Natures wonders: Bird Migration (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 04, 2012, 01:10 (4458 days ago)

More information about magntic mechanisms in migrating birds; maintaining a quantum state:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927963.000-quantum-states-last-longer-in-birds-...

Natures wonders: Parasite life cycles

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 04, 2012, 17:17 (4458 days ago) @ David Turell

Parasite life cycles. These guys are so clever:

http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/01/animal-mind-control/

Natures wonders: Plant carnivores

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 14:48 (4452 days ago) @ David Turell

There are at least 600 plant species of this type Venus fly trap comes to mind. This one hunts bugs in the soil:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-carnivorous-worms-sticky.html

Natures wonders:Intermittent symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, 01:07 (4438 days ago) @ David Turell

Wacky arrangement. Chloroplast and no chloroplast:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/01/22/half-plant-half-predator-all-weird/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20120123

Natures wonders:cell garbage collectors

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2012, 16:33 (4430 days ago) @ David Turell

Cleaning up junk in a cell. Put it in a vacuole and lyse it:-http://the-scientist.com/2012/02/01/the-enigmatic-membrane/

Natures wonders:design of spider webs

by David Turell @, Friday, February 03, 2012, 04:38 (4428 days ago) @ David Turell

Yes, they looked designed. They are strong:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201140004.htm

Natures wonders:brain connections

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 04, 2012, 18:55 (4426 days ago) @ David Turell

A new book about the brain and how it might work. If you don't think living matter is complex, just look at this, A 100 million neurons each with thousands of connections, many self-tailored by the individual's experiences:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577192974245115762.html?KEYWORDS=Connectome

Natures wonders:brain connections

by dhw, Monday, February 06, 2012, 14:52 (4425 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A new book about the brain and how it might work. If you don't think living matter is complex, just look at this, A 100 million neurons each with thousands of connections, many self-tailored by the individual's experiences:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577192974245115762.html?KEYWORDS...-David, thank you for continually providing us with all these references. This one is mind (brain?) boggling.

Natures wonders:assassin bugs at work

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2012, 23:23 (4421 days ago) @ dhw

Attacking spiders by stealth:-http://discovermagazine.com/2011/dec/08-spider-assassin-acts-prey-cloaks-wind

Natures wonders: Bacteria sense environment

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 15:47 (4410 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacterial molecule complex receptor molecules sense the environment:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-honeycomb-responsible-bacteria-extraordinary.html

Natures wonders: Virus gene helps human placenta

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 20:39 (4409 days ago) @ David Turell

Found in several animals that use placentas, but not pigs for example: -
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

Natures wonders:Fungus masters

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 22:44 (4409 days ago) @ David Turell

Never trust a fungus. they may run the world:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/02/20/five-kinds-of-fungus-discovered-to-be-capable-of-farming-animals/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120221

Natures wonders:summing parrot

by David Turell @, Monday, February 27, 2012, 23:27 (4403 days ago) @ David Turell

Wonderful results at Harvard. A parrot who does sums correctly. Apparently he died of the strain:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=alex-parrot-posthumous-paper-mathematical-genius

Natures wonders:scorpion vs. sandstorm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 23:00 (4401 days ago) @ David Turell

Less erosion!-http://www.economist.com/node/21545971

Natures wonders: Hunting while eyeless

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 07, 2012, 15:09 (4395 days ago) @ David Turell

The Hydra hunts and fires. Opsin triggerss the spear:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120305150658.htm

Natures wonders: Defense by vomiting!

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 07, 2012, 15:34 (4395 days ago) @ David Turell

Vomit bird's defense:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-vomit-bird-defence-predators.html

Natures wonders: Scratching an itch

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 07, 2012, 15:39 (4395 days ago) @ David Turell

Brown bears (grizzlies) have large brains for their size, but they are too dangerous to learn much about. This one scratched an itch in a smart way:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-wild-brown-tool.html

Natures wonders: Parasites eat fish tongues! Ugh?

