[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

String breaking & real Q's, sortta

Derek Tearne responded to my posting "Instinctual Genetic Retention";
>why do I have this irresistible urge to change the 
>subject line too 'Instinctual anal retention'?<
>If your premise is correct and all behavior is genetic in 
>origin then there would be no requirement for an animal to 
>learn anything from it's parents or from outside experience.<
>Many animals possess the ability to learn new behavior and to teach their
>offspring such learned behavior. <
>This alone is surely enough to show that inheritance alone is not enough.<

I wrote;  >I remain unconvinced of a scientific discreditation for
 "Instinctual genetic retention". <,  
 and I still feel so.

 I wrote,  >Those capable of adapting to change, and continue to reproduce,
by that action alone altered the genetic code. Both the ability to adapt, and
the ability to reproduce ensures genetic code is passed on which has a track
record of success.<.

Is that wrong? NO IT IS NOT! How does any species gain enough smarts to learn
something new, by reading his e-mail? Perhaps they get the ability to learn
from parents with the ability to learn, multiplied by untold generations.
Perhaps there is some magic involved, which springs forth spontaneously, and
a species just starts learning (or appears from no predecessor). I suppose
that's just how it works for some of us, and those individuals learn only
enough to be abusive and narrow minded in a quite too cruel world, as

"Stupid is as stupid does", has application.  You make your own calls, in
life, or you're a puppet. Just remember, genetics is a most complex science,
and we surely haven't 'learned' all the tricks it can play.  DNA, in and of
itself, is built to rearrange configuration infinitely.  It's a case of open
ended  formulas, with totally unpredictable results. Life isn't afraid of
failure, or we would not study dinosaurs.(:-)) 

I wrote;  >The point of the matter is success and traits unique to survival
are passed on, or evolution is as silly as the fiasco over human tracks in
the same rock formation as dinos.<

I don't remember writing that "IGR" was, or is, the sole cause of, or lack
of, learning. In fact I'm sure it has little to do with 'individual'
learning. I am saying there is a line of genetics which allow a species to
display unique behavior,talents,(ad infinitum.) and that line of success
doesn't appear, like the creationalist believe, from a lump of clay. To those
that retain little of what they read, and form opinions without reflection,
there is no doubt that the  human species has some messed up segments, and is
direct evidence of human evolutionary background. 

I am quite sure we didn't learn to tame fire by genetic retention, nor did
robins learn to catch worms under sprinklers as a result. However, the
ability to grasp these ideas didn't just happen like spring rain. The most
fit individuals survive, and reproduce offspring with similar, or better,
tools for survival. If there is an argument with that fact I cannot see a
place for it in logic. Or maybe Darwin and I have the whole concept of
evolution screwed up.

After all, we didn't climb down out of the trees one day and build a space
shuttle the next. It just seems that way.  On the other hand human infants
are born knowing how to swim, barely, so go figure.  The very 'net' we're
using is a result of our social nature genetics. However, the knowledge of
how to access it may have nothing to do with "IGR". The net is a campfire,
and this typing is our turn with the speaking stick. Excuses this waxing
poetic, but it fits. We're still biological beings with primal cores.

I am willing to drop this string here and now. I just don't feel the idea is
so far fetched when so much is yet to be learned about genetics. I do not
think"IGR" controls  every aspect of all behavior, but  I do feel it holds
direct influence over some important aspects of individual lives. I firmly
believe no individual, of any species, 'learns' without being born able to
learn. The touch of God's finger has nothing to do with it. 

My "instinct" tells me I have the right to be told I'm wrong in a civil
manner, and backed up with facts. Disagree all you like, I love it! In return
think before you dismiss me in ignorance. Prove me wrong and I'm not too
proud to admit it.   H---, I WAS an ordained Baptist PREACHER at one time,
and really BELIEVED all that "stuff"!    (Many years ago............   )  So
I've been way wrong before.(bad wrong!)

Now,finally, about dinosaurs.  I ask Again;
>Is there a possibility that some corprolites are misread and should be
similar to
 >owl pellets? ( you know what I mean). Anticorprolites, a new term. Dinosaur
Of the dinosaur predators that couldn't digest bones and claws, it was
capable of swallowing, could it have used a method such as regurgitation of a
pellet? If so is there a possibility of such having been discovered and
mis-ID'ed? Can neck bone fossils be interpreted to show muscles that worked
both ways? I've read the recent postings involving acids, and I wonder if
owls lack this acidic digestion? I wonder if there was species of dinosaur
that used the 'owl pellet' method?

Did the cow jump over the moon?    ;-)
Why did Jim Brown have to die in "The Dirty Dozen"?    :-[
How many shopping days 'til Christmas?    +*$(:<x|}  

 Before I could post my message this appeared on the list: Re- T rex eating
>I would think that these methods would produce quite different-looking
fossil remains of prey animals.  For example, articulated skeletons with
evidence of teeth scrapings on the bones would indicate that the carcass was
stripped; broken clumps of bone, or something resembling a giant fossil owl
pellet, would indicate one of the other methods.  Of course a given dino may
have used more than one method, or a modification such as hiding a prey item
until the flesh rotted sufficiently to be easily removed (as some crocodiles
do).              Ronald I. Orenstein  <




xx- |\/\/\/\/\/)

                                  -=xx x >                       \>>>>
                                               x >                /x |xx xx
                                                  x >             /x`??x  |
                                                     x >       / <  (x *+*_)
  (x *+*_)                 
sitting asciasaurus                           x  << RS53195\  \            \
     Typopod hellcreeki                            <>. .-..-..-...oxxxx
     .. oxxxx
       (Russ inspired)                                   <_/--. /      x vvv
       <_x vvv
"I ain't got time ta bleed!"
Oh, yeah?  * * * * Ya got time to duck?!"                Predator

Roger A. Stephenson 
Mac user-Pro Artist
Lightwaves Graphic Design Services
Morrilton, AR