn of AI but it was also pointed out that the appearance of human like intelligence in all its frailty (including the motivation to swap insults) in AI had a problem with the Turing halting problem and also Penrose's tiling problem.


Problems, problems. Luckily we have science to solve them.

In fact, if memory serves me right melatonin, we have discussed this before at length until we got to a standstill.


That tends to be the way when discussing an area that is unclear, and leads you to raise the decision between science and god. I'm sure the scandanavians had a similar issue with lightning and Thor.

So, as long as there is a Prime Mover, there should be no real problem with the idea of evolution, IMHO. My only problem is with the evolution of the soul or the existence of the soul and atheists will not give way on this problem and suggest that there is no such entity and at this point I am then forced to look away from the beauty of Science to something higher.


It's a problem for you. Some atheists could believe in a 'soul'. But why should I give way? I'm not asking you to accept my position. You can believe what you like, however there is no reason scientifically to posit a soul. Indeed, substance dualism is essentially a dead duck in neuroscience.

Still your problem. Science isn't there to pander to your religion. Sorry. But nothing is really going to stop you from plopping whatever feel-good fluff you like on top. God can fit into any shape of hole, sort of goes with the concept.

The problem is that you are starting with your conclusion for little real reason, apart from theology.



However, you're not even looking for facts, just issues that feed your incredulity. Maybe read a Ken Miller book or two, he has no issues finding a way to fit his square god-given soul into a round hole.

Anyway, back to Science for now. When did birds suddenly decide to make nests?


Perhaps nest making was already around before birds evolved. Some birds just plop them on the ground, others make minor modifications, some dig holes, and more make more elaborate nest sites. It's just a refuge for eggs, and depending on other variables would depend the effort made.

How would a behaviour change find its way into the genome by inheritance unless it is taught.


Cell, Volume 121, Issue 5, 785-794, 3 June 2005

doi:10.1016/j.cell.2005.04.027

fruitless Splicing Specifies Male Courtship Behavior in Drosophila
Ebru Demir and Barry J. Dickson,

Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Bohr-Gasse 35, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Summary
All animals exhibit innate behaviors that are specified during their development. Drosophila melanogaster males (but not females) perform an elaborate and innate courtship ritual directed toward females (but not males). Male courtship requires products of the fruitless (fru) gene, which is spliced differently in males and females. We have generated alleles of fru that are constitutively spliced in either the male or the female mode. We show that male splicing is essential for male courtship behavior and sexual orientation. More importantly, male splicing is also sufficient to generate male behavior in otherwise normal females. These females direct their courtship toward other females (or males engineered to produce female pheromones). The splicing of a single neuronal gene thus specifies essentially all aspects of a complex innate behavior.


Swapping a single gene between male and female swaps their courtship behaviours. Females perform male courtship behaviours to females when given the male allele.

Press release discussion of the workhere.

By the behaviour being genetically mediated in the first place. I think astyanax summarised it much more eloquently than I. If the genetically-mediated behaviour is open to variation, then selection can act. I'll send you back to the initial study about homology and grooming FAPs in rodents.

You would say melatonin, that a bird covered its eggs with some grass material and then this aided its survival when other birds around it were eaten by predators. Therefore it mated with other females and spread its genes amongst the population. However, its adaptibility to the environment would then have to be genetically transmitted to its progeny. The younger birds could learn from the parent and the cycle would continue.


Possibly. I noted that instincts can sometimes be altered by experience and motivation.

However, the definition of instinct states that it is unlearned and hard-wired. Which genetic or biochemical mechanism exists to allow FAP to become an instinct? At this point I would exclude human FAP's as having little survival advantage according to the Natural Selection dogma.


I think FAPs are a form of instinct by their very nature. I suppose it's not impossible for certain learned behaviours to become instinctive over time. Maybe. The problem is that you want to make a very clear distinction between instinct and learning. As noted earlier, instincts can be influenced by experience. For example, birds will develop their species specific song when raised in a sound proof area, but can still learn more complex song when eventually exposed to other bird's songs.

However, the fact that birds separated from their species build the same style of nest (and sing the species' song) and there is little variation within the species, suggests that learning is not the driving force - but the behaviour can be honed. All is needed is some variation in nest building and selection pressure for evolution to act. And, notice, I never said no variation.

Now, back to the Yucca moth and other species, if you want to mention them. We would have to posit a mechanism where the yucca flowers would die if they were not pollinated by the yucca moth as part of this life cycle. This is not as easy to answer because there does not appear to be any initial selective advantage in this process. Technically, any aerial species should be able to pollinate the yucca plant yet if the moth does not do it, the flowers have to be hand pollinated.


