[_ Old Earth _] The Migration of the European Eels

[Asyncritus]

The european eels, Anguilla anguilla perform a migration that only a blase evolutionist could possibly not stand back from, in amazement and respect for the creatures.
The Migration of the European Eels


The recent BBC program about eel migration has highlighted another great defeat for evolutionary theory by the phenomenon of instinctive behaviour.

In essence, eels (which grow to maturity in freshwater rivers, pools, streams, ponds) leave their growing areas, and make their way down to the sea. They even swim across wet grasslands in order to get into the rivers which will take them down to the sea.

Question: How do they know that they have to get to the sea, and how do they know that the rivers are flowing to the sea?

When they reach the sea off the coasts of the UK, they are immediately faced with a huge problem.

Salt water is extremely different in physical and chemical properties to fresh water, and usually, an organism which lives in the one kind of water will not survive in the other kind. The osmotic factors alone are very, very different.

But they survive somehow. How did natural selection produce such an organism one wonders.

They then swim to join one of the great south-flowing currents of the ocean, and in that way piggy-back on it, and save energy, and increase their speed of travel.

"The researchers suggest that what they do is swim down to Africa and then hitch a ride on a fast-moving ocean current which helps them to speed up and get the rest of the way much more quickly." The Mighty Eel Migration - The Naked Scientists

They are headed for the Sargasso Sea, no less, all of 3,000 miles away to the south west.

It has not been observed, but scientists believe that they spawn there - and then, the adults die.

Millions of young eels are produced: transparent slivers of tissue: so transparent in fact that they are called glass eels. One can read a newspaper through them, it is claimed.

And these little pieces of living tissue now begin their 3,000 mile journey back to the freshwater pool, stream, lake where their parents came from, with no guidance at all from the adults who are all dead. And they make it.

So who guides them?

The details are sketchy, but in outline that is what happens, and is well known.

At once, evolution theory is rendered impotent. I have yet to see mention of the word 'evolution' in the accounts I've read - though there's got to be some plank who will mention the E word.There is no number of 'small beneficial variations' which can bring this titanic migration about. Consider - there is a journey of about 6,000 miles involved here. Underwater, at that.

In the air, as with the Capistrano swallows, it may be possible (though unlikely) for the birds to use visible landmarks to help in their navigation - maybe the stars or whatever.

The eels swim at a depth of 3000 feet during the day, and come up to shallower waters during the night:

"But one of the really intriguing bits of data was that the eels change their height in the water column between day and night. So during the daytime, they swim much deeper. They go down to about a thousand metres and at night time, they come up close to the surface." The Mighty Eel Migration - The Naked Scientists

So stars,landmarks, whatever are unavailable - and yet they do it.

Navigating (and surviving!) at a depth of 3000 feet in a submarine is an extremely tricky business, requiring some very sophisticated equipment, especially if the destination is 3000 miles away. Yet this is exactly what the eels do, WITHOUT any equipment at all.

Just as remarkably, the young migrate back home with no guidance whatsoever, and make it (apart from those, of course, that die, or are trapped in their millions by fishermen).

There is no way evolution can account for the phenomenon. The information is obviously inborn into the fish. But how did it get there? And again, we note that the whole information packet had to spring full blown to birth, or the eels and their young would have been lost long, long ago in the trackless depths and wastes of the deep ocean.

If the information is correct, there are fossil eels dating back 95 million years. So they haven't got lost in all that length of time. Whether they were making the same journey then is obviously unknown, but there's no good reason to suppose that they didn't.

So we have another evolutionary brick wall. When are we going to discard this useless theory?

::: FOSSIL-MUSEUM.com :::

One of the mysteries [what an understatement!] of the animal kingdom is the long-distance migration (5000–6000 km) of the European eel Anguilla anguilla L. from the coasts of Europe to its spawning grounds in the Sargasso Sea. The only evidence for the location of the spawning site of the European eel in the Sargasso Sea is the discovery by Johannes Schmidt at the beginning of the previous century of the smallest eel larvae (leptocephali) near the Sargasso Sea. For years it has been questioned whether the fasting eels have sufficient energy reserves to cover this enormous distance. We have tested Schmidt's theory by placing eels in swim tunnels in the laboratory and allowing them to make a simulated migration of 5500 km. We find that eels swim 4–6 times more efficiently than non-eel-like fish. Our findings are an important advance in this field because they remove a central objection to Schmidt's theory by showing that their energy reserves are, in principle, sufficient for the migration. Conclusive proof of the Sargasso Sea theory is likely to come from satellite tracking technology.
The Mighty Eel Migration - The Naked Scientists

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

And yet another 'refutation' of evolutionary theory based on nothing more substantial than personal incredulity. No one doubts your ability to unearth examples of animal behaviour that you can categorise as 'impossible' for evolutionary theory to account for, just as no one doubts your ability to deny the validity or reasonableness of any such explanation you are given, no matter how eminently possible it might be, nor to avoid, ignore or trivialize questions and points that go to the heart of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

And yet another 'refutation' of evolutionary theory based on nothing more substantial than personal incredulity. No one doubts your ability to unearth examples of animal behaviour that you can categorise as 'impossible' for evolutionary theory to account for, just as no one doubts your ability to deny the validity or reasonableness of any such explanation you are given, no matter how eminently possible it might be, nor to avoid, ignore or trivialize questions and points that go to the heart of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

These are facts - and they won't go away LK. You can close your eyes and bury your head in the sand if you wish - but that leaves a very unsightly part of your anatomy exposed.

There is no theorising here. These migrations are accurately and abundantly documented, and genuinely do exist.

So while you happily chastise my personal incredulity, which obviously is the only thing you can do, the eels swim on, the swallows keep flying, and evolution keeps sinking.

There is not even one evidenced theory accounting for the origin of this magnificent display of instinct. The BBC didn't even bother to try.

I doubt if you can either.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

These are facts - and they won't go away LK. You can close your eyes and bury your head in the sand if you wish - but that leaves a very unsightly part of your anatomy exposed.

Pointing out your reluctance and/or inability to address flaws in your arguments, assertions and assumptions on other threads is burying one's head how, exactly?

There is no theorising here. These migrations are accurately and abundantly documented, and genuinely do exist.

Yes? And?

So while you happily chastise my personal incredulity, which obviously is the only thing you can do...

Not so, as my comments and questions on other threads that you have started - comments and questions that you have chosen to ignore, trivialize or handwave away - demonstrate.

...the eels swim on, the swallows keep flying, and evolution keeps sinking.

Yes, yes and no, respectively. You have done nothing to show that evolution is unable to account for these various phenomena except by denying any argument that shows it most certainly can (see your responses to Barbarian's various telling posts, for example, posts that were so effective and devastating of your arguments that you abandoned those threads).

There is not even one evidenced theory accounting for the origin of this magnificent display of instinct. The BBC didn't even bother to try.

Well, that's funny because Google Scholar lists 329,000 results for articles and references on the evolution of animal migration, so I guess this is just another grand assertion on your part. You should maybe start with research into partial migration behaviour on the parts of certain species, especially notable in a number of Holarctic bird species.

I doubt if you can either.

As clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, what you doubt is not evidence that the thing you doubt does not exist.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

[...]

Well, that's funny because Google Scholar lists 329,000 results for articles and references on the evolution of animal migration, so I guess this is just another grand assertion on your part. You should maybe start with research into partial migration behaviour on the parts of certain species, especially notable in a number of Holarctic bird species.

As clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, what you doubt is not evidence that the thing you doubt does not exist.

Heh heh heh! 329,000 articles, huh?

Find me one (or a dozen)which accounts for
a. how the instinct originated and

b. how it entered the genome.(I'm assuming that's where it is, because if it's elsewhere, your problems have suddenly multiplied themselves a thousandfold).

All others are irrelevant.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

Heh heh heh! 329,000 articles, huh?

Yep.

Find me one (or a dozen)which accounts for
a. how the instinct originated and...

I've referred you to research on the origins of instinctive behaviour before. You didn't seem interested at the time. Well, you ignored the references, anyway.

b. how it entered the genome.

Why do you assume that it 'entered' the genome in any different way from how any other hereditary information 'entered' the genome?

(I'm assuming that's where it is, because if it's elsewhere, your problems have suddenly multiplied themselves a thousandfold).

Why is that? And what are these alleged 'problems', anyway, other than those raised by your personal incredulity and pre-existing certainty that evolutionary development is impossible?

All others are irrelevant.

Well, of course they are because they have already given the lie to your assertion there is no hypothesis that accounts for the development of migratory instincts in animals.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

Yep.

I've referred you to research on the origins of instinctive behaviour before. You didn't seem interested at the time. Well, you ignored the references, anyway.

I ignored them because they fail to address the 2 points I am demanding an answer to. If you can show one or more that do so answer, then I'll be happy to examine them.

Why do you assume that it 'entered' the genome in any different way from how any other hereditary information 'entered' the genome?

I don't assume that at all. But I do assume that it did enter at some point - and that is where your problems begin.

Why is that? And what are these alleged 'problems', anyway, other than those raised by your personal incredulity and pre-existing certainty that evolutionary development is impossible?

If there were answers, you'd be providing them triumphantly. As it stands there aren't, so you can do nothing but chastise me for 'personal incredulity'.

Well, of course they are because they have already given the lie to your assertion there is no hypothesis that accounts for the development of migratory instincts in animals.

I want evidenced work please.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

I ignored them because they fail to address the 2 points I am demanding an answer to. If you can show one or more that do so answer, then I'll be happy to examine them.

Perhaps you need to read the referenced research to begin to understand why your two 'demands' are specious.

I don't assume that at all. But I do assume that it did enter at some point...

So you don't assume it, but you do assume it. I think you need to decide what you do assume.

...and that is where your problems begin.

And yet you haven't explained what these alleged 'problems' are or or, indeed, why they are 'problems' at all.

If there were answers, you'd be providing them triumphantly.

As you have yet to elucidate these alleged 'problems' in any meaningful way - other than declaring X to be impossible or the chances against it occurring naturalistically to be a gazillion (or some other ex recto number) to one - and as several posters have provided answers to various of them already only to see you ignore them, handwave them away or simply restate the 'problem' as if no answer has been offered, chasing along your imaginary rabbit trails of misunderstanding and misrepresentation seems largely futile. Anyone who wants to review your threads dispassionately can already see for themselves where the weight of evidence resides.

As it stands there aren't, so you can do nothing but chastise me for 'personal incredulity'.

If you regard as chastising pointing out that the problems with evolutionary theory amount to personal incredulity and that your responses to posts that explain that the problems are not problems at all amounts to little more than more personal incredulity, then consider yourself properly chastised.

I want evidenced work please.

And when you're provided with it (by Barbarian, for example), what do you do with it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

You can't see the 'problems'?

Let me elucidate.

Bird A (doesn't know where Capistrano is) becomes by some evolutionary process ------> Bird B (the cliff swallow) which does know the way to Capistrano.

The problem, the question to which you have no answer (apart from attacking my personal incredulity) is:

Ta daaaaa!

How did the information/instinct first, arise, and second, then enter the genome of Bird A?

As to why I rejected Barbarian's writing, it's quite simple. He has no answer to the real question, and I felt it was a waste of good time.

Now if you couldn't see that there was/is no real answer to the question, then your powers of comprehension are as limited and blinkered as his.

But to return to the eels.

I missed your explanation of

a. How the instinct arose and

b. How it entered the genome.

Do tell.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Tge Migration of the European Eels

You can't see the 'problems'?

No, what I can't 'see' is your explanation of what these 'problems' are and why they are 'problems'.

Let me elucidate.

Please do.

Bird A (doesn't know where Capistrano is) becomes by some evolutionary process ------> Bird B (the cliff swallow) which does know the way to Capistrano.

What is this mysterious 'Bird A'? You are aware that populations evolve and not individuals or are you proposing that one day this imaginary 'Bird A' transformed itself into what you call 'Bird B'?

The problem, the question to which you have no answer (apart from attacking my personal incredulity) is:

Ta daaaaa!

How did the information/instinct first, arise, and second, then enter the genome of Bird A?

You are aware that not all animals migrate and that not even all animals amongst those species that do migrate migrate either? In other words, some species demonstrate partial migration (the most common type of migration) and, indeed, in some cases migratory behaviour has been seen to stop altogether in a population and then, at a later date, recommence (Wyoming pronghorn antelope in the first half of the 20th Century)? You are aware, also, that migration takes place for different reasons amongst different species? Given that your source mentions the disappearance of migratory swallows from Capistrano, you may want to ponder how these birds 'lost' the instinct to travel there. And where did they go before the town was founded? What led them to end their migration at the town in the first place? If it appears impossible to you for them to have developed the migratory instinct naturalistically, what unnatural forces have caused them to change their behaviour? Similarly, what unnatural forces cause previously migrating animal populations to cease migratory behaviour completely?

As to why I rejected Barbarian's writing, it's quite simple. He has no answer to the real question, and I felt it was a waste of good time.

On the contrary, Barbarian provided effective answers to your 'problems', but you appeared to have already decided that the 'problems' you had proposed were a priori impossible to answer and so you simply declared those answers unsatisfactory. An attitude you repeat in this comment here.

Now if you couldn't see that there was/is no real answer to the question, then your powers of comprehension are as limited and blinkered as his.

And you having decided from the outset 'that there was/is no real answer' fails to demonstrate that 'your powers of comprehension are...limited and blinkered' how, exactly? It seems to be the case that anyone who fails to accept your arguments and agree with your expressions of personal incredulity at evolutionary explanations for things you see as 'problems' for the theory is axiomatically 'limited and blinkered'.

But to return to the eels.

I missed your explanation of

a. How the instinct arose and

b. How it entered the genome.

Do tell.

I guess you must have missed my explanation of why I was not going to follow you down this rabbit trail of personal incredulity, then? Do you have any idea of the various reasons for which animals migrate and why they do this? You are aware that some migrations take place over relatively short distances? Do you see these short-distance migrations as a 'problem' for evolutionary theory as well?

 

[Asyncritus]

I won't waste too much time on the beginning of your post, but the last bit does disturb me somewhat.

I guess you must have missed my explanation of why I was not going to follow you down this rabbit trail of personal incredulity, then?

I don't recall asking you why you wouldn't follow me anywhere. But I do recall asking you to account (evolutionarily of course) for two, and only 2 points:

1 How did the instinct originate and

2 How did it enter the genome.

Do you have any idea of the various reasons for which animals migrate and why they do this?

I said, and I'll say it again for the nth time:

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHY the eels/birds migrate. They do, and I trust that you won't argue against the fact that they do.

Since they do, and that is scientifically observable fact, then 2 questions demand an answer.

1 How did the instinct arise and

2 How did it enter the genome?

You are aware that some migrations take place over relatively short distances? Do you see these short-distance migrations as a 'problem' for evolutionary theory as well?

You are attempting to drag a red herring across the trail.

If you can't answer the questions, then please say so and we can stop wasting one another's time. 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer, and no one can hold it against you.

What I will do, of course, is to point to another failure of evolutionary theory.

Over to you.

 

[lordkalvan]

I won't waste too much time on the beginning of your post, but the last bit does disturb me somewhat.

I see, so answering questions that address your understanding of these various phenomena that you regard as so threatening to evolutionary theory is a waste of time?

I don't recall asking you why you wouldn't follow me anywhere. But I do recall asking you to account (evolutionarily of course) for two, and only 2 points:

1 How did the instinct originate and

2 How did it enter the genome.

What you recall and what you don't recall is between you and your memory. I have attempted to address these 'questions' elsewhere, but you have chosen to ignore, trivialize or handwave away points, arguments and counter-questions that they lead on to. Why do you suppose I would want to 'waste too much time' trying to engage you in reasoned discussion here when you have been so resistant to it elsewhere, a resistance typified by your responses to Barbarian's well-evidenced arguments?

I said, and I'll say it again for the nth time:

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHY the eels/birds migrate. They do, and I trust that you won't argue against the fact that they do.

You can trust what you like, but why do you imagine I would argue against migratory behaviour as a fact and why do you imagine that why animals migrate has no impact upon how the instinct to migrate developed at all? Your lack of interest seems to do no more than highlight the obvious fact that you have already made your mind up about this and no amount of reasoned argument and evidence could convince you otherwise. Your method seems to be to present a phenomenon that you believe evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining; denounce, ignore or handwave away all evidenced argument that shows evolutionary theory can offer entirely plausible, evidenced explanations; and then declare that evolutionary theory is a chimaera. In other words, no evidence or argument will shake your conviction and your ostensible desire to engage in a dialogue is quite illusory.

Since they do, and that is scientifically observable fact, then 2 questions demand an answer.

1 How did the instinct arise and

2 How did it enter the genome?

In which case, you need to address the question as to why animals engage in various types of migratory behaviour at all.

You are attempting to drag a red herring across the trail.

Why is the subject of different types of migratory behaviour 'a red herring' in any discussion that is supposedly discussing the evolution of migratory behaviour? I think you need to reflect on why you imagine this to be so.

If you can't answer the questions, then please say so and we can stop wasting one another's time. 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer, and no one can hold it against you.

What I will do, of course, is to point to another failure of evolutionary theory.

But you will hold 'I don't know' against evolutionary theory, apparently. Why do you imagine that a failure of knowledge or understanding on the part of one individual would be sufficient to assign failure to evolutionary theory as a whole? Again, your various declarations, a priori assumptions, various misrepresentations and obvious misunderstandings call into doubt the intent with which you approach this subject.

Over to you.

You have my comments. Do you have anything of substance to offer in response, or do you wish just to keep banging away on your own tiny drum?

 

[Asyncritus]

... call into doubt the intent with which you approach this subject.

Is there any doubt about my intention?

I view evolution with pure hostility, because it parades as science and fails utterly to be able to explain the origin of so many important phenomena and creatures.

You have my comments. Do you have anything of substance to offer in response, or do you wish just to keep banging away on your own tiny drum?

I only offer material of substance to substantive arguments which do not rely on pure speculation.

So until you do present something, I shall keep on beating my tiny drum.

There's some new, substantial material on my new thread on chimps and man. You might have a look, if only to amaze yourself.

By the way, did you have any comments on the facts about the eels, or were you beating your own little drum on my personal incredulity?

 

[lordkalvan]

Is there any doubt about my intention?

I view evolution with pure hostility, because it parades as science and fails utterly to be able to explain the origin of so many important phenomena and creatures.

So you have already made your mind up to deny any explanations that evolutionary theory offers.

ETA There also appears to be no doubt about your intention to avoid answering questions and points arising from your posts, as exemplified by your disregard of the substantial part of the post to which you are ostensibly replying.

I only offer material of substance to substantive arguments which do not rely on pure speculation.

As you have offered no arguments of substance, this claim remains moot.

So until you do present something, I shall keep on beating my tiny drum.

And a hollow, empty sound it makes, too.

There's some new, substantial material on my new thread on chimps and man. You might have a look, if only to amaze yourself.

Does it amount to anything more than expressions of personal incredulity, faulty maths and demands that others prove something to your satisfaction that you have already made your mind up about?

By the way, did you have any comments on the facts about the eels, or were you beating your own little drum on my personal incredulity?

I call it as I see it. What 'facts' would those be? The ones that you assert are impossible of evolutionary explanations?

 

[Asyncritus]

Having had a look at this thread again, I still can't find any answer to either of the 2 great questions.

Just to remind you (and if you've answered them please remember that the cut and paste facility is available for your use - so you can quote me your answers)

a. How did the instinct to migrate 3000+ miles, spawn and die - arise and

b. having arisen in the first eel, (I assume that you think there was such a thing as your theory demands), how did the instinct enter the genome?

I imagine it's getting a bit boring being unable to answer the questions, but all you have to do is admit that evolution (ably represented by your good self and Barbarian) has no answers to give.

Then we'll try and get the worms that fall out of that particular can back into it.

 

[Asyncritus]

No answer then? Ah well. :dunno

 

[theLords]

Let's remember the rules of this forum, or forget and lose access to it. Your choice.

 

[lordkalvan]

Okay.

Where do European eels originate from? Mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences taken from eight Anguilla species show relationships between two population groups: one comprising Australian, African, European and American eels; the other comprising Indo-Pacific, a second Australian and Japanese eels. While most speciation is estimated to have occurred around 45-30 MYA, the Atlantic species are thought to have diverged around 10 MYA. The earliest eels appeared in the Eocene near present-day Indonesia and dispersed to the west as larvae were transported by the global circumequatorial current. The ancestor of the Atlantic eels came from these larvae.

Why do European eels migrate? The European freshwater eels are catadromous, i.e. they spend the bulk of their lives in freshwater and only return to the sea to breed. Both species of Atlantic eel breed in the Sargasso Sea, an area of ocean to the north-west of Florida and surrounded by ocean currents: the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Current, the Canary Current and the North Atlantic Equatorial Current. It covers an area of more than 3.5 million square kilometres.

If the European eel originated in the salt-waters of the Tethys Ocean, why does it spend most of its life in freshwater rivers? Not all European eels move into freshwater. Some remain in the brackish waters of estuaries, where they grow more quickly (and pass through their life-cycle more quickly) than those which move into wholly freshwater environments, where they grow larger and live longer. Eels that make it into freshwater are, simply, more successful than those that don’t.

Why do European eels move into brackish water at all? Eggs hatch into Leptocephalus eels, transparent larvae shaped something like leaves; these drift in the upper ocean currents for up to two years. These currents inevitably bring the eels into shallower waters where they encounter the differing salinity gradients caused by river discharge. Riverine environments tend to offer advantages to marine organisms that can exploit them – less danger, more food, for example – and any saltwater animal that can adapt to the change in salinity would gain a reproductive advantage: it becomes bigger and stronger, lives longer, etc. This is reflected in the differences seen between estuarine and riverine eels and the fact that some eels do one thing while others take the alternative suggests that the behaviour has developed incrementally through a series of more or less beneficial mutations. Euryhaline fish (of which freshwater eels are a variety) can tolerate a wide range of salinity levels, which indicates that the trait is by no means remarkable. Indeed, that a period of gradual adjustment is required by eels to adapt to different salinity levels and the fact that some don’t make it into freshwater strongly implies that the adaptation is not universally effective. Given that the ancestral eels most likely were carried into shallow brackish water where those that could take advantage of this accident of oceanic currents would benefit over those that couldn’t, an evolutionary pathway of development is easy to envisage.

Why do eels return to the sea to breed? The most likely explanations lie in the benefits of a diversified population (more eels in a given location means more mates and ones less likely to be closely related) and in the inability of Leptocephalus eels to survive in riverine or estuarine environments because of their physical limitations.

How do eels return to their breeding grounds? Hormonally stimulated to begin moving downriver and seek saltwater, once in the open sea the eels encounter currents that inevitably carry them to a rendezvous with others of their species, in other words they follow the current where it leads. Eels that have bred in the Sargasso Sea produce more successful descendants than eels which haven’t and so, inevitably, the tendency is for this behaviour to become dominant.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bump.