Genuine Puzzles In Biology?

Although I can't come close to really answering why plants haven't evolved the ability absorb more of the visible spectrum, I believe the answer is basically that it's not about the light that is absorbed, but the pigment itself. What I mean is that chlorophyll a is very good at releasing an electron when subject to light energy. And that molecule just happens to reflect green light, it's the nature of the pigment.But, indeed plants do have accessory pigments that allow them to absorb more of the spectrum than chlorophyll a can alone - chlorophyll b (chlorophyll c in brown algae) and carotenes. I'm not sure of the exact number, but they increase the absorption spectrum something like 100nm. However, they don’t play much of a role in actual photosynthesis, but pass on the light energy to chlorophyll a, which releases its electron to the rest of the photosynthesis process.So, in short, chlorophyll a does the job well and the molecule appears green to our eyes. Could there be a molecule that could do it better and was a different color??? MaybeNow your comment about the short comings of RuBisCO presents a much more complicated puzzle. This flaw would be especially difficult in the early development before modern photosynthesis efficiency developed.Another curious thing about photosynthesis is that oxygen is a byproduct which is actually toxic to the photosynthesis environment. This is the main role of the carotenes — to combat the free radicals. So which would have developed first? Or why develop a process that was toxic in the first place?Anyway, I know this doesn't solve the mystery, but actually raises more questions. Isn't science great!

What would make sense is this progression:non-life (amino acids, RNA) --> "semi" life* (viruses) --> life (bacteria)*I refered to viruses as "semi' life because they are not really considered living organisms but they do exibit some "life-like" characteristics - kind of an intermediatary.Any evidence for this line of progression?

A couple things I thought ofWhy do humans have such difficulty in childbirth while the rest of the animal kingdom, not so much. I have seen a calf born, and the mother basically was breathing hard for a little while then the head and shoulders came out, she stood up and the calf just fell out. No big deal. But I was with my wife when she gave birth and I thought she was being ripped in two.Why do we have imagination? Einstein said

quote:

---

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

---

It is one of the characteristics that set us apart from animals. We barely understand how knowledge is stored in the brain ... can we explain imagination?

This is not exactly what I was thinking of when I was refering to imagination, however, I will conceed that it may not be a uniquely human trait. I could even see how this trait could develop: if a memory can be stored in the brain as an image then recalling it at a later time when the original image was not present would technically be using imagination. Then, using the higher analytical powers of our more advanced brains, we could manipulate, combine and control those images so as to create new images. Perhaps the puzzle is how those images are even stored in our brains.However, I still see imagination as used in the creative process as being a genuine puzzle. How do we imagine things we have never seen? How do we create art that stirs emotions? Why are some people extremely imaginative and others can't paint a room in two complimentary colors? Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way and making it more complicated than it is, but I see imagination as much more than just reasoning. Computers use reasoning and logic, but not imagination. Computers can only use the data that has been input into them. When we use imagination, we not only use the data that has been input, but make up our own data. Imagination comes from deeper within us. It comes from our dreams, our feelings, our experiences and from other places unknown. At least that's how I see it and why I say it is a genuine puzzle.

In watching a documentary about sharks, my daughter commented about sharks being evil. I responded that sharks aren't evil, they just do what they do to survive, which in our human minds may appear as evil.I am doing a study on an invasive species (Glossy Buckthorn) here in Michigan and might be able to make a case that this plant is evil. But it is just doing what it is adapted to do ... survive and thrive.Many organisms have detrimental effects upon the environment, but humans seem to be the species that is aware of its impact and morally and ethically driven to remedy the problem. Is this the type of consciousness that you are refering to ... being aware of our impact upon other organisms and a feeling of moral and ethical responsibilities to those impacts?

Its not that I doubt what you are saying or arguing against your points, but you make it sound so simple and straight forward and it is just not as simple as your explaination would imply. First, although the ant does have a fairly simple brain, it still has over 250,000 brain cells - no small feat to hyjack and manipulate in such a way to get the desired behavior. It would take a tremendous amount of trial and error.The ant don't just "climb to the highest point" but climb to just the height the fungus likes to be at to release its spores and on the proper side of the plant. The fungus then disolves the ant innards but leaves the muscles holding the mandibles intact and thus preventing the ant carcass from dropping to the forest floor and failing to release its spores.

quote:

---

Having successfully taken over an ant, the fungus compels it to leave its normal haunts high in the forest canopy and directs the unfortunate insect down into the dark, moist basement layers of the jungle. There the luckless creature is compelled to clamber onto the underside of a leaf in the O unilateralis' favoured location for reproduction - some 25cm above the ground, on the northwestern side of the tree or plant in question.

​

Once in such a location, the dying ant is made to clamp its mandibles - jaws - firmly shut onto the leaf, and then hangs lifelessly from them to become a food supply and home for the burgeoning, ghastly fungus-children within. Most of the insect's innards are gradually converted into food and consumed, but the muscles holding the mandibles shut are cunningly left alone.

---

Brain-jacking fungus turns living victims into 'zombies' The RegisterI don't believe fungi have neurotranmitters of their own, but release chemicals that bind to host neurotranmitters effectively short circuiting them. Not as simple to get a very specific behavior - and this behavior is very specific not just general wandering around and clamping onto a plant leaf. Its not like they have eaten a "magic mushroom" and are going crazy with halucinations. I realize you are probably just simplifing for the sake of space and explaination time, but come on, a one sentence explaination for memory and instinct? How do these alleles code for a specific memory? How does the genetic code specify a particular image implant or an instinctive behavior? Do you really believe that snakes and spiders presented that great of a selective pressure on our ancestors? Perhaps in certain parts of the world there is greater pressure, but overall, I can't imagine there is enough selective pressure to drive adaptive phobias.Idk, maybe you could develop one of these topics a bit rather than saying nothing about everything.

I don't have a lot of confidence in the explanatory power of statements such as this. For example, why would the fear of snakes be deeply ingrained but other survival instincts you mentioned - burrowing, nocturnal - be lost? I think I can anticipate the answer ... because they were no longer needed. Couldn't the same be said for instinctive fear of snakes and spiders? What about the fear of hawks flying over head? and so on ...My daughter is terrified by spiders, but not by snakes. Is it because of a deeply ingrained instinct? She didn't inherit it from me - maybe her mother. Maybe its because she saw a program on Animal Planet about spiders that frightened her. But she has seen those same kind of programs about snakes too. So is it learned or instinctive? My 3 year old is leery (but not quite afraid) of spiders, but he calls almost every thing that creeps and crawls a spider. I think its more of just being uncomfortable with creatures that are different and a bit creepy (although the idea of what is "creepy" may be kind of instinctive). Some children are afraid of hamsters, horses and even bunnies; none of which should be perceived as a threat by our ancient instincts.Don't get me wrong, there definitely is a connection between biology and behavior. Programming of instincts by genetic factors is undeniable. However explaining them is much more difficult. Humans being such social creatures makes it that much more complicated. I did a paper on Nature verses Nurture last year and there is just about an equal case to be built for either side. So do we learn fear or is it built in. Probably both.Wait, what was the topic of this thread...? Oh yeah, genuine puzzles in biology. I would say that both issues, instincts and phobias are still genuine puzzles. Yeah we have learned stuff about both topics, but we really know almost nothing compared to what there is to know. My mammalian ancestors being snake bait millions of years ago doesn't begin to explain it for me.

Thanks AkhlutI just find it kind of frustrating when very complex issues are waved away as simple as if we know everything there is to know about it, when we really know very little. I just don't see this as simple behavior. Simple maybe compared to migration instincts, or mating rituals or driving a car. We have a fungus, without any intelligence, able to grow within an ant's brain, overpower the ant's natural instincts, reprogram them to its own purposes (even accepting that its purposes evolved along with the ant's behavior) and is able to avoid digesting the muscles that clamp the mandibles. The whole scenario is absolutely amazing.I am not suggesting that there is anything magical or supernatural. I am sure there is a biological explanation, but we don't understand how it works. It is still a mystery - a genuine puzzle in biology. Right. that was my mistake. I was referring to memory as images or recognition mechanisms that would need to be stored in order for an organism to recognize food, shelter, danger, etc... That could all be grouped under instinct I guess. But the point is more that I don't believe we understand how that process happens. Developmental biology is a fairly new field and has soooo much to discover. There is very little known about how the DNA and epigenetic marks function to control development and formation of complex, highly organized tissues, organs and systems. We have learn some things, but the whole area of development, instinct and memory remain clouded in mystery. I have no doubt that most (if not all behaviors) have a genetic component. If nothing else, a disposition to behave in a certain way; ie. some people are prone to be angry and violent, some are prone to be happy and carefree. Our personalities have a definite genetic component, but we don't understand too much about it yet.

I believe I saw where you had said this up-thread. It goes along with my idea that we are afraid of things we perceive as creepy-crawly. Do you have cicadas where you are from? scared the @#$% out of me first time I saw one (the nymph in particular). I am not afraid of them now that I know what they are and that they are harmless (they sure don't look harmless). Personally, any fear I have of animals is based on a threat or perceived threat. I am not afraid of snakes, but when I was kicking around in an abandoned barn one day and heard a rattlesnake rattle, I was scared. I am not particularly afraid of bears, but if I ran into a 300# black bear in the woods, I would definitely be worried. A 1000# grizzly - very afraid!You seem to be suggesting that your fear of spiders is instinctive. What about your parents and siblings? Do they share your fear of spiders? Even if they are it could be said that they "taught" you to fear spiders. It is curious, though, that you had a bad encounter with wasps as a child and haven't developed a fear of them, but don't seem to have a reason for your fear of spiders.My personal opinion is that these types of fears have to do mostly with temperament and personality rather than an instinctive fear of a particular creature with a specific number of legs However, I do believe personality and temperament in particular, are based largely on genetics. So, deep seated fears would be indirectly genetic. Of course, I don't have a whole lot of data or research to support this. I am just basing it on personal observations and the limited research I have done.

I was asking in context of your original question which you proposed as a biological puzzle: I wasn't so much making a point that humans are the only moral agents but trying to understand what your question was. You also stated So I was trying to clear up how you were defining consciousness.If consciousness means "show a difference between wakefulness and sleep, coma, etc." ... not much of a puzzle.Self-awareness is more of a challenge. Does simply recognizing one's self in a mirror constitute awareness? I would personally think that to be considered "aware" and conscious it would require not only recognizing your own image, but using that recognition to make an assessment of one's self such as "Man, I'm having a bad hair day!" or "All this hair sure makes me look fat!" I guess that would be "aware they are aware"?I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could make a reasonable argument against free will. But I suppose people imagine all sorts of other ridiculous and nonsensical ideas. Wouldn't just the idea of speculating and reasoning about the presence of free will support the presence of freewill? But regardless, even if we have no free will, we at the least have the illusion of being moral agents, which pretty much makes us moral agents. We can make decisions about what we believe to be "good" behavior and "bad" behavior. And even though that decision is very subjective, I would say that to be able to distinguish between the two makes us moral agents.I like my "definition" of consciousness. It is not just being aware of self, but being aware of self in context of the world around you and how you fit into that world. So, when you ask "Are animals conscious?" what are you meaning by conscious? And do you think it is a puzzle because we have difficulty defining it or because we have difficulty understanding why we have consciousness at all?