Ok I think I see the point of contention here. You have a problem with the word "program" being applied literaly in refrenece to genes. Obviously the term"program" is used in an analogous refrence. The only point I have to add here is that morphogenesis clearly states that it is the genes which contains the genetic information by which the embryonic cells, which are initialy undifferentiated, become organs. In that instance the genes are analgous to a computer program in which a pattern of 1's and 0's are processed into something like an image on a monitor screen. The nucleotide patterns tells the cell what it will become and what its function will be (This is clearly stated in morphogenesis). Environment enters into this proccess via evolutionary forces (i.e. mutation and viability.)
Then you say something very strange, because the stimuli that cause the responses cannot be 'hardwired'.
That is not what I'm saying at all. The reflex action is hardwired.
Your natural reaction to having a source of pain placed in contact with you is to retract from it. The higher levels of your brain are not involved the processe. There is no concious thought involved. The process only involves the lower levels of your brain. What popularly refered to as the limbic system. That's why some coma patients react to stimuli. It is what the body has been designed by evolution to do in response to certain stimuli. That system is built in to the organisim. These are reactions that not learned. An infant crys whern it is hungry, the infant suckles when it is feeding. It did not have to learn how to do this. These action are built in when the embryo was forming. And the formation of the embryo is guided by the genes.
I don't think I have to. I think it is quite obvious.
I'm sorry but I have to call you on this. In the past it seemed quit obvious that the world was flat and that the sun spun across the earth. I have supported my statments with outside sources. Please show me and outside source that supports your statments. And if my source are out of date or incorrect please show where more correct and up to date information is.
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.
I have never said that the genes are responsible for neural connections in the neo-cortex regions. But it is the genes which tells the embryonic cells to become the neurons which forms the brain and in what configuration.
Can you please tell me the process? or at least direct me to a source of information which describes this processe?
It doesn't need to know how. It just develops from the many influences that work on it. And yes, that includes genetic influences.
But that is not the brain determining it's own development. The brain is there because the genes makes the embryonic cell form into a brain. And I agree that environmental forces has an affect. it is environmental forces which have forged the evolution of the DNA strand. The environment determins wether the present configuration of the organizim will survive to passs on the successful genes. The envirionment also provides the sources of mutation (as does some internal cellular processes)
But a cat born under water will not grow gills.
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.
Yes the evironment determins the evolutionary direction of the organs and environment can cause mutation within the individual organisim. But in morphogenesis it is the genes that that direct the embryonic cells into the structure of the organs of the individual organisim. Morphogenesis clearly states this. The author puts program into quotes because there is an analogous relation. It is a pattern of neucleotides that is being processed by biological mechinizims which cause the embryonic cells to differentiate into organs. The experiment done with the fruit files verifies this.
Strongly influenced, not determined. There is a difference.
on an evolution scale, yes; but on an indiviual scale, no. Morphogenesis clearly states that the structure of an organisim's organs is determined by the genes. environmental forces determis evolutionary direction of the species.
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.
Your right I contradicted myself there. It was badly worded. Environment can affect the development of the embryo in form of mutation and by evolutionary forces for the species. But, the development of the individual embryo in getstation IS determined by the genes.
In some cases, an embryo develops differently without having a different genome.
Can you please explain? Are refering to random mutation or environmental mutation? It sound to me like your suggesting that a dog embryo can develop into a cat.
The behaviours that are directly related to our physical structure. Such as the pain response or emotional response; those which do not require concious thought. Take for instance the fear response. The reaction to a source of fear causes certain reactions in the body. Adrenalin pumps into the blood stream, heart rate accelerates, palms sweat. all autonomic responses and all controlled by a part of the brain called the amygdala.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala) As a matter of fact it controls most of our emotions. If you remove or damage the amygdala the person no longer feels fear or other emotions.
(see Kluver-Bucey syndrome) Now, that organ is there in the brain of an indivdual because the genes of that individual caused a group of cells during enbryonic development to become the amygdala. Now environmental evolutionary forces caused the an organ with the fuction provided by the amygdala to develop in the species and that structure is carried over from generation to generation in the genes.
That says nothing about behaviours being encoded in it.
True, but the structure of the organs which are responsible for the behaiviours are encoded (biologicaly) in the genes. If you are uncomfortable with the word "encoded" please replace with "within the sequence of patterns of nucleotides in the DNA which guides cellular differentiation during embryonic development". In that sense you can say that some behaiviours can be "encoded" in genes.
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.
I am not discounting environmental factors but the fact remains that genes do play a large role in some behaviors.
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.
Entomologist would seem to disagree with you on the first part. But if you have proof to support your belief then please present it. Spiders are solitary and leave imediatly after hatching. There is no time for the spider to "learn" it's particular species pattern. Entomologists say that each species of spider has it's own particular web pattern although the certain aspects of the web can vary because of environmental conditions as well as the age and size of the spider, but the fundamental pattern is there. An orb weaving spider will not weave a funnel or cob web no matter what the environmental conditions.
Are you related to Shanek? He always drags them into every discussion about animals as well.
No. it just like a good example of a tamed animal going bad an exemplary trainer.
Well, to me "teach" requires some sort of concious thought and acceptance on the part of the one who is taught.
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.
I don't think they are as different as you think they are. Wild domesticated dogs form pack societies with the same social interaction as do wolf packs. When dogs are in the company of humans they exhibit what is refered to as "puppy" behaviour. I know my source for this info is the Animal Planet Channel so taking as you will.
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.
But Zoos only have to deal with small numbers of animals. In the case of lions, the adult males have to be separated from each other otherwise they would attack each other. A zoo is ok for two or four lion but it become a different story when your talking about several thousand lions. Think about how big an average zoo is and the number of animals that are in it. The land it would take to accomodate all of that would make our sprawl look like nothing.
Could you name a few that could not solve in a very similar way?
The desire to roam free on a vast savana.
So you are saying that conservation leads to more extinction than not caring about the effects humans have on the environment?
No, I'm saying that not knowing what you are doing can lead to extinction. Technological advancement and scientific knowledge happens at a pace. More often than not, we learn by failure.
Besides species have gone extinct long before we were here. Species go extinct reguardless of our actions or inactions.
I believe we should work with nature and control our impact on the environment. But it is a fact of life that the benefit of one usually means the detriment of another.
), so we had to make some compromises.
