|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution - Survival of the Least Appetizing
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 02. January 2003 14:22
Evolution - Survival of the Least Appetizing
If survival is your only goal, it sure helps to be inedible.
Assuming that you already possess..
A: A chemical producer (DNA)
and,
B: An effective delivery system (a circulatory system)
Then all one needs is a *single* random mutation to trigger the production of *any* horrible tasting (to the predator) chemical/protein that is non-lethal (to the host ). This chemical/enzyme (one of millions?) could even be somewhat damaging (devolutionary) to the host. This does not matter in Darwinian terms, as long as there is a net survival advantage for you and all of your horrible tasting children.
Perhaps I should provide an example of SLAP in action. Consider a population of one particular organism, say, rabbits. One of the elder rabbits has “suffered” a benign mutation causing the release of an unpalatable protein/enzyme/chemical into its bloodstream. This rabbit has had many offspring, many of which have inherited the mutation. A fox catches a rabbit and suffers a horrible shock when he tries to eat the rabbit. The fox then changes his diet to chicken. Unpalatable rabbits rule the earth. The advantageous Random Mutation has been retained by Natural Selection.
If biological super computers, such as human brains and dolphin brains are also “survival mechanisms” then why were these gratuitously complicated mechanisms chosen over such simple mechanisms? Surely complex mechanisms are considered Darwinistically valid only because of the assumed non-existence of any easier (more probable) way to survive. Darwinism, being bound by its probabilistic formulation, is required to consistently select the most probable means of survival over the long haul.
So, why are expensive generative (evolutionary) methods of survival being chosen over non-generative or degenerative (devolutionary) methods of survival?
It seems to me that ID evolution predicts generative methods of survival (brains, wings, etc.) whereas DE predicts non-generative (probabilistic) methods of survival -- including “survival of the least appetizing.”
This is because...
ID contains an inherent thrust toward structure (brains, wings, etc.)
DE contains no inherent thrust toward structure -- only toward survival.
Given that “being delicious” or “tasting good” is not a Darwinian survival advantage, it is a wonder that this state should exist at all (accept in certain limited symbiotic{non-Darwinian} relationships). While it is certainly to our survival benefit to think that food tastes good (when it does not?) a competitive Darwinian situation at this level would produce an olfactory signal jamming situation in which countless successful bad tastes must be endlessly and meticulously re-mapped to "good" tastes. I am not aware of any such competitive re-mapping war and I am not aware of any nasty chemicals in foods that would require such re-mapping. Everyone, including Darwinists! seem to assume that great tasting food is normal!?
Thus my question for Darwinism is:
Why has "the struggle to survive" failed to translate into "a struggle to eat"?
I am certainly aware that some plants and animals are poisonous. Becoming poisonous, however, is a different matter, and bit of trick in itself. One has to become poisonous after all, without poisoning oneself. The THDP Tasting Horrible Defense Plan, on the other hand, does not put ones own life at risk,
it merely discourages one from sucking one’s thumb (or becoming a cannibal).
Considering the simplicity of this mechanism one would expect horrible taste to be at least as common as the immune system. The immune system is far more complex and certainly cannot be produced by a single mutation. One could imagine a slightly more complex system, similar to the immune system, that would release an unpleasant chemical only when the organism was threatened.
The skunk, of course, comes to mind in this regard. This however does not solve the problem. Selection should be acting upon all predator/prey relationships where the predator has olfactory senses and freedom to select another (more palatable) food source. Any biochemical organism, by virtue of its very existence as a biochemical organism, is automatically set up for the use of biochemical warfare as a means to its survival. Any organism that abandons its default “natural” advantage, choosing instead to take up, say, “applied aeronautics” would seem to be “flying on its own” and bereft of any Darwinian justification.
It also seems to me that “Survival of the Least Appetizing” being derived entirely from RM&NS should be a ground state aspect of “The Survival of the Fittest.” This is because the word “fittest” in this context does not mean “healthy” “muscle bound” or “great tasting” but simply means “suitably designed for survival and reproduction within a given environment.” I am subsequently offering SLAP in order to complete the Darwinian model. I should also perhaps mention that even though I am an ID’st, SLAP is not ID, SLAP is RM&NS. It must therefore be taught at schools -- it’s the law! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This, however, is just a brainstrorm and I am more physicist than biologist so perhaps I have overlooked something?