But, again, you are assuming it's always been that way throughout time. If you take the Yucca moth out the equation now in one fell swoop, then it's a big problem. Just like removing a certain protein from the bac flag. The argument is of exactly the same fallacious form.

Some species are quite adept at cheating the process. Flowers provide a food source to species who help them pollinate. It can be a reciprocal and mutually beneficial interaction. However, some bees, for example, just cut through flowers and take the nectar. Thus, you would also need to look beyond just the two coevolving species.

But maybe one specific species was particularly dependent on such a food source. Others might have been less specialised feeders, and so could rely on a range of food sources? Hence, two species eventually and gradually became interdependent. It's a risky position. Evolution is a multilevel process, involving interactions between numbers of organisms, the environment, and other stochastic influences.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 05:24 PM by thehumbleone
reply to post by Heronumber0


Well I think the main problem the atheist has is this: No matter what, the atheist will never be able to explain the reason of being.

For example, lets say you were sitting in a room full of people and all of a sudden a bright silver ball appears floating in the middle of the room and disappears just as suddenly as it appeared. People are gonna think, "what in the hell was that and what caused it to happen?" Someone could easily say, "well nothing caused it to happen, it just happened." Sure, there is the possibility that it could've "just happened" without reason, but this answer is not intellectually satisfying. Most of us need to know why it happened and who or what caused it. "It just happened" doesn't cut it for most of us.

The main problem of the believer is explaining the problem of pain. If God is good and just then why does evil exist? I believe this is one of the main gripes people have against believing in a God. This theological problem has been tackled by many of the great thinkers such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by thehumbleone]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 06:24 PM by Heronumber0
Originally posted by thehumbleone


Well I think the main problem the atheist has is this: No matter what, the atheist will never be able to explain the reason of being.

For example, lets say you were sitting in a room full of people and all of a sudden a bright silver ball appears floating in the middle of the room and disappears just as suddenly as it appeared. People are gonna think, "what in the hell was that and what caused it to happen?" Someone could easily say, "well nothing caused it to happen, it just happened." Sure, there is there is the possibility that it could've "just happened" without reason, but this answer is not intellectually satisfying. Most of us need to know why it happened and who or what caused it. "It just happened" doesn't cut it for most of us.


Exactly - you have summarised the situation beautifully. This is what the to- and fro-ing of this entire thread has been about. Did things just happen from chaos to order, from simple to complex. It is the old situation about a whirlwind in a junk yard throwing car parts here and there until you finally have a beautiful Dodge Vyper in front of you with the engine running... It just happened certainly does not cut it for me. Unfortunately, all I get back is vague answers to the crucial questions. How can you give a Natural Selection argument when there is no selective advantage? I cannot be blinded by Science.

The main problem of the believer is explaining the problem of pain. If God is good and just then why does evil exist? I believe this is one of the main gripes people have against believing in a God. This theological problem has been tackled by many of the great thinkers such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by thehumbleone]


I can only gave a lame answer to that but I understand the point. All I can say, is that when I look around at the world, there is a duality. We recognise and distinguish the right from the wrong; the good from the bad. The way I see it from discussions with my friends, the suffering and evil are there to test us. My evangelist friends look for Satan and his demons to test us by tempting us into evil. Life, with all its hardship, suffering and temptations becomes a long test. Man overcomes his instinct to enter into temptation and gets the payoff after his life on Earth as everlasting bliss. It sounds pretty good to me.



[edit on 16/2/2009 by Heronumber0]


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 07:33 PM by thehumbleone
reply to post by melatonin



No. What I showed is evolution doesn't explain WHY life happened. It only makes attempts to explain how it happened.

If you can't see that, then that's your problem.


reply posted on 16-2-2009 @ 07:45 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by thehumbleone
reply to post by melatonin


No. What I showed is evolution doesn't explain WHY life happened. It only makes attempts to explain how it happened.

If you can't see that, then that's your problem.


I know exactly what you're saying. As I said, some people have a need for teleological explanations. Some want there to be a grand overarching plan and meaning behind their and the universe's existence. It's an intuitive need for some, probably bolstered by cultural/social learning.

My life happened because me ma and da got jiggy with it. Life probably evolved because chemicals like to get jiggy with it in their own way. Species evolved because of evolution. The universe formed because of some unknown process, and I'm actually very sure science will explain it - just like it has done throughout time pushing back the veil of ignorance.

But, still, some people will ask 'why?', like a child asking why the space between the teeth on a comb has no name. And I'll just say 'because'. I quite happily make my own purpose and meaning.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags