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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]Quality control
Is that what Hitler called it?.[/QUOTE][/b]There's a seperation between man and animals. [b] [QUOTE]I cannot accept that it was programmed because it contradicts my image of God.[/b][/QUOTE]You believe in evolution, right? Then your image of God is already not the correct one according to scripture. [b] [QUOTE] I also don't think that killing cubs benefits the species at large. For a lion to have fathered the cubs, he would have had to have driven off other competitors, that is, be stronger than other lions. Being too old to maintain dominance is not a genetic flaw, and destroying his offspring will not exert any sort of "quality control" over the species. The only microevolutionary advantage to killing cubs is in behavior of the one that does the killing, and the only "superior" genes that it specifically propagates are those genes that lead to the killing.[/b][/QUOTE]I think we would all agree as a whole that this process insures the survival of the species. Sure there are some sacrifices along the way, but in the end it all works. The Bible says all things work together for good. [b] [QUOTE]You've made a point that how genetics transcribes to behavior is supposedly a weakness in the evolutionist view of this behavior. [/b][/QUOTE]Yes, the whole theory of evolution above microevolution is something you have to believe in. [b] [QUOTE]Yet your view also requires that DNA transfers behavior because that is the only way this "program" can be transmitted from one generation to the next. [/b][/QUOTE]I believe this behavior existed in the first lion upon the enterance of natural selection as it is observed today. I believe it was a product of divine intervention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I think we would all agree as a whole that this process insures the survival of the species. Sure there are some sacrifices along the way, but in the end it all works. The Bible says all things work together for good.

---

Actually most of us are saying that this trait serves the individual rather than the species as a whole so no we wouldn`t all agree with you....In the over simplified example of lion a and lion b above the trait doesn`t help the species as a whole lion b may be a *better* lion than a however the trait serves lion a as in the second generation all offspring are his REGARDLESS OF THE RELATIVE FITNESS OF LIONS A AND B.......Herein endeth the lesson....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]What I want to know is how this instinct developed without the lion going through a stage where he killed every cub?[/QUOTE][/b][b] [QUOTE] Well that's too bad, because behaviorisms don't fossilize.
[/b][/QUOTE]I'm not asking for fossil proof, just a valid theory that holds up to scrutiny. [b] [QUOTE]But we can speculate that male lions have always avoided killing cubs that smell like them, and have always been at least indifferent to cubs that don't. At that point, it is possible to eat cubs selectively. [/b][/QUOTE]Yet you can not answer how male lions have aquired instinct to know not to kill cubs that smell like them or how male lions have aquired instinct to be at least indifferent to cubs that do smell like them.If you believe everything evolved from a rock, you'll have to believe the instincts evolved too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
If you believe everything evolved from a rock, you'll have to believe the instincts evolved too.

---

Hang on did I just miss some new discovery in the field of genetics or is Reds claim that ToE postulates rocks as all lifes common ancestor completely wrong?Red if you are going to debate here at least try not to misrepresent your oponents position, doing so only makes you look like a complete and utter muppet......

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]

quote:

---

So just poof he gets the mutation to kill all non-related cubs for no reason?

​

Yeah and because it serves him there are plenty of more lions with the same mutation.

---

So just poof the instinct became?

quote:

---

This is what you're saying. My computer has windows 2000 on it. It used to have windows 98, but then poof, one day the computer install windows 2000 on it's own. Oh, and no one ever programmed windows 2000.

​

Terrible analogy. Your computer would not get 2000 on its own overnight but if it rewrote it's OS, one line at a time, selecting each positive change of code, over the years it would improve and you would eventually be justified in renaming your OS.

---

Actually it's an excellent analogy.Exactly. Not explain how the lions instincts could be rewrote slowly over time. Keep in mind this has to be by natural selections rules. You don't believe in any intelligence to just poof - place it there.Don't use the word mutated when you really mean "poof."

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Hey, Redstang, I am still waiting for you to address my example of a Biblical contradiction in the "Is the Bible the Word of God?" thread.

---

Ok, I'll be sure to get to it. From the looks of things I have about 6-7 pages to catch up on with that thread. [b] [QUOTE] You claimed that there were no contradictions in the Bible, but I provided a very clear-cut one.It deals with the timing of the death of Christ. The first three gospels have Christ being crucified after passover, yet John clearly, explicitly states that Christ is crucified BEFORE passover.It is on page nine of that thread, message #127.Please respond.
[/b][/QUOTE]Ok, I'll reply in that thread.Oh, in the future please create a new thread for the contradiction assumptions. I think the "is the bible the word of God" thread is getting a little thick.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gene90: [QUOTE][b]Quality control
Is that what Hitler called it?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------There's a seperation between man and animals.LUD: indeed there is but what does that have to do with the question at hand?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot accept that it was programmed because it contradicts my image of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You believe in evolution, right? Then your image of God is already not the correct one according to scripture.LUD:If he's anything like i am,then the image of God portrayed in the Bible is quite ridiculous. First off,God being portrayed as a man is clearly the result of a patriachal society. Second,God cant both be infinitely wise and subject to human failings at the same time,such as anger(the flood) and vanity(the story of Job).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also don't think that killing cubs benefits the species at large. For a lion to have fathered the cubs, he would have had to have driven off other competitors, that is, be stronger than other lions. Being too old to maintain dominance is not a genetic flaw, and destroying his offspring will not exert any sort of "quality control" over the species. The only microevolutionary advantage to killing cubs is in behavior of the one that does the killing, and the only "superior" genes that it specifically propagates are those genes that lead to the killing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think we would all agree as a whole that this process insures the survival of the species. Sure there are some sacrifices along the way, but in the end it all works. The Bible says all things work together for good.LUD: i believe that you missed the point. The cubs were not sick,nor were they without a guardian to insure that they would grow into strong adults...they were killed by another male so HE PERSONALLY could procreate...thats good for HIM but not for HIS species.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've made a point that how genetics transcribes to behavior is supposedly a weakness in the evolutionist view of this behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, the whole theory of evolution above microevolution is something you have to believe in.LUD:Actually,its something that can be demonstrated through a mathematical model so faith has nothing to do with it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet your view also requires that DNA transfers behavior because that is the only way this "program" can be transmitted from one generation to the next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I believe this behavior existed in the first lion upon the enterance of natural selection as it is observed today. I believe it was a product of divine intervention.LUD:now thats a good exemple of faith based on no scientific data whatsoever...not a bad thing in itself but certainly NOT science.

