Lions and natural selection

[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 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 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.

[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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
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....

---

I explained it. The best father lion would be one who is not only containing good genes, but also one who is young enough to defend the cubs, tribe, mate.. etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
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.

---

I believe if anyone studies the Bible's without limiting themselves to any other beliefs of origin they will find the Bible's teachings are clear.I might site myself as an example. 5 years ago I didn't know there were people such as creationists who supported genesis scientifically. However I read the Bible and came to the conclusion that the world was only 6-10 thousand years. I could go on, but I'm not really trying to get down a rabbit hole away from the topic.

So are we done fella's?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Really I thought this was evolution v`s creation not bible study monthly hence precisely the place

---

And I will save this quote for the very next time I see someone attacking the Bible. [b] [QUOTE] where I should point out that your idea of what ToE postulates makes you look ridiculous......[/b][/QUOTE]I must confess I'm unimpressed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
There are a few things you are apparently unfamiliar with re: lions.

---

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

[b] [QUOTE] Consider two hypothetical populations of lions, A & B. In population A, lions do not kill cubs (of other predators). In population B, they do. In population B, there is less competition for food, & more food, in the form of cubs. This behaviour is selected for, as it increases the likelihood of the survival of the genes responsible for the behaviour in the first place. In this case, it’s probably just an existing trait, they routinely go for young of their normal prey species, again, easy meat, just that predator cubs bring extra advantages.
Now, in population A, this doesn’t happen, no gene is selected for, so NS doesn’t occur. [/b][/QUOTE]Why didn’t both A and B develop the trait of going for the cubs of other species? You offer up several good reasons why it would develop. I can’t see why both wouldn’t develop the same trait. However, I think your basis is random mutation. In that, you believe randomly one pride of lions received the new instinct and the other didn’t. [b] [QUOTE] In answer to your question, where did the ancestral behaviour come from (to coin my own phrase), genetic evidences collectively suggest that the raw material of differing information, & therefore differing behaviour, is mutation, that changed the expression of a protein ultimately responsible for feeding behaviour, meaning that the lion would target other species cubs, that new allele would then be subject to natural selection. This fixed allele was built upon a shed load of other fixed alleles. [/b][/QUOTE]This is really the answer I was looking for, and I think ultimately the only saving grace one could hope for taking strictly TOE to answer this question I presented. I think this debate boils down to what limitations each of us set on mutations based on our own worldviews. I think once I have found the time to catch up on my other active threads I will post a new thread and we will compare each of our views on mutation and what evidence we have to support them.