Lions and natural selection

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Instintively a male lion will kill a litter of baby lions if it happens across them. This allows the mother of the cubs to come into heat faster and allows for the murdering male lion to mate with the female sooner. Also it helps insure that the strongest male lion is passing along his genes.

​

Could someone describe by strickly the means of natural selection how a lion could acquire this trait?

​

I understand how this trait could continue to exist once it has been aquired, but I am wondering how it could be aquired to start with?

​

---

Redstang, so far as I can see, only Quetzal has given you a possible answer. The main reason the others didn't answer your question is that they tell you why the cub killing is maintained via natural selection, but not how it originated, correct?I will give it a bash. This is entirely hypothetical, you understand.Lions seem to take great delight in killing the cubs of other predators, wild dogs, cheetahs etc. This makes obvious sense, more for the pride, due to less competition. This same behaviour can be carried over to within the pride by the new "alpha" male. The cubs represent useless mouths to the alpha, & are easy targets. It matters not whether they are weaned or not, the mothers must eat more to supply milk. By killing the cubs he guarantees a greater percentile portion of any kill, helping to ensure his genetic longevity. If they were his own cubs, he would have a paternal instinct, as they are not, he doesn't. No other male will touch the alphas cubs whilst he is "in power", he's the alpha for a reason.So, we now have a naturally selecting behaviour that selects for the alpha males genes, who is the top cat because he has fitness.There are a few small niggles I have. Firstly, I would expect even I could turn over Arnold Schwarzenegger when he's 80 years old. Have I proven my GENES fitness over Schwarzeneggers gene fitness? No, I was able to kick the s*it out of him because he's old. Similarly, an old alpha male may be usurped by a less genetically fit rival, who happens to be younger, not genetically fitter. If the other males were killed, the least fit male would ascend the throne. As such this cub killing behaviour wouldn't select for better genes. Of course this falls over because in most instances, the rivals are fit & in their prime. So, on balance, killing your predecessors cubs demonstrates gene survival via NS.Lastly, I'm not sure what conclusion you are going to draw because lion behavior hasn't been studied to this degree. If you are hoping that you can say "Godidit" because science hasn't specifically studied this aspect of behaviour, then it's a God of the gaps argument.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Redstang,I think you may have skipped me over, message 31.Cheers,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Mark said ;

​

Lions seem to take great delight in killing the cubs of other predators, wild dogs, cheetahs etc. This makes obvious sense, more for the pride, due to less competition.

​

Redstang said:

​

I believe it makes sense because of it's design, and it's not something that can be aquired soley by the principals of natural selections. In that I mean change overtime, isolation, competition.. etc..

​

The lion doesn't know it will decrease competition, and by that same logic he doesn't know that killing his own cubs would make him go extinct. You could say he inherited this instintual traits from another species earlier in time, but that's not really the point. The lion is just the variable, the instinctual knowledge is really what we're trying to explain. The instinctual knowledge and how the lion organizes it into survival strategies is really what I'd like explained.

​

---

The lion doesn’t have to know about the consequences of its actions. All that matters is that there are consequences, & that they ultimately affect the gene frequency of the population.Killing cubs of other predators is explained fairly easily. They are easy meat. The action also makes the environment friendlier to the lion, in that it ultimately reduces competition. Consider two hypothetical populations of lions, A & B. In population A, lions do not kill cubs (of other predators). In population B, they do. In population B, there is less competition for food, & more food, in the form of cubs. This behaviour is selected for, as it increases the likelihood of the survival of the genes responsible for the behaviour in the first place. In this case, it’s probably just an existing trait, they routinely go for young of their normal prey species, again, easy meat, just that predator cubs bring extra advantages.Now, in population A, this doesn’t happen, no gene is selected for, so NS doesn’t occur. But consider, if population A & B are sexually overlapping, the successful gene becomes more & more fixed in both populations, because it brings advantages, sooner or later, the responsible alleles of population A cease to exist, the entire population having the successful gene B.The lion doesn’t organise anything, sexual reproduction, recombination, gene flow, NS, & neutral drift does the organising. Behaviours are the result of NS as much as anatomical traits.
In answer to your question, where did the ancestral behaviour come from (to coin my own phrase), genetic evidences collectively suggest that the raw material of differing information, & therefore differing behaviour, is mutation, that changed the expression of a protein ultimately responsible for feeding behaviour, meaning that the lion would target other species cubs, that new allele would then be subject to natural selection. This fixed allele was built upon a shed load of other fixed alleles.I have already postulated how this may have become a behaviour by which a lion will kill other lion cubs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

If they were his own cubs, he would have a paternal instinct, as they are not, he doesn't.

​

How did this paternal instinct come to be?

​

---

Again, any mutant allele that predisposes the father to favour his own cubs in ANY way, will provide a means of safeguarding them, & passes that mutant allele on to his cubs who now have a greater chance of survival. That paternal gene is still subject to mutation, & any that increase the paternal instinct of the father, increases the likelihood of the survival of that allele.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

mark said :

​

There are a few small niggles I have. Firstly, I would expect even I could turn over Arnold Schwarzenegger when he's 80 years old. Have I proven my GENES fitness over Schwarzeneggers gene fitness? No, I was able to kick the s*it out of him because he's old.

​

Redstang said :

​

Yes, but the alpha male should breed for more reasons than solely distribting his genes. The alpha male should also be able to provide protection to the new cubs. An old male may still have good genes, but not be strong enough to protect the cubs. I think we both agree It's a very good filter.

---

Any lion breeds to distribute their genes, whether they know it or not.But it’s not necessarily such a good filter. The future fitness of the pride may just as easily benefit more by having the existing alpha remain, rather than getting a new one. As long as the older/injured lion can breed, his genes MAY be better than any young pretender, even if his current PHYSICAL fitness isn’t.The more I look at genetics, the more it looks like the genes use the organism as vehicle, rather than the organism uses the genes. For example. The only real reason an alpha male would kill the cubs of his predecessor is to ensure his genes go on into infinity, & not the other guys. It’s not as ridiculous as it first sounds. Consider, this gene has been able to affect lion behaviour so that his genes go through to the next round. His offspring also have that gene (half of them anyway), he is a dominant male, so his offspring should also be fit, & the males stand a good a chance as any to get to the alpha position. Now, the gene makes sure no other cubs survive except his own. This gene has devised a way to get itself fixed into the general lion population much faster than by NS alone, at the EXPENSE of other members of the species, & at the potential EXPENSE of the lion population as a whole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

mark said:

​

Lastly, I'm not sure what conclusion you are going to draw because lion behavior hasn't been studied to this degree.

​

Redstang said :

​

Well, I think this behavior is apparent in many animals other than lions. (someone else pointed that out as well.) I don't think studying the animals now would help much to find out how it happened long ago and far away.

​

mark said :

​

If you are hoping that you can say "Godidit" because science hasn't specifically studied this aspect of behaviour, then it's a God of the gaps argument.

​

Redstang said :

​

I'd have to disagree, I believe that science has studied this extensively because otherwise how would we know about it?
Of course I can say this is definatly evidence of "design" or a preprogram from my point of view. But I'm not exactly sure how anyone can look at this example and not see it as evidence of a designer. I'm also not sure how anyone could say it's even feasible for purely natural selection to explain such an event. I'm satisfied to finish this thread on the note that by your point of view it is unknown. I can only hope that this may plant a seeds in some unbelievers mind that will eventually help to convinced them.

---

That infanticide happens in animals is known, but has the reason why? If you think it has, then by all means, please produce the paper/study. If you can’t do that, then I put it to you that it hasn’t.If you can produce a study, then you have probably answered your own question far better than I!

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Of course I can say this is definatly evidence of "design" or a preprogram from my point of view. But I'm not exactly sure how anyone can look at this example and not see it as evidence of a designer. I'm also not sure how anyone could say it's even feasible for purely natural selection to explain such an event. I'm satisfied to finish this thread on the note that by your point of view it is unknown. I can only hope that this may plant a seeds in some unbelievers mind that will eventually help to convinced them.

---

That Lions exhibit this behaviour is neither evidence for an ID or NS.No one is saying it’s the product of NS alone.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Why didn’t both A and B develop the trait of going for the cubs of other species? You offer up several good reasons why it would develop. I can’t see why both wouldn’t develop the same trait. However, I think your basis is random mutation. In that, you believe randomly one pride of lions received the new instinct and the other didn’t.

​

---

Probably did exist in A & B, as far as their feeding strategy goes, ie easy targets where possible, it never really required any extra, or altered alleles. I tried to simplify the matter by saying it did, so that I could show NS at work.But lets assume it did require an sltered allele, caused by mutation, by definition. This is random & occurs in one individual. If the gene is successful it will enter that populations genome & be fixed. Because it was random, the other population simply won't have it. UNLESS the populations aren't sexually isolated, in which case the gene can flow between them, be successful in both pops, & become the lion "norm". ASSUMING this was the case, there would have been a time when some lions exhibited the behaviour, & others didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

This is really the answer I was looking for, and I think ultimately the only saving grace one could hope for taking strictly TOE to answer this question I presented. I think this debate boils down to what limitations each of us set on mutations based on our own worldviews. I think once I have found the time to catch up on my other active threads I will post a new thread and we will compare each of our views on mutation and what evidence we have to support them.

​

---

That's an excellent idea.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.