An analysis of how ants quickly find new routes in a changing maze reveals techniques that could be useful to systems engineers.
The research, reported in the Journal of Experimental Biology, shows that Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), do not just retrace their steps when presented with a barrier—as might be expected. Instead, the ants begin a localized search that seems to take into account the direction in which they were planning to go. Because there are many network-management programs that mimic the search behaviour of this ant species, systems engineers are taking notice and wondering what they can learn.
Systems engineers learning from ants?
Many computerized systems, such as those that route telephone calls through busy networks while minimizing connection times, already solve shortest path problems by deploying virtual ants. These ants explore all possible routes in a system and deposit virtual pheromones on each route they travel.
Yet such systems are not perfect. When virtual ants are blocked from following a well-travelled path, they must turn around and are likely to follow the path that they have just travelled because it usually has the strongest concentration of pheromones of any nearby paths.
“I figured Argentine ants had to have some way of dealing with obstacles that didn’t involve starting a search from scratch” says Chris Reid, a behavioural biologist at the University of Sydney in Australia, the lead author of the study.
To put the insects to the test, Reid and his colleagues presented them with a logic puzzle known as the Towers of Hanoi.
So the researchers constructed a maze with 2^15 (that is, 32,768) different paths for the ants to negotiate.
“The discovery that these ants can solve the Towers or Hanoi is far from trivial,” says Simon Robson, a biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. … “When I heard that these ants started exploring nearby routes rather than turning around, I just thought, this is dead cool,” says David Broomhead, director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Computational and Dynamical Analysis at the University of Manchester, UK. … The discovery indicates that Argentine ants use more than just the simple trail pheromone to find their way. “The individual ants appear to have internal compasses and odometers that allow them to guide their search,” says Reid. Broomhead adds that “it would be really interesting to see if we can get a computer to do what these ants are doing.”
Internal compasses and odometers which just happened to arise on their own? As usual, evolution is called upon to perform unlikely heroics. Evolutionary expectations are dashed as ants are smarter than engineers, and the theory must do yet more gymnastics to accommodate the facts. But just because evolutionists have no idea how such marvels could just happen to arise does not mean they will stop insisting evolution is an undeniable fact.
This is easily explained in evolutionary terms, and quite simply too. How long has Man been using a computer? At best since Babbage and on through Turing, so 100 years. And differential calculus, since what Newton and 300 years then. But the ant has been evolving via the wonderful creative power of natural selection for hundreds of millions of years now. It may be necessary, at some date, to ratchet that back to a billion years the ant has been here. Therefore, from a Darwinist viewpoint, it is best viewed as a comparison of man's Artificial Selection and a multiplier of 300 years versus Natural Selection with a multiplier of 200,000,000 years. It is almost a given that the ant would develop far superior biochemical mechanisms and mathematical tools than Man's or his poor computers. We know this is so, because evolution has done it.
ReplyDeleteRhod:
ReplyDelete"This is easily explained in evolutionary terms, and quite simply too. How long has Man been using a computer? At best since Babbage and on through Turing, so 100 years. And differential calculus, since what Newton and 300 years then. But the ant has been evolving via the wonderful creative power of natural selection for hundreds of millions of years now. It may be necessary, at some date, to ratchet that back to a billion years the ant has been here. Therefore, from a Darwinist viewpoint, it is best viewed as a comparison of man's Artificial Selection and a multiplier of 300 years versus Natural Selection with a multiplier of 200,000,000 years. It is almost a given that the ant would develop far superior biochemical mechanisms and mathematical tools than Man's or his poor computers. We know this is so, because evolution has done it."
======
Wow, Cornelius hit the predictable nail on the head explanation game with his last paragraph.
Cornelius:
"As usual, evolution is called upon to perform unlikely heroics. Evolutionary expectations are dashed as ants are smarter than engineers, and the theory must do yet more gymnastics to accommodate the facts. But just because evolutionists have no idea how such marvels could just happen to arise does not mean they will stop insisting evolution is an undeniable fact."
------
Rhod:
"Evolutionism is proved fact. Period. Both tedious and really should be a hate crime to try and cast doubt here."
======
Anyone else notice the sutle use of "ISM" as a loop hole ploy ???
Yes, Evolution"ISM" is definitely a proven and known FACT to all concerned with it's existance.
Yes of course, anyone against EvolutionISM should at the very least receive life in prison or at best the death penalty !!!
The usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Evolutionary expectations are dashed as ants are smarter than engineers, and the theory must do yet more gymnastics to accommodate the facts.
Actually, evolutionary expectations are that evolution is pretty darn smart having had billions of years to cobble and tinker.
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." — Orgel's Second Rule.
Cornelius Hunter: But just because evolutionists have no idea how such marvels could just happen to arise ...
The results suggest incremental improvement; pheromone trails, counting steps, sense of direction, each ability adding capability.
Cornelius Hunter: ... does not mean they will stop insisting evolution is an undeniable fact.
Sure it's deniable. You deny it all the time—even though the evidence is overwhelming.
" We know this is so, because evolution has done it.
ReplyDeleteReligion
From the original post:
ReplyDelete“The individual ants appear to have internal compasses and odometers that allow them to guide their search,” says Reid.
Amazing, but amenable to study. See:
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/210/2/198
for research on an ant odometer and discussion of ant compasses. An excerpt about compasses:
"In desert ants and honey bees, the estimation of travel direction is based on a well-studied celestial compass, reading the polarised (and spectral) sky light pattern and the sun's azimuth (Wehner and Lafranconi, 1981 ; Wehner, 1989 ; Wehner, 1997)
"Zachriel"
ReplyDeleteThe usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved.
____________
Why do evolutionists dismiss this argument as if means nothing. It's a valid argument because we don't see things forming the way evolution proposes (origin of life, origin of species).
Answer the difficult questions-
Why do and how do we have even the illusion of free will?
If I want to lift my finger, how does my brain send the signal to the right muscle through the right nerve to contract the relevant muscles in just the right way so that the desired movement may come about?
How does it happen in all the species when all of the have different body plans? How can proprioception adjust at each stage in the evolution of such varied body plans?
So many of the bigger questions are left unanswered.
