09-09-2010, 04:18 PM
Hi,
I have no theory of evolution. I simply follow what I understand from popularizations and Science News. Heck, I've never even had a good course in biology.
Yes. How much of this is learned behavior, how much genetics? How well established is it that the cheetah doesn't go for the flamboyant gazelle? What if the behavior is rewarded by protecting the genetic line somehow? Perhaps by getting the cheetah to chase an animal he can't catch? Or, perhaps, by causing the slower young to be eaten before they can reproduce?
My point is that the behavior can be observed and reported (although that is often poorly done, consider the lion and the hyena). But to assign that behavior 'purpose' is a tricky thing. Especially since, at the genetic level, there is no purpose. Just success or failure.
The premise is reasonable. So are many others. When somebody states a reasonable premise as 'the explanation', then that is wrong. Of course, the more common thing is that a person's speculations are reported, after having passed through a few sets of ears, as a definite fact.
Related aside: it appears that dogs and humans are genetically attracted to each other. The proposed reason is that dogs who got along well with humans and humans who got along well with dogs helped each other, especially in the hunt, and so out-breed those that didn't get along. The first sentence is a fact (almost), the second is a speculation. Maintaining that distinction is a basis for science.
--Pete
(09-09-2010, 12:45 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: I think you are mistaken. Regardless of your theory of evolution, . . .
I have no theory of evolution. I simply follow what I understand from popularizations and Science News. Heck, I've never even had a good course in biology.
Quote:. . . there is constant communication between prey and hunter. The prey that manages to communicate that it less likely to be worth the energy spent to catch it is most likely to survive.
Yes. How much of this is learned behavior, how much genetics? How well established is it that the cheetah doesn't go for the flamboyant gazelle? What if the behavior is rewarded by protecting the genetic line somehow? Perhaps by getting the cheetah to chase an animal he can't catch? Or, perhaps, by causing the slower young to be eaten before they can reproduce?
My point is that the behavior can be observed and reported (although that is often poorly done, consider the lion and the hyena). But to assign that behavior 'purpose' is a tricky thing. Especially since, at the genetic level, there is no purpose. Just success or failure.
Quote:Behaviour (like stotting) that communicates this is hence more likely to permit the prey to survive long enough to procreate. Now, it may be that the stotting serves some other purpose, but the premise is reasonable.
The premise is reasonable. So are many others. When somebody states a reasonable premise as 'the explanation', then that is wrong. Of course, the more common thing is that a person's speculations are reported, after having passed through a few sets of ears, as a definite fact.
Related aside: it appears that dogs and humans are genetically attracted to each other. The proposed reason is that dogs who got along well with humans and humans who got along well with dogs helped each other, especially in the hunt, and so out-breed those that didn't get along. The first sentence is a fact (almost), the second is a speculation. Maintaining that distinction is a basis for science.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?