Difference between revisions of "Talk:Parasite"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→What?) |
(→What?: You're losing me. Clarifying.) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::::: When I said "learnt behaviour", I wasn't referring to behaviour ''taught'' to them by others, if that's what you are thinking. But you frequently use the word "behavior", saying that this would be "reinforced" and "developed". That is what I was referring to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT) | ::::: When I said "learnt behaviour", I wasn't referring to behaviour ''taught'' to them by others, if that's what you are thinking. But you frequently use the word "behavior", saying that this would be "reinforced" and "developed". That is what I was referring to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::::: I was referring to inherited behaviors, not learned, you will admit that behaviors are heritable I would imagine, seeing as how the behavior displayed seems to be instinctual. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT) | :::::: I was referring to inherited behaviors, not learned, you will admit that behaviors are heritable I would imagine, seeing as how the behavior displayed seems to be instinctual. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::::: Now you are losing me. Behaviour that is "developed" and "reinforced" is ''developed'' and ''reinforced'', not ''inherited''. You are talking about ''new'' behaviours (cleaner fish cleaning carnivorous fish instead of just herbivorous fish and carnivorous fish accepting cleaner fish), then presuming that these ''new'' behaviours would be passed on genetically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:35, October 11, 2008
Parasites and creationism:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1025symposium.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/viruses.asp
Conservative 14:47, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
What?
Why exactly would the cleaner have had to go from nothing to everything in one step? --Brendanw 18:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- What are you referring to? And if it didn't go in one step, you have the additional problem of explaining how half-formed structures would survive. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
- ‘All this had to be developed simultaneously [like the cleaner entering the big fish’s mouth at the same time the big fish suspends his 'normal' (post-Fall) habit of eating small fish], which as a mutation has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate drive in matter to perfect itself.' This is false, Scavenger shrimp and fish could have evolved the trait of picking debris off of herbivorous fish, then sick highly parasititised individuals of carnivorous fish coudl have been docile enough to attract cleaner shrimp. Of those sick carnivores those who let the cleaner finish would have been more likely to survive than those who ate the cleaners as soon as they could muster the strength, Then those who were just feeling itchy could have used the same behavior, the braver shrimp would have been getting more food and producing more offspring and the more docile fish would have lower parasite loads and be healthier. These behaviors would have reinforced each other and soon the shrimp would be getting closer and closer to the mouthes of the fish, then inside. These behaviors would develop simultaneously but over a long time.--Brendanw 16:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- One problem is that your argument presumes that learnt behaviours are passed on genetically, which is false. Philip J. Rayment 22:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- I'm sorry but I don't see where I mentioned learned behaviour at all, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that I didn't, if you can show me how learned behavior is implied I will change my position to avoid that obvious falsitude, but I'm pretty sure it isn't --Brendanw 10:48, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- When I said "learnt behaviour", I wasn't referring to behaviour taught to them by others, if that's what you are thinking. But you frequently use the word "behavior", saying that this would be "reinforced" and "developed". That is what I was referring to. Philip J. Rayment 19:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- I was referring to inherited behaviors, not learned, you will admit that behaviors are heritable I would imagine, seeing as how the behavior displayed seems to be instinctual. --Brendanw 19:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- Now you are losing me. Behaviour that is "developed" and "reinforced" is developed and reinforced, not inherited. You are talking about new behaviours (cleaner fish cleaning carnivorous fish instead of just herbivorous fish and carnivorous fish accepting cleaner fish), then presuming that these new behaviours would be passed on genetically. Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
- I was referring to inherited behaviors, not learned, you will admit that behaviors are heritable I would imagine, seeing as how the behavior displayed seems to be instinctual. --Brendanw 19:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- When I said "learnt behaviour", I wasn't referring to behaviour taught to them by others, if that's what you are thinking. But you frequently use the word "behavior", saying that this would be "reinforced" and "developed". That is what I was referring to. Philip J. Rayment 19:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- I'm sorry but I don't see where I mentioned learned behaviour at all, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that I didn't, if you can show me how learned behavior is implied I will change my position to avoid that obvious falsitude, but I'm pretty sure it isn't --Brendanw 10:48, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
- One problem is that your argument presumes that learnt behaviours are passed on genetically, which is false. Philip J. Rayment 22:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
- ‘All this had to be developed simultaneously [like the cleaner entering the big fish’s mouth at the same time the big fish suspends his 'normal' (post-Fall) habit of eating small fish], which as a mutation has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate drive in matter to perfect itself.' This is false, Scavenger shrimp and fish could have evolved the trait of picking debris off of herbivorous fish, then sick highly parasititised individuals of carnivorous fish coudl have been docile enough to attract cleaner shrimp. Of those sick carnivores those who let the cleaner finish would have been more likely to survive than those who ate the cleaners as soon as they could muster the strength, Then those who were just feeling itchy could have used the same behavior, the braver shrimp would have been getting more food and producing more offspring and the more docile fish would have lower parasite loads and be healthier. These behaviors would have reinforced each other and soon the shrimp would be getting closer and closer to the mouthes of the fish, then inside. These behaviors would develop simultaneously but over a long time.--Brendanw 16:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)