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?

​

---

Hum...somehow,i sense that this is not just academic curiosity...trying to point out that lion now kill the cubs they encounter as a result of man sinning are we perhaps? But to answer your question,all animals have in them the instinctive drive to procreate but that drive is always individual. Meaning,the lion from your exemple does not think in term of his species survival but in terms of HIS survival through his progeny and anything that gets in the way of this is a threat...even other cubs of his own species. If the male wants to procreate and encounters a female with cubs,his natural instinct is to get rid of the cubs of another lion so she'll bear HIS cubs,thus insuring the survival of HIS progeny. As for when this started,it probably did with the advent of life on earth. It is unlikely that there ever was a time when a lion would not have acted this way. Thats the basic tenet of survival through natural selection. Thankfully,humans are not ALWAYS like that...

I think you are approaching this from a wrong perspective. The lion of your exemple does not elaborate a strategy. He doesn't sit in some corner,thinking about where he's gonna find his next conquest and what he'll do if she happens to have kids. All of what he does is instinctive reactions. Some lions do kill the cubs of prospective mates to facilitate the continuation of their genes but yet other actually adopt the cubs they encounter,though its much more rare. I dont believe that anyone actually thought up this behaviour for lions or any other animals. I believe that it developed on its own when the first creature that was faced with this situation on earth acted this way. From an evolutionary perspective,its conceivable that even microbes did the same at some point before they evolved into more complex(read bigger) life forms

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
You see, this is still not an answer to the question. Ok lets consider the very first microbes that acted this way. Now, keep in mind you believe they didn't think up this strategy. How did the microbes develope this behavior? What I want to know is what situation do you believe it was faced with and how did that situation force it's reaction to be this behavior?

​

---

they would have developed this behaviour as a reaction to the situation they faced. Animals will always takes the simplest route to a solution and killing the cubs of a prospective mate is much simpler than going off to atempt to find another mate. Its an instinctive mechanism which can be observed in all animals with very few exceptions. Aside from this,i dont know that you're driving at exactly with this. If you say that you believe that this behaviour was the result of a programation done by God that was then corrupted by man's sin,then i say great...go on believing that. But that belief exists in a compelte void,meaning that its not substanciated by any evidence,either physical,mathematical or otherwise.

And i keep answering you...the science,for all we know is that they were faced with the situation at one point and began reacting this way. As to the why they knew,we can only speculate that lions have an instinctive understanding of how female members of their species function,since they share so many common genes. Of course,there might be a whole other set of reasons for it which,i,not being a zoologist by trade,may not be aware of. And yes,there might even be some theological implications here as well...i think we dont know enough to completely rule them out yet but we certainly know enough not to jump to the "goddidit" solution before all other venues have been explored.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Ok, so you don't know.

​

---

Actually,no one "knows" anything about the past that we did not witness. The only thing we have to go on is the evidence left by this past which we see today and the good old (and quite reliable) law of probability thinking(i.e. is it likely or unlikely?). And based on this,we can conclude with an acceptable degree of certainty that lions developed this instinct based on many environemental and inbreed factors and one nearly absolute truth common to most creatures...individual survival instinct. Now,is this proof of intelligent design or evolution through chance? well,your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's...

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I think it's pretty easy to see when you really think about it.

​

---

Well i suppose that its easy for YOU to see a designer behind this since you tackled the issue with prior ABSOLUTELY UNSHAKABLE CONVICTION that there is a designer behind it...hence,without the benefit of an open mind. I dont discount the possibility that you may be right and that at some level there was some design. But neither the evidence at hand nor I agree with you on which level this possible design took place. You seem to be convinced that this design took place 6152 years ago in the garden of Eden during a 6 day period and completely reject all other POV as a matter of course because of your dogmatic belief in the Bible. I,on the other hand,give this particular notion very little credit because there's virtually no evidence to support it but i stop short of saying that its impossible and am content with simply saying its unlikely.

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.

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.