nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→What?: Behaviour or mutations?
::::::: 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)
::::::: 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)
::::::::If you assume that there is a vengeful God who destroys all positive mutations then new behaviors cannot be evolved and reinforced. One or two genes can mutate in a small way and produce an organism that feels a stronger compulsion to be calm and get cleaned than an organism that does not have those mutations, an organism who had evolved the new behavior known as "getting cleaned occasionally" could give rise to a lineage that eventually wanted to get cleaned more and did it better (developed a more complex and effective behavior, through mutation and selection)this would be happening at the same time as the cleaners became better cleaners (The behavior would co evolve and an advance in one woud open up the field for an advance in the other, increasing the selective pressure) --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::If you assume that there is a vengeful God who destroys all positive mutations then new behaviors cannot be evolved and reinforced. One or two genes can mutate in a small way and produce an organism that feels a stronger compulsion to be calm and get cleaned than an organism that does not have those mutations, an organism who had evolved the new behavior known as "getting cleaned occasionally" could give rise to a lineage that eventually wanted to get cleaned more and did it better (developed a more complex and effective behavior, through mutation and selection)this would be happening at the same time as the cleaners became better cleaners (The behavior would co evolve and an advance in one woud open up the field for an advance in the other, increasing the selective pressure) --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I ''don't'' assume that there is a vengeful God who destroys all positive mutations. I believe, on the basis of scientific observation, that there are no such things as ''information-gaining'' mutations, but that there are a few ''information-losing'' mutations that are beneficial in the right circumstances.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268/] But we are not talking about the latter here.
::::::::: The statement you considered false was rejecting the idea of simultaneous ''mutations'', apparently by arguing that they are learnt ''behaviours''. Now to return to claiming ''mutations'' that are essentially ''simultaneous'', as both the cleaner fish and their symbiotic species both need to acquire these mutations at the same time.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:32, 12 October 2008 (EDT)