Happy New Year!
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 03. January 2003 01:14
How is survival of the least appetizing different from 'survival of the fittest'? In other words how would you suggest that SLAP competes with Darwinian theory?
As far as appetizing is concerned there are a large variety of possibilities, ranging from extremely well tasting (subjectively of course), to foul tasting to poisonous.
Some organisms have chose other means to become 'unappetizing' such as the cactus or other thorny plants.
May I interpret your smiley face as 'tongue in cheek'?
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 03. January 2003 08:07
I wouldn't be too hasty with the firm ground of “Survival of the Least Appetizing”. There are after all, many examples (too numerous to list here) of "Survival of the Most Appetizing" as well, fruit comes to mind as an example (apples need to be eaten so they can survive).
One of the problems (noted by many), with Survival of the Fittest is it's plasticity, it has the ability to explain anything and everything, because whatever's here is the fittest, and the fittest is whatever's here you see.......................................Cre8
[ 03. January 2003, 08:09: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 03. January 2003 12:18
Survival of the fittest may not be able to explain anything, nor is fittest that poorly defined either. Perhaps Endler's book may be of help to those who believe that fitness is poorly defined or too flexible. And what is wrong with flexibility anyway if it works...
And 'survival of the fittest' aka natural selection is a powerful and succesful mechanism.
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 03. January 2003 14:19
Hi Francis, Crea8,
The following is what I would expect to see from a purely materialistic standpoint is regarding food sources.
Competitive Darwinian - Survival of the least appetizing
Co-operative symbiotic - Survival of the most appetizing
A symbiotic relationship is something like the following:
The bear eats the berries. The berries contain seeds. The bear receives nourishment. The seeds are spread far and wide by the movement of the bear. The seeds benefit from being spread. Both sides win. The relationship is "symbiotic."
While I certainly recognize the existence of symbiotic relationships (Survival of the MOST appetizing) I had restricted my attention, in my initial post, to the orthodox Darwinian idea of competitive relationships (Survival of the fittest). From a purely material perspective I would expect both SLAp and SMAp and to be, at this time, highly evolved. This is not what I see in the case of SLAp. To me this indicates that something is derailing SLAP evolution. Perhaps SLAp does not work very well because there is a more fundamental (but as yet unrecognized) symbiosis at work here.
I also have some questions about SMAp because this process could lead to addiction on the part of the bear. It wasn't my intention to ask these questions at this time however.
My question was why has "the struggle to survive" (in the competitive predator/prey model) failed to translate into "the struggle to eat?"
It also seems to me that our experience with these two (SLAp+SMAp) divergently (?) evolving food sources/systems is not very divergent.
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 03. January 2003 14:45
I think your theory has potential. I can’t imagine anything more unappetizing (literally—although I do find many women quite appetizing) then a human being. Maybe that’s why sharks bite and spit humans? Survival of the “fittest” then becomes a matter of taste. And, as I understand from the food industry, there are some “objective” standards of “taste,” at least for humans. Maybe this is a theory that can be extended on the basis of existing results?
IP: Logged
|
|
William Brookfield
Member
Member # 565
|
posted 06. January 2003 18:10
Hi Janitor,
I am not sure what sharks like to eat but I always assumed they were happy to eat the odd human. I do seem to remember a story about a shark biting and spitting a human who was wearing a wet-suit (rubber suit = bad taste?).
According to the Discovery Channel sharks are attracted to human blood;
"Do not enter the water if bleeding from an open wound or if menstruating; a shark's olfactory ability is acute."
And so are bears...
"Menstruating women should be extra careful. Bears may be attracted to them." - Camping Safety Tips.
We may have to face the possibility that God made us delicious. But hey, I am OK with that.
-------------------------------------------------
I think my basic idea might be clarified as follows:
As I understand it, Darwinism is a materialistic theory. Given that this is the case, then the fox is victorious, *not* when the rabbit is dead. The fox is only victorious when the biochemical *material* that once was the rabbit, has been successfully digested and turned into *fox-material*.
Because chemistry does not cease to function with the death of the rabbit, the rabbit species is in a very good position to (in one way or another) booby trap the rabbit's chemistry -- to "use" RM&NS DNA bio-chemical warfare to take out the fox (and thereby preserve rabbits). Because the predator is always forced to eat its enemy, it is in a very vulnerable position.
On the rabbit-DNA side, it is easier to deal in ones native language (chemical in this case). This is because translation always represents a *second* step that would not otherwise exist.
The use of existing structures (again a one step process) as a defense mechanism also seems more probable than the building of new structures for use as a defense mechanism (two or *more* step process). It is also much easier to dump chemicals (into the blood stream) than to assign to countless chemicals specific construction tasks. It is hard to invent. It is much easier to just vent.
I think we can refer to my initial SLAp as “mild SLAP and poisoning as “hard SLAP” with a linear continuum between the two. All such defenses being chemical, are effective post-mortem.
If post-mortem SLAP type mechanisms *do* work then both pre-mortem natural selection and post-mortem natural selection should be constantly operative and productive. If 500 million years of pre-mortem RM&NS produces wondrous and complex things (legs, ears, eyes motor skills, brains etc..) but (the far more simple and effective) post-mortem RM&NS produces not even a single repellent/defense chemical then something seems wrong with the picture...or at least it does to me.
So,
If the real story of the fox and rabbit is about the individuals (the "souls") then when the rabbit dies, the "war" is *over* and foxes (and humans) can then eat in *peace*.
If, however, the real story is about a war between the fox and rabbit as Darwinian bio-chemical *material* units. Then the war is not over until the *material* rabbit has been successfully processed and assimilated by the fox. A fight to the end, with defenses throughout provided by RM&N-Selection.
The utter absence of any SLAP-type defense mechanism in such long term predator/prey relationships suggests to me the validity of the former scenario over the later. Taste is a chemical reaction and DNA sure seems handy with chemicals - handy enough to take itself to the moon and back. What was that line again? "One small step for man -- one giant leap for DNA." That’s right, DNA - "The little acid that could" -- from the inspiring children's book of the same name. That's pretty good for an acid. I'm keeping an eye on my car battery. DNA, has its astronautic meat puppets out there prancing around on surface of the moon but it has yet to figure out how to strategically rig rabbit meat? Or a human meat for that matter. While we are presently at no significant risk from predation, this is certainly not true of our evolutionary history. What right have we got to be scrumptious?
What about the fate of the foxes that turned to eating chicken (and various other foods)? Well, as luck would have it there came a long harsh winter with nothing much to eat. Lots of inedible rabbits, but nothing to eat. A few of these foxes found that they could, only just, choke down some rabbit. Only these few foxes found sufficient strength from this "new" food source to survive the winter. These hardier foxes then spawned a new type of fox that could, with a *struggle*, eat rabbit and survive in a pinch. In this case, now the prediction has come true. The struggle to survive has indeed translated into the struggle to eat. The predator/prey fox/rabbit relationship is now truly Darwinian and truly miserable. Given a functioning SLAP in *all* food sources now (rabbit, chicken etc.) all of the predator/prey relationships become utterly miserable and life is hell, because of course, war *is* hell.
Ah, but only for carnivores. Omnivores like humans can always eat berries, apples and few other symbiotic things. And thank God for ketchup! (tomato’s are symbiotic too, I think)
In summation: In a competitive Darwinian war of chemical-factories-on-legs, chemical defenses are in the vernacular. SLAp mechanisms (the release of unpalatable chemicals) are extremely simple and require no extra construction for initial delivery and benefit to the organism. Just the simple defense of “running away” requires an enormous amount of coordinated structure, motion and ongoing electro-chemical guidance. Such coordination is unneeded as part of a SLAP defense mechanism. Given its specifications, SLAP appears to be an ideal Darwinian survival mechanism -- a lucky accident just waiting to happen.
With the profound absence of SLAP in the real world, I remain convinced that something fundamental is missing in the present Darwinian model. There is nothing in Darwinism that specifies that the flesh of an organism must be easily re-usable by its “enemy” to nurture and strengthen its “enemy.” Yet some specification of this nature seems to exist in the natural world. In spite all of the surface competition and miraculous ingenuity, we live in a gratuitously edible world.