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 mark24:
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?

---

Yes, I think you are the only one who correctly understands the question so far. [b] [QUOTE] I will give it a bash. This is entirely hypothetical, you understand.
[/b][/QUOTE]Of course. There's not really a way to prove something like this. I've just been digging for a theory that would stand up to scrutany. [b] [QUOTE]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.[/b][/QUOTE]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. [b] [QUOTE]If they were his own cubs, he would have a paternal instinct, as they are not, he doesn't. [/b][/QUOTE]How did this paternal instinct come to be? [b] [QUOTE]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.
[/b][/QUOTE]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. [b] [QUOTE]Lastly, I'm not sure what conclusion you are going to draw because lion behavior hasn't been studied to this degree. [/b][/QUOTE]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. [b] [QUOTE]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.[/b][/QUOTE]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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
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.

---

You what?What other reason?Mark was pointing out the problems of the filter, namely the possibility of the most genetically fit animal being suplanted by an interloper of inferior stock if it has advanced to too great an age to defend its alpha position....Hence not a good filter....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually most of us are saying that this trait serves the individual rather than the species as a whole so no we wouldn`t all agree with you....

---

It serves the individual no more than just to get laid. The benefits of this process are gain through future generations of the species, so yes it does benefit the species. [b] [QUOTE]In the over simplified example of lion a and lion b above the trait doesn`t help the species as a whole lion b may be a *better* lion than a however [/b][/QUOTE]Oh, so you don't think the species continue's to keep the strongest possible genes as a result of this occurance? [b] [QUOTE]the trait serves lion a as in the second generation all offspring are his REGARDLESS OF THE RELATIVE FITNESS OF LIONS A AND B.......[/b][/QUOTE]I don't think the lion cares much about having kids, just getting a boink.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Hang on did I just miss some new discovery in the field of genetics or is Reds claim that ToE postulates rocks as all lifes common ancestor completely wrong?

​

Red if you are going to debate here at least try not to misrepresent your oponents position, doing so only makes you look like a complete and utter muppet......

---

Should I start a new thread for this?Oh, and BTW even if I *was* wrong about the TOE you better not come on here and attack me for being ignorant of it when many of you on here are completly ignorant of the correct representation of the Bible and even many creationist theories. Seems pretty critical to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Should I start a new thread for this?

​

Oh, and BTW even if I *was* wrong about the TOE you better not come on here and attack me for being ignorant of it when many of you on here are completly ignorant of the correct representation of the Bible and even many creationist theories. Seems pretty critical to me.

​

---

Hey red?...the "correct" representation of the Bible?... Do you know how many wars and inquisitions have plagued humanity just over that? I'm sure that if you got 30 creationists in a room together to debate the issue,you'd just wind up in the end with 30 creationists pissed at each others for being "too ignorant" to see "the truth"...The Bible can be interpreted in dozens of ways and not just small variations so dont try to paint your side as a unified front against the "evils" of evolutionism because most people on your side have a marked tendency of seeing as "evil" anyone who does not agree with their strict POV.

[b] [QUOTE] There's a seperation between man and animals.LUD: indeed there is but what does that have to do with the question at hand?
[/b][/QUOTE]God doesn't intend for us to behave like them. [b] [QUOTE]LUD:If he's anything like i am,then the image of God portrayed in the Bible is quite ridiculous. First off,God being portrayed as a man is clearly the result of a patriachal society. [/b][/QUOTE]How can God die for our sins without taking on a organic living form? [b] [QUOTE]Second,God cant both be infinitely wise and subject to human failings at the same time,such as anger(the flood) and vanity(the story of Job).[/b][/QUOTE]You believe you're wise and you're still subject to human falacy.How is God subject to human failings during the flood?
Anger is not a falacy.How is God subject to vanity during the story of Job?
I think Job is a very important story ment to help people understand the infinite distance between man and God. I don't think God is arrogant to explain this to us. [b] [QUOTE]I think we would all agree as a whole that this process insures the survival of the species. Sure there are some sacrifices along the way, but in the end it all works. The Bible says all things work together for good.LUD: i believe that you missed the point. The cubs were not sick,nor were they without a guardian to insure that they would grow into strong adults...they were killed by another male so HE PERSONALLY could procreate...thats good for HIM but not for HIS species.[/b][/QUOTE]So you mean the lion knows mating produces offspring? [b] [QUOTE]Yes, the whole theory of evolution above microevolution is something you have to believe in.LUD:Actually,its something that can be demonstrated through a mathematical model so faith has nothing to do with it.[/b][/QUOTE]This isn't really the topic of this thread and I hate to get off topic, but arranging fossil's in a certain order doesn't prove anything. I can arrange a group of pen's on my desk from biggest to smallest but that doesn't prove they evolved from a stapler. [b] [QUOTE]I believe this behavior existed in the first lion upon the enterance of natural selection as it is observed today. I believe it was a product of divine intervention.LUD:now thats a good exemple of faith based on no scientific data whatsoever...not a bad thing in itself but certainly NOT science.[/b][/QUOTE]Yup, that's why I said I believe.