But it is my contention that some of those behaviours and reflexs are "hardwired" into the brain and that the "wiring" is encoded in the genes.
Then you say something very strange, because the stimuli that cause the responses cannot be 'hardwired'.
The genes were and are being manipulated in experiments.
I've refreshed my memory of these experiments, and you seem to be right. The experiments where fruitflies were made with legs on their heads were manipulations of so called 'Hox genes'.
But it still is not a good example of genes programmatically directing development. Just because genes have a strong effect does not show that they are in any way similar to programs.
Please present a source of information which supports this statement.
I don't think I have to. I think it is quite obvious. There are some 100 000 million neurons in the brain, far more than those 3 000 million base pairs, most of them junk DNA. Far more than the 30 000 genes. And then there is the huge number of interconnections between all those neurons, which must be somewhere in the gazillions. There is simply no way to describe the complexity of the brain in something that is as small as DNA.
Are you saying that it is the brain itself that determins it's structure?
Yes, I am.
How did that brain knowhow to organize itself if it is not from the genetic information?
It doesn't need to know how. It just develops from the many influences that work on it. And yes, that includes genetic influences.
it seems to me that 3 billion base pairs may encode quite a bit of genetic information.
It doesn't seem so much if you realise that most of those base pairs do not carry any genetic information at all. And you should also realise that you need an awful lot of base pairs to encode some ordinary proteins.
So you can get quite a bit of "information" from just a few protiens.
You should realise that since some genes result in many different proteins, the structure of many proteins is not encoded in the genes, but instead a cell uses those genes to produce the proteins it needs as a reaction to inside or outside stimuli. It nicely shows that genes do not play a leading role in protein production, but are instead just one of the many factors that make it possible.
It is the genes that determin the structure of our organs.
No, it isn't. The thing you quoted specifically says that it can be modified by environmental factors. And it also puts "program" between quotes. Probably because the person who wrote it knows what a misleading term it can be.
And that physical structure is determined by our genes
Strongly influenced, not determined. There is a difference.
Environment does affect embryonic development But it is the genes that determins the structure.
You contradict yourself. If the environment affects the development of the structure of an embryo, then it can't be that genes determine that structure. For your statement to make logical sense, you'll have to chose whether you think the environment determines the structure, or the genes do, or that both have an effect on it, but neither one ultimately determines the structure.
It is the genes that says that the embryo will have two legs, two arms, a brain, etc. and what structure that organisim will eventualy have.
In some cases, an embryo develops differently without having a different genome.
Note how she says that genes are involved in behaiviour.
Note also that she doesn't say that behaviours are programmatically determined by genes.
But some of those behaviours are encoded in the genes.
Which ones?
The fact remains that DNA is an organised pattern or sequence.
That says nothing about behaviours being encoded in it.
It is a fact that DNA sequences determin the physical characteristics of an organisim.
"Strongly influence", not "determine". There is still a difference.
It is being discovered that certain behaviours can be encoded in those sequences.
No, it isn't. What is being discovered that some genes have a strong influence on behaviour. But so do environmental factors such as nutrition.
They are already born with the behaviour and the web pattern. What they have to do is to adapt the web to it's environment.
I don't believe that they are born with that web pattern. I don't even think they have any notion of a pattern of their web, even if they already made it. I think they developed some reflexive behaviours when they grew in their egg, and when they are outside it, adapt those behaviours to their environment. And that's exactly what I meant when I said that they figure out web weaving all by themselves in interaction with their environment.
The pattern of the web does not need to be encoded anywhere, because the spider does not need to know it.
But not always successful.
It's not always successful with humans either. I'd even say it hardly ever was.
Are you related to Shanek? He always drags them into every discussion about animals as well.
A lion tamer does not so much "teach" a lion as he does conditioning lion behaiviour.
That's the same thing.
Domesticated dogs will revert back to wolf behaiviour when left in the wild.
I doubt that. There may be some behaviours still similar in some breeds, but overall wolf and dog behaviours in the wild are quite distinct.
and would you have the neccessary space to do it.
Of course we would have enough space. Zoos around the world show that you can house animals in much smaller habitats than in the wild, even if you give them enough space for them to be comfortable in. Predators often have large territories, but the size of these is mostly determined by how many prey animals are in it. If you have some highly efficient meat factories, you can make sure the predators never have to worry about food again and they will likely feel comfortable in territories that are much smaller than the space they need now.
Predators and prey tend occupy the same ecosystem would there be enough room for everyone?
I see no reason why there shouldn't be.
How far would have to manipulate the earth's environmental systems?
As far as people are willing to go.
What would be the consequences?
Whatever people are willing to accept.
But isn't more sensible to protect the house (and more importantly, the occupants) rather than porposefully altering the weather system?
Yes, with present day technology. But when it becomes possible to change the weather, many people will think it is preferable to change it then to try to protect all those houses.
Is it moral to disrupt a natural system?
A lot of people think it is moral to disrupt a whole lot of natural systems. That's all that matters.
By what standard do we say that this disrupted system has improved?
By whatever standards people might chose to use.
Species displace other species all the time in nature.
The species that by far displaces the most other species is homo sapiens. It also has the peculiar characteristic that it doesn't want to displace other species and wants to prevent other species from going extinct. Maybe it is silly for caring about other animals, and it shouldn't worry about driving them to extinction. But that's just its 'nature' I guess.
But we would certainly lose even more species as we make mistakes while trying to understand and experiment with the extremely complex system.
So you are saying that conservation leads to more extinction than not caring about the effects humans have on the environment?
Have you ever heard the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
Yes, I have. I think it hardly means that every possible road paved with good intentions necessarily leads to hell.
And would ending predation really end suffering?
It would end one specific kind of suffering.
There are many other sources of suffering in the animal world than just predation.
Could you name a few that could not solve in a very similar way?
Have you read Isaac Asimov's I robot series?
No, I haven't.
The AI take over mankind without man ever realizing it.
I'd say that might be inevitable, whatever we do. I think it can even be argued that machines are in many ways already our masters, and they aren't even particularly AI.
