[_ Old Earth _] The Non-Evolution of Flight Instincts

[Asyncritus]

Consider the ideas of skip, hop, jump, flutter, glide, fly.

Yeah, let's:

So running and jumping, skipping and hopping for 34-54 million years hasn't produced a flying ostrich. What makes you think that 34-54 million years of running, jumping etc will make a reptile fly?

There's the problem in a nutshell.

These are progressive learning stages preruisite to the evovled flight we see today.

Dave, can't you see that the frst creature had to have THE CAPACITY to do these things?

That is the instinctive requirement.

You can put on any number of bird suits, and run, jump, hop and skip for the next million years or so, but I doubt if you'll ever be able to fly.

That is what Barbarian is saying, in so many words.

A reptile puts on a bird suit (feathers), and hops skips and jumps for 34 million years. Will it be able to fly? If the ostriches are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding NO!

Why? Because the necessary instincts are absent.

The first skip may have been on thin ice...

Barbarian is on very thin ice at the moment, and will soon sink with his theory out of sight.

Bye bye.....!!!

 

[cupid dave]

Consider the ideas of skip, hop, jump, flutter, glide, fly.

These are progressive learning stages preruisite to the evovled flight we see today.

The first skip may have been on thin ice, and then a way for penquins to move faster than waddling thereafter.

Consider the same kind of change in bhavior when Foxes suddenly started to wag their tails and bark.

They had that capability but had never used that behavior before, because it had not occurred to them until they started to read signals coming from humans who were evolvingthem into dogs by the process of Selection according to hormonal dispostions:

 

[Barbarian]

Consider the same kind of change in bhavior when Foxes suddenly started to wag their tails and bark.

Interesting. Animal behaviorists have data that suggests dogs bark in an attempt to mimic human speech.

They had that capability but had never used that behavior before, because it had not occurred to them until they started to read signals coming from humans who were evolvingthem into dogs by the process of Selection according to hormonal dispostions:

Dogs are perhaps the only animal that became domesticated voluntarily. And in the perhaps hundred thousand years of our interaction, both humans and dogs have co-evolved to fit with each other.

Both dogs and humans experience an increase in oxytocin ("feel good hormone") levels when they interact. We have become symbiotes, and we feel good when we are with each other.

I feel sorry for the humans and dogs that miss out on this. Thanks for the insight on foxes. Apparently, as is always the case in evolution, the "instinct" was always there, just a modification of something pre-existing.

 

[Asyncritus]

Apparently, as is always the case in evolution, the "instinct" was always there, just a modification of something pre-existing.

Ow-oooooooo!

And,ummmm, where did the pre-existing come from?

 

[cupid dave]

Interesting. Animal behaviorists have data that suggests dogs bark in an attempt to mimic human speech.



Dogs are perhaps the only animal that became domesticated voluntarily. And in the perhaps hundred thousand years of our interaction, both humans and dogs have co-evolved to fit with each other.

Both dogs and humans experience an increase in oxytocin ("feel good hormone") levels when they interact. We have become symbiotes, and we feel good when we are with each other.

I feel sorry for the humans and dogs that miss out on this. Thanks for the insight on foxes. Apparently, as is always the case in evolution, the "instinct" was always there, just a modification of something pre-existing.

In the most recent publication,"


Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior," the author refers us to this very relationship.

His information is also referenced by Darwins book, "Emotions and Evolution in humans and Animals."
What he points out is that wolves, from which dogs evolved, also rely upon each other.
They have an even more complex system of communications based upon non-verbal cues to one another. He makes the case that wolves quickly picked up on man's mental attitudes and learned rapidly to understand the intentions and non-threating intercourse that men worked to bring them together.

These "tells" which men hardly recognize that they signal are really unconscious directives that control body language and facial expressions to the point thatthey are involuntary.
Meaning that the Unconscious mind is operating below our Conscious level in unknown ways not perceived by the person, but well understood by the dogs.

So, my point is that as evidence for the Unconscious minds of people becomes more clear to us, the Collective Unconscious Mind that I have referred to starts to make objective rational sense.






Leonard Mlodinow, the best-selling author of The Drunkard’sWalk and coauthor of The Grand Design (with Stephen Hawking), gives us astartling and eye-opening examination of how the unconscious mind shapes ourexperience of the world and how, for instance, we often misperceive ourrelationships with family, friends, and business associates, misunderstand thereasons for our investment decisions, and misremember important events.



Your preference in politicians, theamount you tip your waiter—all judgments and perceptions reflect the workingsof our mind on two levels: the conscious, of which we are aware, and theunconscious, which is hidden from us. The latter has long been the subject ofspeculation, but over the past two decades researchers have developedremarkable new tools for probing the hidden, or subliminal, workings of themind. The result of this explosion of research is a new science of theunconscious and a sea change in our understanding of how the subliminal mindaffects the way we live.

 

[Asyncritus]

Consider the same kind of change in bhavior when Foxes suddenly started to wag their tails and bark.

Erm, where do you get the idea that they didn't wag their tails and bark from the year dot?

They had that capability but had never used that behavior before, because it had not occurred to them until they started to read signals coming from humans who were evolvingthem into dogs by the process of Selection according to hormonal dispostions:

If they had the capability, that capability had to come from somewhere.

So where?

 

[Barbarian]

What he points out is that wolves, from which dogs evolved, also rely upon each other.

In many ways, human societies are like wolfpacks. We were largely adapted in ways that make a good fit.

Wolves probably hung around human hunting encampments, because there were leaving after large animals were butchered. No doubt it occured to some of them that whenever humans scored a big kill, they got to eat. Jackals in India have adapted to tigers this way. A lone jackal may shadow a tiger, and track game for it,eating on the leavings after the tiger is done. In some cases they become so familiar that they approach the tiger without fear, although tigers often take jackals as food.

One wonders if the wolves thought:

"These guys are really slow, and they can't track a mastodon in fresh snow, but they can take down some serious game. We need to get in on that." Over time, both species became more and more comfortable with each other.

The humans were no doubt pleased to have trackers on their side. And the pups were cute. As the fox experiments show, human selection could rapidly alter the nature of canids.

My morning walks by the lake with my basset/beagle celebrate that relationship. She tracks and I watch. And when we locate a rabbit, she joyously re-enacts that old game. Only once has she managed to catch a rabbit; she brought it back to me alive and kicking, with a "what do I do now?" look on her face. It doesn't matter; the hunt is the point, not the catch.

They have an even more complex system of communications based upon non-verbal cues to one another. He makes the case that wolves quickly picked up on man's mental attitudes and learned rapidly to understand the intentions and non-threating intercourse that men worked to bring them together.

And we did the same. If you want to freak out your dog, wait until he's resting near you and quietly say "wuff" with your lips pouted out slightly, blowing out air at the same time. It means "intruder approaching." He'll get up and check the doors and windows. Most likely growling or barking threats.

And notice, fear, anger, threats, and play are all communicated with different barks, that most people can perceive as different.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Apparently, as is always the case in evolution, the "instinct" was always there, just a modification of something pre-existing.

Ow-oooooooo!

Comes down to evidence. As you learned, whenever we find out what an "instinct" really is, it turns out to be natural and modified from something pre-existing.

And,ummmm, where did the pre-existing come from?

Something else pre-existing. See if you can find an exception. You won't.

 

[Barbarian]

That is what Barbarian is saying, in so many words.

When Async is trapped in a corner, he always invents a silly story and pretends the Barbarian said it. Let's see what his imagination does this time:

(Drumroll)

Async declares:

A reptile puts on a bird suit (feathers), and hops skips and jumps for 34 million years. Will it be able to fly?

Yep. He's in great form, today. He learned, to his dismay that the "instincts", structures, and behaviors for flying were already present in small feathered dinosaurs long before flight evolved.

So he made up a little fairytale instead.

If the ostriches are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding NO! Why? Because the necessary instincts are absent.

In fact, scientists have shown that ostriches use their wings to control their movements while running, and the wings actually generate lift. If they were a lot smaller, they could fly.

The first skip may have been on thin ice...
Barbarian is on very thin ice at the moment, and will soon sink with his theory out of sight.

Surprise.

 

[cupid dave]

Ow-oooooooo!

And,ummmm, where did the pre-existing come from?

It was remembered...

1) In a previous generation, the experience of "skipping" was genetically stored in the Unconscious mind, and in future incarnations, those memories surface as "insights" that inform us of the previous learning.


This is why we have phobic fears of snakes and other dangers that we could not otherwise know about except the experiences of the past, experienced by our ancestors, were remembered and stored and born again in new genera\ations to come.

2) Another possibility is that we and other animal "talk" subliminally to ourselves in a language known only to the Unconscious minds of our whole present livinf generation.
That talk goes on subliminally, befoe we are born, and our Unconscious mind begins to add and receive information at our birth.
We die, but the "conversation" goes on with this "living God" which is shepherding us silently and invisibly.

 

[cupid dave]

In many ways, human societies are like wolfpacks. We were largely adapted in ways that make a good fit.

Wolves probably hung around human hunting encampments, because there were leaving after large animals were butchered. No doubt it occured to some of them that whenever humans scored a big kill, they got to eat. Jackals in India have adapted to tigers this way. A lone jackal may shadow a tiger, and track game for it,eating on the leavings after the tiger is done. In some cases they become so familiar that they approach the tiger without fear, although tigers often take jackals as food.

One wonders if the wolves thought:

"These guys are really slow, and they can't track a mastodon in fresh snow, but they can take down some serious game. We need to get in on that." Over time, both species became more and more comfortable with each other.

The humans were no doubt pleased to have trackers on their side. And the pups were cute. As the fox experiments show, human selection could rapidly alter the nature of canids.

My morning walks by the lake with my basset/beagle celebrate that relationship. She tracks and I watch. And when we locate a rabbit, she joyously re-enacts that old game. Only once has she managed to catch a rabbit; she brought it back to me alive and kicking, with a "what do I do now?" look on her face. It doesn't matter; the hunt is the point, not the catch.



And we did the same. If you want to freak out your dog, wait until he's resting near you and quietly say "wuff" with your lips pouted out slightly, blowing out air at the same time. It means "intruder approaching." He'll get up and check the doors and windows. Most likely growling or barking threats.

And notice, fear, anger, threats, and play are all communicated with different barks, that most people can perceive as different.

What I have read was the theory suggests that 20,000 years ago, in China, wolves hung around the human garbage dump areas.
When the Chinese came out to bring more, the wolvces whose hormonal influences generated the least amount of fera got ever closer to the food which became the mechanism for selecting tameness.

The hormonal effects became pronounced and had even physical consequences which explains way tghere is anatomical differences between dogs and wolves.

What is amazing about the Fox experiments is that no intermediary "species" are going to be observed as the changes take place within only a few generations, say, 10 year durations for life spans, and maybe a dozen stages in the transformations.
Hence we can assume this is why we find only 22 now extinct humans in our own evolution.



My point though, was that these changes all took place in such a short span of time.

In only a few generations, wolves, or these foxes, or mankind sort of molts into what becomes a new species without leaving the bones of dozens of intermediate stages for us to find.

In other words, the micro/macro-evolution arguments can be ignored

People, and even scientist, have unnecessarily expected that fossil ought be found for dozens of intermediate species-like stages between, say, these three separate fossil records:

 

[Barbarian]

In 2008, re-examination of material excavated from Goyet Cave in Belgium in the late 19th century resulted in the identification of a 31,700 year old dog, a large and powerful animal who ate reindeer, musk oxen and horses. This dog was part of the Aurignacian culture that had produced the art in Chauvet Cave.[22][23]
33,000-year-old skull of a domesticated canid from Siberia

In 2010, the remains of a 33,000 year old dog were found in the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia.[24][25] In 2011, the skeleton of a 26,000 to 27,000 year old dog were found in the Czech Republic. It had been interred with a mammoth bone in its mouth—perhaps to assist its journey in the afterlife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

They've been with us for a long time.

 

[cupid dave]

In 2008, re-examination of material excavated from Goyet Cave in Belgium in the late 19th century resulted in the identification of a 31,700 year old dog, a large and powerful animal who ate reindeer, musk oxen and horses. This dog was part of the Aurignacian culture that had produced the art in Chauvet Cave.[22][23]
33,000-year-old skull of a domesticated canid from Siberia

In 2010, the remains of a 33,000 year old dog were found in the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia.[24][25] In 2011, the skeleton of a 26,000 to 27,000 year old dog were found in the Czech Republic. It had been interred with a mammoth bone in its mouth—perhaps to assist its journey in the afterlife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

They've been with us for a long time.

Hmmm...
Interesting.

What about all those genetic studies of modern dogs which evidence a common relative who existed 20,000 years ago and is tied somehow to China???

Perhaps these other evidences of dogs came and went extinct?

 

[Asyncritus]

It was remembered...

1) In a previous generation, the experience of "skipping" was genetically stored in the Unconscious mind, and in future incarnations, those memories surface as "insights" that inform us of the previous learning.

Dave, youre getting as bad as Barbarian, and that's quite a feat, you know.

I'm not going to put up a long post, merely point out the following:

There was a FIRST everything.

That first anything had no racial memories to fall back on.

In the case of the flying reptiles (har de har!) there were no flying reptiles before the FIRST one.

In the case of the dogs etc, there were no barking dogs/foxes before the FIRST one.

So where did the instincts which powered the behaviour come from?

 

[Asyncritus]

No, sorry. 'A chemical did it' is not an answer to why it was done in the first place.

It certainly is an answer to HOW it was done, but not to WHY it was done. You failed again. Now admit that you don't have an answer and stop this silly bluffing. Do you think people can't distinguish between how and why? Maybe you can't...actually, it seem obvious that you can't, but I won't give up hope of teaching you the difference. maybe you'll learn some day. Maybe.

Judge: This man was murdered with cyanide. Did you do it, Mr Lector?

Lector: No your honour. The cyanide did it.

Judge: Is that the best you can do? You're sentenced to death.

Lector: No, your honour. I didn't do it. I put the cyanide in the tea, and the cyanide killed him. Hang the cyanide.

Judge: You must think were fools in here. Take him away and hang him by the neck. The rope will kill him by itself.

Sound familiar?

Shoot grows upward.

Judge: What made you grow upward Shoot?

Shoot: The auxin made me do it your honour.

Judge: Where did you get it Shoot?

Shoot: I made it your honour.

Judge: So how did you learn how to make it Shoot?

Shoot: I taught myself, your honour. I have a big brain, a chemistry lab, chemistry supplies - everything a good shoot needs to manufacture auxins, chlorophyll, enzymes, anthocyanins, cellulose, cytoplasm, vitamins, nuclei, starch, glucose, new cells, roots, fruits, flowers...

Judge: Enough already!

Shoot: Aren't I clever, your Honour? I knew all that from the day I was born! Nobody ever taught me anything! My ancestors were very clever plants, you know. Nobody taught them anything either!

Judge: I'm going to hold you in contempt of court! Youre trying to make fools of us!

Shoot: Your Honour, my lawyer Mr Barbarian told me to say that. He thinks its true. I think it's stupid, but that's what he keeps on saying. He thinks if he keeps on saying it, I'll believe it... but he's wrong. Any sensible plant can see how stupid that idea really is.

Shoot: If anybody should be held in contempt, your Honour, it's him...

 

[lordkalvan]

Dave, youre getting as bad as Barbarian, and that's quite a feat, you know.

I'm not going to put up a long post, merely point out the following:

There was a FIRST everything.

That first anything had no racial memories to fall back on.

In the case of the flying reptiles (har de har!) there were no flying reptiles before the FIRST one.

In the case of the dogs etc, there were no barking dogs/foxes before the FIRST one.

So where did the instincts which powered the behaviour come from?

Was there a first person to speak French? If you grasp the import of this question, you will understand why your points are entirely fallacious.

 

[Barbarian]

Judge: So how did you learn how to make it Shoot?

Shoot: I taught myself, your honour. I have a big brain, a chemistry lab, chemistry supplies - everything a good shoot needs to manufacture auxins, chlorophyll, enzymes, anthocyanins, cellulose, cytoplasm, vitamins, nuclei, starch, glucose, new cells, roots, fruits, flowers...

Judge: Enough already!

Shoot: Aren't I clever, your Honour? I knew all that from the day I was born! Nobody ever taught me anything! My ancestors were very clever plants, you know. Nobody taught them anything either!

Judge: I'm going to hold you in contempt of court! Youre trying to make fools of us!

Shoot: Your Honour, my lawyer Mr Barbarian told me to say that. He thinks its true. I think it's stupid, but that's what he keeps on saying. He thinks if he keeps on saying it, I'll believe it... but he's wrong. Any sensible plant can see how stupid that idea really is.

Shoot: If anybody should be held in contempt, your Honour, it's him...

I see Async's abandoned any attempt at reason, and hopes to win by whipping up on a strawman.

That's a good an admission as we're likely to get from him.

 

[Asyncritus]

Was there a first person to speak French? If you grasp the import of this question, you will understand why your points are entirely fallacious.

The points are not fallacious at all.

Let's assume a first person to even speak.

First spkr ----------X ---Y----Z------> French speaker

In this case what has happened at X,Y,Z?

The language has developed. With every succeeding generation the ACQUIRED INFORMATION has been passed down - BUT NOT GENETICALLY.

As we know (or I suppose you do anyway), ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED.