Note: I am not saying that all plants and animals are edible to each other. I am only saying that there exist enormous *windows* of edibilty that RM&NS should have closed ages ago. As far as I can tell...
By the way, I have eaten rabbit and it was very much like chicken.
Francis
quote:
How is survival of the least appetizing different from 'survival of the fittest'? In other words how would you suggest that SLAP competes with Darwinian theory?
My point is that SLAp does *not* compete with Darwinian theory. SLAp *is* Darwinian theory. SLAp competes with Darwinian theory by its gratuitous absence in long term predator/prey relationships that are claimed to be Darwinian.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. January 2003 12:15
William
quote:
My point is that SLAp does *not* compete with Darwinian theory. SLAp *is* Darwinian theory. SLAp competes with Darwinian theory by its gratuitous absence in long term predator/prey relationships that are claimed to be Darwinian
I still fail to see the relevance/problem of your SLAp theory. There is nothing in Darwinian theory that should make an organism edible/tasty but there is nothing in Darwinian theory that prohibits this either. In fact I would argue that the common origins of life would suggest that from a nutritional perspective, organisms provide 'higher organisms' with the necessary nutrition.
Darwinian 'selection/mutation' has led in many instances to examples where the competitive nature led to becoming less 'appetizing' either through morphological changes or chemical changes or through mimicry but Darwinian theory does not require life to become unappetizing in fact one may predict that there should be a happy intermediate where life can still be appetizing enough for all to survive without leading to the threat of extinction to most. And Darwinian theory does not require mutations to arise that would make one less appetizing but when they arise, Darwinian theory does predict that if there is a selective advantage then these mutations will become fixed.
quote:
The utter absence of any SLAP-type defense mechanism in such long term predator/prey relationships suggests to me the validity of the former scenario over the later.
But there are plenty SLAP type defenses in addition to other 'defenses' which increase the survivability of the prey. Camouflage, speed are but some of the examples that come to mind.
So I do not understand your objections.
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 09. January 2003 20:29
A few thoughts on SLAP:
1 If some prey species is merely distasteful, but otherwise wholesome; i.e. it is not poisonous, then any predator will have a distinct advantage if it mutates to find the particular bad tasting chemical less distasteful. In time the predator may not be able to taste the chemical at all or even find it appetising. Thus a simple distastefulness will disappear over time as the predators get used to the taste the prey will not gain any advantage from the energy expended making the chemical.
2 If the prey is both poisonous and distasteful then there is no advantage for the predator in not tasting the chemical. Predators with mutations making the taste less nasty will tend to eat more poison: not generally good for survival and reproduction. However if the predator has evolved some immunity to the poison then it can also start to eat more of the prey without ill effects and hence mutations for finding the chemical less distasteful will be favoured. Many poisonous animals or plants have predators who are immune to their poison. We have to presume that such predators do not find their prey distasteful. However the poisonous species will probably still be distasteful to other predators not immune to the poison.
3 There are many other ways to make yourself inedible: spikes, armour, camouflage, run fast, get very big, get very small and hide, go nocturnal, dig holes and so on. Trying too many of these will waste too much energy that could otherwise be used for reproducing. Undirected evolution is not systematic. All of these strategies, and more, will be tried by different species.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 09. January 2003 23:08
quote:
1 If some prey species is merely distasteful, but otherwise wholesome; i.e. it is not poisonous, then any predator will have a distinct advantage if it mutates to find the particular bad tasting chemical less distasteful. In time the predator may not be able to taste the chemical at all or even find it appetising. Thus a simple distastefulness will disappear over time as the predators get used to the taste the prey will not gain any advantage from the energy expended making the chemical.
I believe William already addressed this. The prey would then modify it's chemical make-up in reaction to the predator's modification. The result should be predator/prey relationships in which all prey continually manages to be at least slightl dis-tasteful.
Regarding other defensive mechanism's discussed (speed, size, shells, etc), William has also pointed out that all other defensive mechanisims are drastically more sophisticated than a chemical change. The idea is that chemical distastefulness should evolve early, depressing the selective pressure to evolve complex defensive mechanisims later.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 10. January 2003 00:16
Irving
quote:
The idea is that chemical distastefulness should evolve early, depressing the selective pressure to evolve complex defensive mechanisims later.