I'm not saying that evolution is impossible. It might have occurred. But our knowledge about the living world is too incomplete to jump to conclusions
I prefer to have an open mind.
Mahima said...
ReplyDelete"Zachriel"
The usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved.
____________
Why do evolutionists dismiss this argument as if means nothing. It's a valid argument because we don't see things forming the way evolution proposes (origin of life, origin of species).
Science dismisses the argument because in fact we do empirically observe the mechanisms of evolution working all the time, both in the lab and in the wild.
We know the mechanisms work, and we have ample evidence that the same mechanisms have created the amazing biodiversity we observe now over hundreds of millions of years. Creationists like to reject the sound scientific evidence because scientists can't squeeze those hundreds of millions of years into a two week lab experiment.
It would be like me watching you ride your bike around the block, then claiming it's impossible to ride a bike across the whole country because you can't demonstrate such a ride in one afternoon.
I'm not saying that evolution is impossible. It might have occurred. But our knowledge about the living world is too incomplete to jump to conclusions
Science hasn't jumped to the conclusion. The conclusion is supported by over 150+ years of positive scientific evidence from dozens of different independent scientific disciplines. ToE is arguably the most well supported and well validated theory of any you'll find in science.
I'm pretty sure Rhod's original comment was intended as satire. It certainly has all the earmarks of satire.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
ReplyDelete"The usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved."
=====
Most everything out there is extremely complex as it's scientists themselves who are the ones who point this out. But then usually with most articles(not the one above) they then proceed to invent a fable/myth to prop up a religious philosophical worldview of what they believe happened. Only a time machine is able to verify the assumption as being a hoax.
Cornelius merely prints the sophisticated story as it's been laid out by others which are often very well done and then points out the references(if there are any) to it being credited to evolution for no other reason than by making assumptions, assertions, opinions, etc without FACT ONE proving why the bold statements are true.
-----
Zachriel:
"Actually, evolutionary expectations are that evolution is pretty darn smart having had billions of years to cobble and tinker."
=====
Don't you just love personification fallacies to explain something that is blind, pointless, pitiless, indifferent, unguided, undirected without purpose or intent for doing anything even remotely intelligent ???
-----
Zachriel:
"The results suggest incremental improvement; pheromone trails, counting steps, sense of direction, each ability adding capability."
=====
There was nothing in that article that even remotely pointed towards your religious worldview other than your own personal opinion on the matter. Again, your opinion does not translate into a FACT. FACTOID, yes, FACT no.
-----
Zachriel:
"You deny it all the time—even though the evidence is overwhelming."
=====
Perfect example of faith without facts and factoids being championed. Say it over and over enough times and just maybe you'll gain another convert for the Reverend Charlie.
Zachriel said: "The usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved."
ReplyDeleteYes, how weird is that. Point towards the evidence and see what's most logical. It's amazing that no matter how amazing design in nature is, you guys can always believe that something that has no intelligence caused it. Maybe this believe in lack of intelligence is a self esteem issue.
Mr Hunter, I was wondering if you could explain why for example the origin of the flagellum is a problem for evolution. I am thinking in terms of how much code is needed before anything that could work as a machine appears. How many types of proteins, how many amino acids are required for each type and how many proteins. What about the code the directs the assembly and preferably some examples, like a chunk of DNA that codes for just some tiny part just to get the feel of the magnitude of the problem.
Thanks for a great blog
Halldor
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"
"In desert ants and honey bees, the estimation of travel direction is based on a well-studied celestial compass, reading the polarised (and spectral) sky light pattern and the sun's azimuth (Wehner and Lafranconi, 1981 ; Wehner, 1989 ; Wehner, 1997)"
=====
I actually saw this on the University of Zurich website here, but was disappointed that nothing I read dealt with "solar compass" , "polarised (and spectral) sky light pattern" or "sun's azimuth". I found three links with the above quoted componants, but all links dealt strictly with "Stride Integrator That Accounts for Stride Length and Walking Speed". Basically they were snipping off bits and pieces of Ant legs from long stilts to almost stumps and measuring speed and area covered. While it was interesting, I thought from your title it was going to deal with more of an Astrological effect, that Scientists are now calling "Seasonal Biology" instead of astrology.
Anyway, I found a similar article to Cornelius article about the Argentine Ants at the University of Zurich website for their Department of Informatics section where they were studying Ant Algorithms for the computer designing.
http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/ailab/teaching/AL00/chap4.pdf
I'm glad they actually did the study with the Argentina Ants which is a tiny pesky black ant that drives people in the southwest crazy because they are almost impossible to control and keep out of your home. They are very tiny by comparison to the Desert Harvester Ant mentioned in the other article and incredible more sophiticated when it comes to overcoming great odds against them in the form of Human intelligence trying to exterminate and outsmart them. Google "California" and "Argentine Ants" and you'll see they are regarded as almost the same identical super-colony throughout the state.
I'm not sure what these "gee I found another complexity in nature" posts are supposed to prove. I mean, even the leaders of ID confess complexity (information content) increases in evolution!
ReplyDeleteIn Behe's recent review (despite a limited focus, excluding horizontal gene transfer, gene duplication, and a gratuitous definition of 'modification' of existing function), about 10% of the mutations in his tables are gain-of-fct, where a "“A “gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutation is a mutation that produces a specific, new, functional coded element while adapting an organism to its environment""
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf
Shockingly close to fCSI and other ID definitions.
Dembski and Marks, in trying to blast evolutionary algorithms for smuggling in information, accidentally confess natural selection is a source of "active information" information:
"Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."
http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf
Good points, RobertC, about the leading lights of the ID movement, Behe and Dembski.
ReplyDeleteWhen they actually do some work that can pass peer review, they score one for the other side.
As Shakespeare said, "...at the length truth will out."
It's nice that Cornelius takes the trouble to scan the recent literature and point to interesting articles that probably would have escaped our attention otherwise. But the lazy analyzes keep disappointing.
ReplyDelete"Internal compasses and odometers which just happened to arise on their own?"
What does that even mean, "arise on their own", and who has made this claim? Classical strawman, and a very lazy one.
"As usual, evolution is called upon to perform unlikely heroics. Evolutionary expectations are dashed as ants are smarter than engineers, and the theory must do yet more gymnastics to accommodate the facts."
Of course nobody has claimed that ants are smarter than engineers. Of course Cornelius doesn't explain why this paper is a problem for evolutionary theory - because it isn't. Lazy and disingenuous.
"But just because evolutionists have no idea how such marvels could just happen to arise does not mean they will stop insisting evolution is an undeniable fact."
This is where Cornelius goes beyond being lazy and disingenuous. Here he is dishonest. When "evolutionists" say that evolution is a fact, they mean that the diversity of life on earth has changed over time (as we can see from the fossil record), and that extant species have common ancestors (as we can see from phylogenetic studies of the fossil record and DNA sequences of extant species). Cornelius tries to make you believe that "evolutionists" claim that we know exactly what mechanisms are responsible for evolution - that our current best interpretations of the data are considered "facts". Nothing could be further from the truth - and Cornelius must know this as a PhD in biophysics.
I find it sad that an educated person feels he has to resort to such distortions to support his theological leanings. I would encourage Cornelius to follow Behe's example and submit a thorough analysis to a peer-reviewed journal such as the Quarterly Review of Biology where Behe just published a paper. Although there's plenty to disagree with Behe's analysis, at least he did the hard work and had the guts to have it peer-reviewed.
Pedant: When they actually do some work that can pass peer review, they score one for the other side.
ReplyDeleteI think you're confusing gain of FCT possibility with adaptability.
Gain of FCT is usually selected against because greater fitness now is usually achieved by breaking a FCT.
that would predict that extinction should outpace speciation.
ReplyDeleteeventually :D
ReplyDelete"at least he did the hard work and had the guts to have it peer-reviewed."
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the word peer implies at least some level of equivalency, and CH is so far above any mere scientist that having them review his work could hardly be called "peer review". Truly the only people who are qualified to review his work are those who already accept ID, since they are the only ones that can actually understand it.
Venture Free: Truly the only people who are qualified to review his work are those who already accept ID, since they are the only ones that can actually understand it.
ReplyDeleteScientific fields have a deal of overlap, so that they are mutually supporting. Evolutionary biology is supported by such divergent fields as geology and genetics, climatology and radioactivity, physics and chemistry.
Pseudoscientists only talk among themselves.
It's amazing. Evolutionists wouldn't believe the faces on Mt Rushmore were the product of blind, random chance, yet they believe things much more complex, are.
ReplyDeleteI notice that someone objects to my,
ReplyDeleteRhod:
"Evolutionism is proved fact.
======
Anyone else notice the subtle use of "ISM" as a loop hole ploy ?
Well, no. And we must not back up an inch from embracing the term evolutionism. I believe THuxley used it, and no less a scientist than Ernst Mayr used it quite often in his books. Many more besides. Doubt if we'll see the like of Mayr come again for many a long year.
Getting back on track. CDarwin confessed he was horrified at the problem of insects like ants, saying "actually fatal to my whole theory". Not sure, he really ever did work out a solution. Then was it Bill Hamilton came along a century later, and showing some inclinations to applying math to aid notions kinship, altruism. What would Hamilton, Darwin and other researchers have thought about exquisitely engineered guidance machinery and hypercomplex calculations "the lowly ant" has now evolved to using? I just wonder if Ed Wilson might not finish up his career by reassessing all the new data on the ant, in a forthcoming book. Another triumph for evolutionism.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Scientific fields have a deal of overlap, so that they are mutually supporting."
=====
Agreed!!! I started out with Botany, but could not however ignore all the other factors effecting all environments of any ecosystem and was most pleasently moved to pursue other science fields for answers.
-----
Zachriel:
"Evolutionary biology is supported by such divergent fields as geology and genetics, climatology and radioactivity, physics and chemistry."
=====
This is a dogmatic religious faith-based statement. Most of those hard sciences listed usually cannot be fuzzied and muddled the way the soft sciences can. In fact more often than not they are more easily exposed when personal biased philosophy are inserted. The soft sciences on the other hand have always been subject to bias and personal gut felt predjudice. Your blogs and obsessive forum posting career on the Net prove it's not about science, but politics, ideology, religion, and philosophy. In the end isn't that what really counts as Pedant emphatically stated a few days ago ???
-----
Zachriel:
"Pseudoscientists only talk among themselves."
=====
Hence your bolded statements here with each other prove exactly this.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure what these "gee I found another complexity in nature" posts are supposed to prove. I mean, even the leaders of ID confess complexity (information content) increases in evolution!"
=====
The natural world is loaded with innumerable examples of sophistication and complexity for which not ONCE has ANY satisfactory explanation been presented forth as to just exactly how nothing more than unguidance and undirectedness results in massive amounts of brilliant information which drive complex sophisticated molecular machinery. Instead we are told it's all LUCK, CHANCE and MAGIC.
Nor do we hear how blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent supposedly running nature has results in one application of benefit to mankind without such complexity being hijacked and given nothing but evolutionary tag and an explanation that offers nothing more than an evolution just did it tale.
The one thing that is counted on is that a complacent ignorant public will simply roll over and play it's roll of submission in the pecking order dominance game of life which is controlled by an selfpromoting intellectual Elists group whose obsessive drive for power is unmatched, except by those(religious Fundies) who had it before and want it back. This has never been about science. As Pedant said, it's about ideological worldview and the one who controls worldview also owns power, prestige, social standing and obscene wealth. In the end isn't that what it's really all about ??? Even you yourself have posted such emotional driven feelings on this very thing some weeks back.
Venture Free McGee:
ReplyDelete"To be fair, the word peer implies at least some level of equivalency . . "
====
While to an extent that is true(peers of the same education, social class, etc), but more often than not it has not necessarily been helpful in establishing any type of supposed truth. Peer Review is always subject to all the same imperfections of personal predjudice and bias that are common to everyone on Earth(though no doubt science peers condescendingly hold themselves far above what they consider the average poor human slob: see comments by James Watson).
This also motivates an individual out of fear of what other peers will say(or fear of man which is common to all humans) if they do not follow the same exceptable line of philosophy which made them all peers in the same group/click in the first place. That's why Evolution being mandated as FACT is so powerful when it comes revealing the truth of a matter which may run counter to the popularly held close to the heart philosophical evolutionary concept by the elitist peer group. Go against those peers and you get fired, excommunicated or "EXPELLED". This cuts both ways for both sides of the issue.
As an illustration(it definitely applies here) take all the incessant infighting that goes on in your American government(or any government around the globe for that matter). It isn't necessarily driven by truth so much as trying to influence(by whatever underhanded means possible) the majority which if obtaining power, it is assumed that position is the correct one for no other reason than by majority rules. Basically that is what this subject is all about too. Winning the hearts and minds of the majority also wins the material rewards that go with the power. In all fairness both sides are equally guilty here.
hardy said...
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing. Evolutionists wouldn't believe the faces on Mt Rushmore were the product of blind, random chance, yet they believe things much more complex, are.
Complexity alone is not enough to declare 'intelligent design', as there are known natural processes that can and do produce amazingly complex items.
Zachriel: Evolutionary biology is supported by such divergent fields as geology and genetics, climatology and radioactivity, physics and chemistry.
ReplyDeleteEocene: This is a dogmatic religious faith-based statement.
Handwaving, with nothing of substance in your entire comment.
A specific example would be the differing predictions of the age of the Earth. Kelvin suggested at most tens of millions of years based on then current physical theory. Geologists and evolutionary biologists asserted it was much older. Since then, physical theory has caught up to the biology. All three fields are now in agreement: the Earth is billions of years old.
hardy: Evolutionists wouldn't believe the faces on Mt Rushmore were the product of blind, random chance, yet they believe things much more complex, are.
ReplyDeleteIn case you didn't know, there is more to evolutionary theory than "blind, random chance."
In any case, there is evidence that Mount Rushmore was designed and fashioned by a type tool-making primate, while the evidence is that life diverged and evolved from common ancestors.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Complexity alone is not enough to declare 'intelligent design', . . . "
=====
You are correct. They have the same burden of proof demanded of you if they insist a political solution to their version of truth be given equal mandate designated attachment to science with Creationism or IDism being regarded as a fact also. This also calls for them to actually show physical evidence and a STRICT adherence of naturalistic ONLY explanation of the why and how a designer/creator accomplished a certain task. Unfortunately neither side has the ability to strictly cut the metaphysics tho your side insists they do not do this. If you were all neutral on the matter of origins, can you imagine how much actual work could be accomplished minus the debate games being played out across the Net ???
Creationists and IDists also have forgotten the almost impossiblity avoiding speculative reasonings as born out at Job chapter 38 which illustrates the impossibility of knowing all the absolute facts of things that took place countless millenia ago. Unless either of your sides have in your possession a "Time Machine" to visit backwards when it all began, both will continue to have nothing more than speculative proofs to offer if we adhere to naturalistic explanation ONLY restrictions in the matter of Science. In the mean time have faith!!!
------
hardy:
" It's amazing. Evolutionists wouldn't believe the faces on Mt Rushmore were the product of blind, random chance . . "
..........................................
Thorton's response:
" . . there are known natural processes that can and do produce amazingly complex items."
=====
Ah yes, there is the example up in New Hampshire of "Old Man of the Mountain". Oh wait a minute, didn't nature decide for no apparent reason, intent or purpose to take that one back ???
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Handwaving, with nothing of substance in your entire comment."
=====
The hand waving has always been your circular fixational reasoning expertise. Picture now a Roman battlefield scene where one soldier holds up the symbolic standards and when he falls another takes his place, then another right up until the last man. Your hand waving expertise is that useless iconic religious Tree symbol which apparently has continual support down to the last man standing. That of course is your freewilled right to spin it as you see fit until "Kingdom come" if you wish. Again it's your choice.
------
Zachriel:
A specific example would be the differing predictions of the age of the Earth. Kelvin suggested at most tens of millions of years based on then current physical theory. Geologists and evolutionary biologists asserted it was much older. Since then, physical theory has caught up to the biology. All three fields are now in agreement: the Earth is billions of years old."
======
And your purpose in telling me this is ???
I'm NOT a YEC, get over it. I appreciate the ONLY advantage you have in debate is chewing up Fundies and spitting them out, but you're out of luck here. Maybe you should just stick to politicing and ideology promotion since that is actually your formal and official expertise.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"In case you didn't know, there is more to evolutionary theory than "blind, random chance."
=====
Actually those qualites are foundational componants to your faith for which ZERO evidence has ever been presented other than that incessant chanting that they are the ONLY uncaused cause of life as we know it.
======
Zachriel:
"In any case, there is evidence that Mount Rushmore was designed and fashioned by a type tool-making primate, WHILE THE EVIDENCE IS THAT LIFE DIVERGED AND EVOLVED FROM COMMON ANCESTORS."
======
This is nothing more than front loaded Faith-Based statement making here. Your iconic religious symbol of a tree will remain intact for as long as you are alive. Of that I am convinced.
Eocene: The hand waving has always been your circular fixational reasoning expertise. Picture now a Roman battlefield scene where one soldier holds up the symbolic standards and when he falls another takes his place, then another right up until the last man. Your hand waving expertise is that useless iconic religious Tree symbol which apparently has continual support down to the last man standing. That of course is your freewilled right to spin it as you see fit until "Kingdom come" if you wish. Again it's your choice.
ReplyDeleteExcellent example. While we pointed to specific instances of the interrelationship between scientific fields of study, you continue to wave your hands (a fallacy of distraction).
Eocene: And your purpose in telling me this is ???
We are using a well-established example to show the relationship between scientific fields of study, and how they can be mutually supporting, in this case, fields as diverse as molecular biology and the study of rocks.
Eocene: Actually those qualites are foundational componants to your faith for which ZERO evidence has ever been presented other than that incessant chanting that they are the ONLY uncaused cause of life as we know it.
Please don't misrepresent our views.
Eocene: Ah yes, there is the example up in New Hampshire of "Old Man of the Mountain". Oh wait a minute, didn't nature decide for no apparent reason, intent or purpose to take that one back ???
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
Eocene said...
ReplyDeleteRhod:
"Evolutionism is proved fact. Period. Both tedious and really should be a hate crime to try and cast doubt here."
======
Anyone else notice the sutle use of "ISM" as a loop hole ploy ???
Yes, Evolution"ISM" is definitely a proven and known FACT to all concerned with it's existance.
Yes of course, anyone against EvolutionISM should at the very least receive life in prison or at best the death penalty !!!
========================
Rhod is obviously a fanatic!
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Excellent example. While we pointed to specific instances of the interrelationship between scientific fields of study, you continue to wave your hands (a fallacy of distraction)."
======
No, as usual you stood up on your condescending soapbox believing I was a Fundie/YEC and got caught lying about what you thought/wanted me to believe in and that is what disturbs you.
------
Zachriel:
"Please don't misrepresent our views."
=====
Nice try. The blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent has been engraved in stone by one of the most iconic modern day religious holy men your side has to offer, the Rev. Richard Dawkins. Hijacking intelligent informationally run sophisticatedly complex namo-machines and attaching evolutionary signage to them is cheating and your side does it continually. You've never once proven the life from non-life by getting past the mud puddle and lightning scenario. Once you do that, then we can discuss machines, but until then, your science fiction will remain science fiction.
-------
Zachriel:
"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
=====
"Let us lay the hand on our mouth, and reflect that the All-wise hath deemed this needful for the reproduction of all that hath received movement and growth, and so, the why and the wherefore we can but guess after."
Troy:
ReplyDelete"What does that even mean, "arise on their own", and who has made this claim? Classical strawman, and a very lazy one."
====
Interesting. So what intelligence guided them ???
----
Troy:
"Of course nobody has claimed that ants are smarter than engineers.
====
Well apparently nature is far more brilliant than any type of human engineer or even the collective intelligence of human genius since they are usually barely able to replicate perfectly the brilliant natural mechanism they are trying to study. We are told in this very thread that nothingnmore than blind pointless indifferent with no purpose or intent of anything evolution is a genius at being able to cobble and tinker. Did I miss something ???
----
Troy:
"This is where Cornelius goes beyond being lazy and disingenuous. Here he is dishonest. When "evolutionists" say that evolution is a fact, they mean that the diversity of life on earth has changed over time (as we can see from the fossil record), and that extant species have common ancestors (as we can see from phylogenetic studies of the fossil record and DNA sequences of extant species).
====
You then proceed after calling Cornelius a liar with the evolution is considered a fact statment, by walking us through why evolution is a fact after all ???
----
Troy:
"Cornelius tries to make you believe that "evolutionists" claim that we know exactly what mechanisms are responsible for evolution - that our current best interpretations of the data are considered "facts". Nothing could be further from the truth - and Cornelius must know this as a PhD in biophysics."
====
Okay ??? So ??? Is evolution itself a FACT ???
Eocene: No, as usual you stood up on your condescending soapbox believing I was a Fundie/YEC and got caught lying about what you thought/wanted me to believe in and that is what disturbs you.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you misrepresent out position. We picked a well-established instance for a reason. That you agree the world is old makes it even more relevant and compelling.
It is a distinction of scientific inquiry that if someone in biology says the world is old, it should be consistent with findings in geology and physics and other related fields of study. Pseudoscience stands outside of this body of science. Your own comments avoided any substantive response.
Zachriel: Please don't misrepresent our views.
Eocene: Nice try.
No one can stop you from playing with straw men, but we will continue to point out that you are misrepresenting our views, and that your comments are devoid of scientific content.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Again, you misrepresent out position. We picked a well-established instance for a reason. That you agree the world is old makes it even more relevant and compelling."
====
I haven't misrepresented anything. The very foundation and reason for your belief and worldview is that there is absolutely no Intelligent Designer/Creator of any sort who accomplished anything. Therefore life came from non-life, intelligence came from non-intelligence and non-sense is the only available explanation for sense. Am I really missing something ??? You believe and actually insist that there is no guidance, directedness, purpose or intent repsonsible for all the intelligent complexity we see and experience in the world all around us, yet you haven't even attempted to emerged from the mud puddle and lightning scenario. Establish the foundation, then we can move on to directed guided mechanisms. We've had this conversation before and you haven't even remotely budged. Until then your iconic religious tree wheel spinning will always be a useless time wasting discussion.
====
Zachriel:
"It is a distinction of scientific inquiry that if someone in biology says the world is old, it should be consistent with findings in geology and physics and other related fields of study."
====
And yet you've never once proven how those other hard sciences of PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY have ever developed any type of complex informational codes which were present at the beginning without shoving down our throats some imaginative magical fable/myth poofing story that has zero foundation other than faith. What am I missing here ??? Evolution has no foundational relationship to those other sciences which actually rely on hard facts as opposed to evolutionary factoids.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Pseudoscience stands outside of this body of science."
====
Which is why evolutionary theory shouldn't even be allowed with the exception of a course in philosophy.
----
Zachriel:
"Your own comments avoided any substantive response."
====
I'm certain that in your own political/pholosphical/ideological worldview mindset(as your own blog indicates) you actually believe that to be true. That's what freewill is all about. So believe it!!!
----
Zachriel:
"No one can stop you from playing with straw men, but we will continue to point out that you are misrepresenting our views, and that your comments are devoid of scientific content."
====
I haven't misrepresented a thing. I'm not the one who believes non-sense begat sense, non-intelligence begat intelligence, non-life begat life. Everything I relate to in life has to do with intelligent logic and reasoning, yet you are the ones who are suppose to be the rational logical ones, yet your defiance against any intelligent reasoning as having any influence on the sophistication and complexity of life belies that claim to fame. If you don't like continually hearing this then find a new church.
Rhod said...
ReplyDeleteThis is easily explained in evolutionary terms, and quite simply too.
How many more times must the poor world be subjected to such idiotic claims?
Rhod, the only reasonable response to this type of claim is ROTFLMAO!!!
Yes folks everything is easily explained by evolution, yet nothing is explained by just-so stories speculation on how it might have happened.
Once again we witness the dumb evolutionist using stories to "prove" evolution is true and claiming that its true because we have stories.
Thank God physics doesn't work like this and physicists are actually required to produce empirical evidence for their claims.
We know this is so, because evolution has done it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you know its true because you believe its true. The proof of evolution is that things evolved.
Can you say "begging the question"?!
Sheesh, this I would expect from an ignorant indoctrinated grade schooler.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteI think that Rhod was being facetious (a "Poe" as they say).
Zachriel said...
ReplyDeleteThe usual post. Point to something complicated and exclaim that it couldn't have evolved.
And you're supposed to be an expert?!
Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong.
The inane reasoning that Darwinists love so much i.e. "probabilities have nothing to do with life" is laughable.
Darwinists have clearly never heard of and know nothing of what engineers call "combinatorial dependencies".
Do yourself a favor and look it up.
Sadly, for evolutionism, it applies to bio systems as much as to anything else.
Bio systems are full of such inter-dependencies.
Actually, evolutionary expectations are that evolution is pretty darn smart having had billions of years to cobble and tinker.
So now "evolution is pretty darn smart"?
Gee, Nobel prize!
If you can prove that.
For evolution to "smart" implies that you must have some proof that nature itself actually thinks and thus has will and knows where its going.
Oops, that's against the Darwinian rules:
Rule #1 "No intelligence allowed".
Even as a common analogical expression, your statement implies the exact opposite of your intent.
The results suggest incremental improvement; pheromone trails, counting steps, sense of direction, each ability adding capability.
This also is risible and quite telling.
Do read what you write entirely w/o thinking or is this really the best you've got?
Darwinists thinking like small children always go leaps and bounds over details.
Look at the questions begged by your ludicrous statement:
Where did pheromones come from?
How did organisms "evolve" the necessary mechanisms required to detect them?
How did they "evolve" the 'instinct' to follow such trails?
How did ants learn to count?
Whence comes this built in compass for "sense" -what's that exactly?- of direction?
You just demonstrated your typical Darwinist, puerilely simplistic comprehension and reasoning.
Life is not simple, things are not simple. The deeper you go the more complex it gets.
Worse, you just created a few 100 more problems for Darwinism as each new question raised by your answer will raise yet more questions on how all these mechanisms arose through RM + NS.
And then on to the requirement for an empirically testable evolutionary RM+NS pathway.
That is something that does not exist anywhere in the whole of Darwinian "science" literature.
Bad news Zach, selection has no creative power.
Selection is just a filter that weeds things out.
It has no plan, no guidance, no preference, no goals. Its just a filter.
Worse, most RM's are neutral. Many are deleterious. Few are beneficial.
Selection can't even "see" most of them and the numerous deleterious ones will almost always overcome the rare good ones and mutations come at a cost to the organism.
Darwinian evolution is literally impossible without a powerful algorithmic programed input. And that can only come from intelligence.
Get over it.
Eocene: I haven't misrepresented anything. The very foundation and reason for your belief and worldview is that there is absolutely no Intelligent Designer/Creator of any sort who accomplished anything.
ReplyDeleteAs we have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position.
Gary: Statistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary theory is consistent with statistical mechanics. But if you have a cite, or at least an argument, we will look at it.
Gary: Bio systems are full of such inter-dependencies.
Yes, they are, and these interdependencies evolved.
Your comment seems to be full of rejection, but little in the way of argument. You may want to concentrate on a few points. Do you accept Common Descent?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGary the yappy little puppy said...
ReplyDeleteStatistical mechanics proves Darwinism wrong.
Let me try that line of reasoning:
Statistical mechanics proves Gary is a clueless gasbag.
How'd I do using your method Gary? No evidence, no calculations, no explanation needed. Just wave those hands and make an unsupported assertion!
Boy, arguing like an IDiot is a lot easier that doing real science. No wonder yappy little puppies like Gary always take the lazy way out!
Actually what the ants prove is that heuristics with some way of selection, can solve problems more efficiently than greedy (or exhaustive) methods. This looks awfully similar to something I have heard about before ... hum ... heuristics smells a bit like trial and error, like some random process ... selection ... random process ... selection ... hum, so familiar ... what could it be?
ReplyDeleteGary said,
ReplyDeleteDarwinian evolution is literally impossible without a powerful algorithmic programed input. And that can only come from intelligence.
You are almost correct. Evolution can and eventually will be deconstructed by our evolved brains to be nearly fully described by "powerful algorithms". There are powerful laws and complex interactions at work that, so far, the mind of man has little concept. In all the 6 editions of Origin, CDarwin used almost no math, could think of no math to muster in favor of Wallace's (and his) Theory. Though Greg Mendel rejected evolutionism, he did turn his intellect to genetics and gave us a few simple equations to work from. Hardy, Weinburg, and especially Ron Fisher supplied a few more equations. I won't include the math of J Haldane as we now know there really can be no "dilemma". Bill Hamilton added his own peculiar math to biology. To come back to the point of discussion, that I foresee future evolutionists who will be able to furnish us with powerful algorithms, the mathematical terms and tools to describe evolution in action. Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences. I'm sure this will change as the next generation comes into the field.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"As WE have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position."
====
Again with this condescending speaking in the third person bit. No I haven't misrepresented anything, science fiction always remains science fiction no matter how much your heart wishes it to be true. Apparently lying is also considered a perfectly normal AMMORAL attribute that is nothing more than a cobbled and tinkered invention of evolution as a defensive survival mechanism(even tho it was never planned for).
Nice!!!
Negative Entropy:
ReplyDelete"Actually what the ants prove is that heuristics with some way of selection, can solve problems more efficiently than greedy (or exhaustive) methods. This looks awfully similar to something I have heard about before ... hum ... heuristics smells a bit like trial and error, like some random process ... selection ... random process ... selection ... hum, so familiar ... what could it be?"
=====
Unfortunately for your religious worldview of a wish list there, none of the above. To the extent that the ants have a measure of self awareness and consciousness along with other instinctive programming, they have the ability to make decisions. And personally for me in the case of the Argentine Ants and having to deal with them in what is ideally a perfect environment which lacks all the natural controls of their homeland where different genetic hives attack & control each other, here they only have to deal with the collective intelligence of supposedly far superior humans(scientific geniuses) and in doing this they are proving to out smart the geniuses at almost every turn. Evolution has noting to do with it. That's your problem.
On another note: Argentine ants have been so successful outside of their natural checks and balances environment, that they are actually decimating most all of the various native Harvestor ant populations throughout the Southwest, which in domino effect terms, means that Horned (Toad) Lizards are declining at an alarming rate and are no longer present in many of their formerly large territories(since they dine almost exclusively on Harvestor ants). Aren't the later day human geniuses and their achievements and accomplishments a wonderful precious thing ???
Argentine ants have been so successful outside of their natural checks and balances environment, that they are actually decimating most all of the various native Harvestor ant populations throughout the Southwest...
ReplyDeleteAnother excellent example of natural selection at work.
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"Another excellent example of natural selection at work."
====
Incredible and very illustrative example of an Evolutionist jumping for joy over a supposed proof of their god's existance when in actual fact it is nothing more than the result of rejecting morality. Human imperfection and error motivated and given continued life through the flawed passed on epigenetic trait qualites of greed and selfishness.
Other examples:
SWINE FLU:
How many articles came out during the potential for global swine flu pandemic and the possible death of 10s of thousands of fellow human beings and all evolutionists could do is write articles celebrating what they considered yet another example of their god at work cobbling and tinkering and all the while ignoring the human error of sanitaton problems and laspes. Ignored also was the greed behind industrial farming which caused the thing to mutate in the first place. Screw the victims, their just collateral damage in the survival of the fittest game of life.
2009 HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL IN NATURE
Several articles championed Homosexuality as a perfectly normal trait because it is so prevalent in nature as examples like the gay penquins in the German Berlin Zoo illustrate. Yet researchers as far back as the early 1980s were warning the scientific community that Bisphenol A and other chemicals had potential for disrupting the endocrine system during early fetal developement and causing sexual disfunction in all life on earth. Girls were being born with testicle instead of ovaries. More common also is the deformity of children born with both genitalia and of course the taboo of discussing the genetic mistakes causing an increase in homosexuality in later day children.
www.ourstolenfuture.org has innumerable examples of gay seagulls trying to nest, gay fish trying to spawn etc failing to reproduce in the environment because of trace amounts of these dangerous chemicals destroying their genetic wiring. Articles in other journals warning since warning of potential of mass extinctions if the world's leaders don't get a handle on this. What is the Evolutionist reaction to all of this ??? What about global ruin for increased extinction rates globally ??? Who cares, our degenerative behavior is found in nature, it is therefore natural and normal, hell, life is a mere casualty of the chaos that cobbled and tinkered the damn thing in the first place. Hurray for our side!!!.
Pedant: "it's an attack on western civilization"
One has to wonder how far into the toilette this so-called Western Civilization has to sink before ammorality is rejected or ejected from the planet. That time is actually close at hand.
Eocene: I haven't misrepresented anything. The very foundation and reason for your belief and worldview is that there is absolutely no Intelligent Designer/Creator of any sort who accomplished anything.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: As WE have not made that claim, you are still misrepresenting our position.
Eocene: No I haven't misrepresented anything, science fiction always remains science fiction no matter how much your heart wishes it to be true. Apparently lying is also considered a perfectly normal AMMORAL attribute that is nothing more than a cobbled and tinkered invention of evolution as a defensive survival mechanism(even tho it was never planned for).
You could have simply quoted the claim that you say you are not misrepresenting. Instead, when challenged, you repeat that you are not misrepresenting anything, and then sprinkle in some insults.
Good luck with that.
Excuse me eocene, but if you don't want to have a conversation tell me so. Attacking me without giving me an answer showing that you understood what I said will not make a conversation any easier. Fine if that is what you prefer, but then prepare to have the corresponding answers.
ReplyDeleteI did not mention the evolution of the ants at all. I was talking about what you seem to perceive as "intelligence" in the ants: Can you see how this works at all? They "outsmart" people because they are using an heuristic algorithm instead of thinking. This takes the form of semi-random exploration (semi-random because there are constraints to where they can walk and where not), keeping record of the trials (pheromone trail), finding the food, then go back by following intersecting trails which give them, with time and several runs of traveling the different paths, to optimizing a single path as they add concentration of pheromones. This is selection.
To make you happy about your inference about "my religion," let me finish as follows: What the ants are doing too, is show you that heuristic algorithms are sufficient, and often surpass intelligence, to solve problems. Thus, evolution, another heuristic algorithm, does not need intelligent input to work and produce the variety of life that we see. yes, the ant system depends in their different capacities, pheromone, following pheromone trails, and so. But, if ants can "outsmart" you with heuristics, why can't nature "outsmart" you by using heuristics?
If you give me a real answer, I will try hard to understand what you say. But if instead you prefer the attack mode, I will be glad to comply.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"You could have simply quoted the claim that you say you are not misrepresenting. Instead, when challenged, you repeat that you are not misrepresenting anything, and then sprinkle in some insults."
====
What is this with you and game playing ??? I don't bite. Your issue is with Richard Dawkins over at his forum where he and other well knowns have established there is no god directing anything and blind pointless indifference without purpose or intent free from any interference from any intelligence(except possibly Aliens) has brought us the world of complexity and sophistication we see all around us that sadly at the present time is failing because of humankind.
If your a Theistic Evolutionist, then admit it and move on. Otherwise this contant linguistic whitewash over rotten timbers to hide the truth ends here.
Negative:
ReplyDelete"I did not mention the evolution of the ants at all. I was talking about what you seem to perceive as "intelligence" in the ants: Can you see how this works at all? They "outsmart" people because they are using an heuristic algorithm instead of thinking. This takes the form of semi-random exploration (semi-random because there are constraints to where they can walk and where not), keeping record of the trials (pheromone trail), finding the food, then go back by following intersecting trails which give them, with time and several runs of traveling the different paths, to optimizing a single path as they add concentration of pheromones.
====
The problem is you are making it out as strictly nothing more than mechanical and there is clearly more than blind programmed robotics invented by non-sense going on here.
----
Negative Entropy:
"This is selection"
====
The only selection going on is with the ant's own ability of decision making. I'm not comparing it to the intellectualness of humans(human's are only ignorant when lack of understanding doesn't exist yet), but clearly ants(and any other organism) have a measure of consciousness as a living breathing lifeform with desires, goals, choices etc, though they are limited compared to us. The act of selection is done by a living lifeform, not blind unintelligent forces of environment as even the bible acknlowledges exist and that we're all subject to it. That was my point.
I believe Cornelius' point was this constant lack by evolutionists to ever explain in their own foundation of undirectedness with no guidance or interference from any intelligence. Everyone seems perfectly comfortable with story telling without supporting facts about just how all these complicated mechanisms(example - your heuristic algorithms) arose and the complex codes of information that drive them came about by nothing more than chemcials and physics. This is always diliberately left out and glossed over with linguistic whitewash and we're left with inadequate and unsatifying answers to our questions.
One thing you might do in the other thread is ask Cornelius just what he means by "evolutionary narritives" which seems to be stumbling many on the latest thread. I'm not necessarily attacking you, but I'm attacking a dogma that I see presently destroying out planet Earth and all that runs it. I'm also not favouring the other side either. I find much of their own dogma that turns my stomach as well. Admittedly I am very ecologically oriented and most of my fights in debates come from rightwinging Fundies , but oddly enough the political left suddenly becomes their allies somehow when I bring it up here for no other intelligent reason than to be merely contrary in the discussion. Go figure!
Rhod:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences."
You don't think that Fisher qualifies as a really first-rate mind? I would put him at about the same level as Richard Feynman.
Eocene,
ReplyDeleteThe algorithm used by the ants is still quite mechanical, and it is replicated "mechanically" in "ant algorithms" in computer science. This method involves, again, heuristics: Semi-random walks, and decision-making/selection at a level that can be replicated without any need for consciousness to get involved.
I fail to see why an environment would not be able to select and wash away semi-randomness too. We have seen it at many levels. We have seen it happen in nature, directly. We have seen it at a smaller level in directed evolution experiments where variability is brought about by random mutagenesis, and then selection applied as simply as, say, using antibiotics, we have seen it in rounds of self-replicating RNA being selected from random libraries that improve enormously each round, we have seen it in genetic algorithms. The formula has always been random variability plus selection. Why would an environment be incapable of selecting?
Then, I fail to see how the environment would be messed up because of evolutionary theory.
I don't expect you to change your mind about evolution being wrong. I only expect your answers to be reasonable, and that you will find mine so as well. Let me know.
I know of one "evolutionary narrative" kind of concept by Ernst W Mayr, but I doubt Cornelius means the same thing. I don't buy completely on Ernst's idea. But maybe that's just me, or maybe I should read more about it before rejecting a half-understood idea.
ReplyDeleteI will see if I can get what Cornelius means about it around here. Then I will ask if needed.
Have fun!
troy said...
ReplyDeleteRhod:
"Unfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences."
You don't think that Fisher qualifies as a really first-rate mind? I would put him at about the same level as Richard Feynman.
Ron Fisher and John Haldane were some of the very few mathematically minded evolutionists. True. Too often, the sort who enter the field (and are perceived as the leaders, today) of evolutionism are just not sound scientific minds. Instead, evolutionism seems to attract folks who "want to make a difference", bringing sentimentalist and political points of view to an already "soft science". Fisher put evolution on a firmer scientific basis and with his Genetical Theory. But, in that same work I believe he diverged into his odd Theory of Racial Decline. And when tobacco manufacturers were looking for a shill "man of science" to counter cancer research, Ron Fisher was there in several articles. Seems like I remember old ARGOSY magazine articles in the 50's with Fisher the resident expert denying a link to smoking and cancer. Haldane didn't help himself out, either, standing by fellow marxist Lysenko all those years while folks starved in Russia/Ukraine. And his duplicitous attacks on Velikovsky (like CSagan's, too) did not put evolutionists in a very good light.
Again on the topic at hand, I see the latest Jan issue of DISCOVER has an interesting 3 page interview with Ed Wilson. He is infuriating his accolytes by now negating his past claims for altruism and kinship --particularly citing ants. Over 35 years, so many evolutionists had embraced altruism as a panacea for gaps in evolutionary biology. They are irate that their "grand old man" E.O.Wilson now has vacated his work, there, and orphaned them. Wilson even shoots down the math of Bill Hamilton. Again this has to do with ants, sterile workers. And remembering that CDarwin had said (a lack of evolutionary mechanism) could be "actually fatal to my whole theory". That I see it, evolutionism needs to have a person step forward in the footsteps of Darwin, Hamilton, and Wilson and resolve this problem with insects such as the ants.
Rhod: Again this has to do with ants, sterile workers.
ReplyDeleteSterile workers are consistent with predictions from the Theory of Natural Selection as sisters are related by ~75% of their genes.
Female ants inherit one set of genes from their mother, one from their father. Male ants are produced from an unfertilized egg and only have half a complement of genes (haploid). Consequently, female workers share up to 75% (assuming monandry) of their genes. They have greater success by *not* reproducing (where their offspring would only have 50% of their genes), but by helping their sisters.
The relationship between female ants is determined by the habits of the queen, in particular, how many mates she takes. In colonies where the queen has only one mate, females are more closely related, and tend to be more dominant going so far as to manipulate sex ratios.
Sundström, Chapuisat & Keller, Conditional Manipulation of Sex Ratios by Ant Workers: A Test of Kin Selection Theory, Science 1996.
And even beyond immediate kin.
Helantera, et al., Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going?, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2009.
Ronald Reagan, Alien Invasion Hypothesis, 1987.
Rhod said:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, evolutionism has never seemed to attract really first-rate minds such as you might see in physics and other "hard" sciences.
Well, of course "evolutionism" does not attract bright minds. "Evolutionism" is a straw man of evolution. I would not be attracted to work on such a cartoon either.
The science of evolution, on the other hand, has tons of bright minds working on it. Most of them have to be very mathematically-oriented, otherwise they would not make it. You seem to have no idea about the scientific rigour in evolutionary science. I have seen my manuscripts been meticulously destroyed into shreds by these very capable and sharp minds (which has forced me to be a much better scientist than I would be otherwise). I guess you have not taken any courses in evolutionary analysis, nor in molecular evolution, nor in population genetics, nor in bioenergetics.
Then again, you did not say "evolution," you said "evolutionism" which is the give-away that you actually have no idea whatsoever about evolution. All you know is the cartoons portrayed by the likes of our dear blog host. Figures.