Human beings CAN PASS INFORMATION DOWN - by word of mouth, by books and any other means we use, BUT NOT GENETICALLY.

Evos, like yourself and Barbarian - and I suppose the whole kit and kaboodle of you all - make this crass mistake.

There's Barbarian trying hard to sell us the quite foolish idea that some undefined ancestor of a bird, a reptile of some sort which learned how to fly (ha ha!), passed down that ACQUIRED INFORMATION into its descendant which just happened to be a bird.

So the bird could fly. Otherwise he falls into my trap posed by my famous little diagram:

Ancestor 1 (can't fly) -------X------>Bird (can fly)

What happened at X? (Or X1,X2,x3 etc etc).

Somewhere along that line, the flight instincts had to be created and enter the genome.

I said created, because they could not have evolved and that's for sure, because of the Lamarckian problem.

I trust that you do not deny the unassailable fact that there are such things as 'flight instincts'. I put up a list of items which a flying creature MUST be able to do, or will perish very swiftly once it appeared on the planet.

The problem is even more acute with the eels - because there is the barrier of death which must be overcome by the leptocephali immediately they're hatched.

Think too, of those other animals which can swim, walk, crawl immediately they are born.

How is that possible?

Those powering instincts are present in them from birth - learning is not an option. Neither is it an option with the Pacific Golden Plovers, for example. The parents fly off and leave them to follow to Hawaii from Alaska, a distance of some 2,800 miles.

No learning is possible, however much wishful thinking you care to indulge in.

So Lamarckism is the death-blow to evolution, when allied to my contention about the creation and heritability of instincts.

 

[Barbarian]

As you learned, the motions and structures for flight already existed in the small running theropods. We see the same things in ostriches today. They use their wings to control movement while running, and for lift.

If they were smaller, they could fly. So as usual, evolution didn't produce anything from nothing, it just modified things that were already there.

Surprise.

Think too, of those other animals which can swim, walk, crawl immediately they are born.

How is that possible?

Wired in. Genetically. Humans have a limited number of those too, such as the grasp reflex. And when a baby lacks one of those behaviors, it turns out to be a neurological deficit that relates to chemical/anatomical changes. Would you like some examples?

 

[lordkalvan]

The points are not fallacious at all.

Let's assume a first person to even speak.

First spkr ----------X ---Y----Z------> French speaker

In this case what has happened at X,Y,Z?

The language has developed. With every succeeding generation the ACQUIRED INFORMATION has been passed down - BUT NOT GENETICALLY.

As we know (or I suppose you do anyway), ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED.

Human beings CAN PASS INFORMATION DOWN - by word of mouth, by books and any other means we use, BUT NOT GENETICALLY.

Evos, like yourself and Barbarian - and I suppose the whole kit and kaboodle of you all - make this crass mistake.

There's Barbarian trying hard to sell us the quite foolish idea that some undefined ancestor of a bird, a reptile of some sort which learned how to fly (ha ha!), passed down that ACQUIRED INFORMATION into its descendant which just happened to be a bird.

So the bird could fly. Otherwise he falls into my trap posed by my famous little diagram:

Ancestor 1 (can't fly) -------X------>Bird (can fly)

What happened at X? (Or X1,X2,x3 etc etc).

Somewhere along that line, the flight instincts had to be created and enter the genome.

I said created, because they could not have evolved and that's for sure, because of the Lamarckian problem.

I trust that you do not deny the unassailable fact that there are such things as 'flight instincts'. I put up a list of items which a flying creature MUST be able to do, or will perish very swiftly once it appeared on the planet.

The problem is even more acute with the eels - because there is the barrier of death which must be overcome by the leptocephali immediately they're hatched.

Think too, of those other animals which can swim, walk, crawl immediately they are born.

How is that possible?

Those powering instincts are present in them from birth - learning is not an option. Neither is it an option with the Pacific Golden Plovers, for example. The parents fly off and leave them to follow to Hawaii from Alaska, a distance of some 2,800 miles.

No learning is possible, however much wishful thinking you care to indulge in.

So Lamarckism is the death-blow to evolution, when allied to my contention about the creation and heritability of instincts.

It's an analogy, Asyncritus, to help you grasp the idea, for example, that there was no more a first bird to fly from Hawaii to Alaska, never having flown anywhere else before, than there was a first person to speak French, never having spoken anything else before.

As far as eels are concerned, return to the relevant thread and respond to the arguments and points raised and questions asked there.