Why do you think that chemical distastefulness is less complex than evasion, camouflage, vision etc? It may very well be that making oneself distasteful would require some major reworkings of the internal biochemical system. Given that life is related, it is not surprising that the nutritional values of other life can often be very 'tasteful'.
Some perspectives
The science of taste and smell: insights from an evolutionary perspective
Or Some butterflies have evolved the ability to store poisonous chemicals from the food plants they eat as caterpillars, thus becoming distasteful and then Three-butterfly system provides a field test of müllerian mimicry
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 10. January 2003 07:04
Frances,
quote:
Why do you think that chemical distastefulness is less complex than evasion, camouflage, vision etc? It may very well be that making oneself distasteful would require some major reworkings of the internal biochemical system.
It may; however, we know that mechanisims like speed and vision, etc... definitely require major reworkings of biochemical systems. Granted it is an assumption, but not an unreasonable one to assume that dis-tastefulness is easier to engineer than speed.
Besides butterflys, there are also frogs that secrete poison. So it's is not something that can't appear in life. It just doesn't seem to appear enough.
Thanks for the link. However, it only looks at the issue from the predator perspective. William's insight here is to brainstorm from the prey perspective.
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 10. January 2003 10:57
Irving writes:
quote:
It may; however, we know that mechanisims like speed and vision, etc... definitely require major reworkings of biochemical systems. Granted it is an assumption, but not an unreasonable one to assume that dis-tastefulness is easier to engineer than speed.
'Distastefulness' is probably easier to circumvent and doesn't really move an organism into another niche. The fact is, there are many potential 'solutions' to ecological arms races. And remember, being eaten isn't the only pressure out there. Even if you aren't worried about being eaten (elephants are an example) there is still competition in other arenas for limited resources.
Given that being tasty is just one 'dimension' in the multidimensional 'selection space' against which organisms can only find temporary, imperfect solutions, I think the original premise is too simplistic to reach any conclusions about the relative abundance of 'distasteful' species in the world. In a word: GIGO. The world has far more relevant variables than the model assumes.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 10. January 2003 16:13
Argon Writes:
quote:
Given that being tasty is just one 'dimension' in the multidimensional 'selection space' against which organisms can only find temporary, imperfect solutions, I think the original premise is too simplistic to reach any conclusions about the relative abundance of 'distasteful' species in the world. In a word: GIGO. The world has far more relevant variables than the model assumes.
Indeed. I'm not drawing "conclusions," there isn't enough here...yet. Of course ANY attribute (by itself)in a complex model is too simplistic to draw final conclusions. But we can't just throw all the attributes out because individually they're too simplistic. So while we can't draw final conclusions about evolution from dis-tastefulness, we shouldn't ignore it either.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 10. January 2003 16:39
Argon again:
quote:
Given that being tasty is just one 'dimension' in the multidimensional 'selection space' against which organisms can only find temporary, imperfect solutions, I think the original premise is too simplistic to reach any conclusions about the relative abundance of 'distasteful' species in the world.
Well put! I think this thread illustrates the scientific futility of the Darwinian "just-so story", what with the IDists speaking facetiously and the methodological materialists trying to be serious. Imaginative story telling gets us nowhere.
Those who want Darwinism to be true must demonstrate that random incremental change and selection can increase information. Should they be able to do this, which is doubtful, it still does not follow that everyone would opt for their explanation. First we'd have to ask what kind of odds the materialists are up against, and then we'd want to weigh this against the fact that we already know that intelligence easily increases information (ex nihilo).
We need not compute the odds of design because this is already a live option.
Of course those who insist that intelligence supervenes on chance and necessity -- that there is nothing to it that is truly elemental -- those people will automatically demand a materialist theory of origins. Still, they will have to demonstrate (mathematically and empirically) that chance and necessity can do the job within the time alloted by cosmic and geologic history. They will also need to come up with a convincing theory of mind.
Theories of origin and theories of mind cannot be separated -- should the methodological materialist and IDist come to agreement on the one we should expect them to be able to reach agreement on the other.
[ 10. January 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Noel Rude ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic