Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lions and natural selection
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 67 (4440)
02-13-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
im gonna be an jerk all the time to you joz, just for saying that last bit.
a)thats a pretty dumb statement, moron!!!
b)well gee, were not starving, we read, we go to school, we go to college, we have jobs, we have time to devote ourselves to faith in Christ, we dont have diseases; were america, you should know that were better than everyone. The bible is subject to your own intreptation and generally follows the religion your in, however some like me have different opinions on faith as whole. i dont see church as anything other than a way to make yourself feel better, but i need that every so often. also all i can say evolutionists is that your lucky this isnt a few hundred years ago, you all would be shunned, stoned, completely ignored, and probably killed for most of the crap you guys say; and i would be much more respected for being a guy and white, not any of the bs that some african-americans are pulling: "you enslaved and then freed us... boohooo' we want large sums of money or else we wont stop whining", bah ill enslave you again.
discrimation and reverse-discrimination suck ass, later.

"Pride goeth before a fall"
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, isn't it?
And that claim about Fundamentalists not having "diseases" is interesting. It's probably about as valid as there being no Fundamentalist leaders who embezzel money from their congregations, no televangelists who put ringers in the congregation to miraculously (fraudulantly) "heal" people, no church leaders who endorse the harassment of women, the murder of doctors, and the hatred of people different from them, and no good Christian organizations that burn crosses and hang people for the color of their skin.
You AREN'T America. You are a very vocal minority.
Give your pesecution complex a rest, Redstang, nobody is impressed with your whining about how "maligned" you are.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:04 PM KingPenguin has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 67 (4449)
02-13-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Quetzal
02-13-2002 4:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
There are a few things you are apparently unfamiliar with re: lions.
Well, thanks for the detailed explanations of lions, you seem to really have a good understanding of them. I actually had a strong interest in all the big cats a few years ago and studied then intensively. Mark answered my question to a satisfactory level. I was really looking for how evolutionist believed the instinct system came to be. His answer being mutations is obviously not my conclusion, but I think mutations is a whole other debate in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2002 4:28 AM Quetzal has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 67 (4450)
02-13-2002 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
02-12-2002 4:52 PM


[b] [QUOTE] 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. [/b][/QUOTE]
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.
[b] [QUOTE] 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. [/b][/QUOTE]
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 4:52 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 02-14-2002 4:35 AM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 67 (4481)
02-14-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by redstang281
02-13-2002 9:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by redstang281, posted 02-13-2002 9:16 PM redstang281 has not replied

haimon
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 67 (92878)
03-17-2004 3:48 AM


Here's an idea that could help, what about trial and error.
Say the first generation of lions tested out certain activities that could improve their chances of surviving, some worked and some didn't, but what if was found within the development of these activities that is was found that the lions could increase their reproduction rate, which would lead to a better chance at survival, it meant that they were to kill other cubs and reproduce with their mother.
Over time this would be passed from generation to generation, where the activity of killing another lions cubs would become naturally to it. Every animal has to adapt to every environment and trial and error is usually the quickest and most successful way of adapting.
Now, how did animals learn about trial and error, maybe by conincidence or just by luck!
quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
Actually,no one "knows" anything about the past that we did not witness.
I have to agree with what LudvanB is saying because no matter the amount of knowledge and information we find out history, there could be random events that we might not ever find out about. We actually have to be there to no the truth, which also applies to the bible, because we will never know who wrote it, whether the events are real unless we actually witness it for ourselves!!! If evolution is not a science because we don't know everything about it, then can we just say that the bible is fictional because there's no absolute proof of its accurracy.

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 66 of 67 (96218)
03-31-2004 1:36 AM


Redstang281, it hurts me to see you continually turn a blind eye on some of the facts presented others. Therefore, I'm going to make this as simple as possible.
Let us suppose that there is a population of species A that exist in an environment. This is a predatory species where the individuals leave each other alone. However, through random mutation, an individual male of species A possess the instinct to actively kill young cubs and mate with the female species A. We will call him Bob. This mutation in his genetic makeup gives him an advantage over all the other species A members, because while they do not actively seek out his young to kill, he actively seeks out their young and kill them.
This ultimately leads to more individuals that are descendants of Bob. After many generations during which the males that most actively kill other males' cubs have more chances to pass on his genes through his young without much competition for resources. After many generations with the pressence of such selective pressure, a new species emerges (species B) where the male individuals of species B actively seek out other males' cubs to kill.
This is where "survival of the fittest" comes into play. In other words, the lions aren't thinking that if they kill others' cubs, then they'll pass on their genes more easily. Through millions of years of selective pressure, only the individuals with the most agressive instinct survive.
Feel free to nitpick everything I just said. I'll be glad to answer all your questions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-31-2004 1:49 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 67 of 67 (96221)
03-31-2004 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by coffee_addict
03-31-2004 1:36 AM


Lam - I'm afraid you're replying to a very old message, and to a member who has not been heard from in a long time.
Also, please see the message at http://EvC Forum: Two types of REPLY buttons
To all - Instead of moving this "Great Debate" topic to another forum, I'm just going to shut it down.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by coffee_addict, posted 03-31-2004 1:36 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024