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 08, 2012, 21:37 (4393 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: Ants find their way home

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 00:44 (4389 days ago) @ David Turell

Desert ants must return home, counting steps! Sniffing for Co2 from their breathe:-http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2012/03/09/orientation_of_desert_ants_every_cue_counts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+biologynews%2Fheadlines+%28Biology+News+Net%29

Natures wonders: Bird\'s eye compass

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 15, 2012, 14:14 (4387 days ago) @ David Turell

If you had a compass in your eyes, no need for a map:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-birds-evolved-compass.html

Natures wonders: Alert Iguanas

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 15, 2012, 18:21 (4387 days ago) @ David Turell

How iguanas know about danger, listening to bird calls. And they are sea-going as well:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/03/15/eavesdropping-iguanas-use-mockingbird-calls-to-survive/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120315

Natures wonders: Cooking a hornet.

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 04, 2012, 22:08 (4366 days ago) @ David Turell

Bee co-op destroys an enemy:-
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/03/3470076.htm

Natures wonders: Fastest poison makers

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 15:09 (4361 days ago) @ David Turell

Cone snails have made over 100 neurotoxins to paralyze prey by high mutation rate. -http://phys.org/news/2012-04-snails-fast-genes-predatory-refine.html

Natures wonders: Poison and symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 15:47 (4353 days ago) @ David Turell

A marine worm lives off carbon monoxide and Hydrogen sulphide, by keeping bacteria who do the job under its skin:-http://phys.org/news/2012-04-toxic-menu-marine-worm-carbon.html-No guts at all!

Natures wonders: Poison and symbiosis

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 21:52 (4352 days ago) @ David Turell

This is a fascinating article. The only part that bugs me is the way they bandy about their presuppositions of evolution. ->"They do this so effectively, that the worm has lost its entire digestive system, including its mouth and gut, during the course of evolution, and feeds only through its symbionts"->"The worm provides us with an example of the power of evolution. Over the course of millions of years, adaptation and selection have led to the development of an optimally adapted host-symbiont system. And these seemingly modest worms are an excellent model for a better understanding of other complex symbioses, such as those of the human gut", says Dubilier.-Do they have specimens of the worm WITH a digestive system, mouth, and gut, or is it just assumed sometime in the dim recesses of the past? How ironic that this worm is part of the world's natural filtration system, eating up greenhouse gasses that the rest of the living world produces.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Poison and symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, April 24, 2020, 00:24 (1425 days ago) @ David Turell

A newt is protected by toxic bacteria on its skin:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/toxic-newts-use-bacteria-become-deadly-prey-1...

"The title of most poisonous animal on Earth is typically given to the beautiful and deadly golden poison dart frog of Columbia—the one-inch-long frog is sometimes drenched in enough poison to kill ten grown men. But a far less exotic creature is capable of producing enough poison to kill up to 20 people: the unassuming rough-skinned newt, with its bumpy skin and fiery orange underbelly, a familiar sight in the Pacific Northwest of North America.

"Some populations of this common amphibian are covered in a deadly neurotoxin—a compound called tetrodotoxin (TTX) that causes paralysis and is also found in most species of pufferfish as well as the notorious blue-ringed octopus.

***

"But scientists couldn’t figure out how the newts produced a complex neurotoxin like TTX, reports Erin Garcia de Jesus for Science News. Now, new research suggests that the toxic tango between the rough-skinned newt and its serpent predator may have a third participant: bacteria living on the newt’s skin, according to a new study published in the journal eLife.

***

"To investigate whether the amphibians might be getting a helping hand from bacteria, Vaelli and his colleagues swabbed the skin of rough-skinned newts and grew the bacteria in the lab. When researchers screened the bacteria for TTX, they found four groups of toxin-toting bacteria.

"The quartet of microbes includes the genus Pseudomonas, which also produces TTX in pufferfish, the blue-ringed octopus and sea snails. The presence of Pseudomonas bacteria was also correlated with the level of toxicity in individual newts. This is the first time researchers have identified bacteria that produce TTX on a land animal.

"However, the newts may still have some unexplained tricks up their sleeves, Charles Hanifin, biologist at Utah State University, tells Science News. Some permutations of TTX found on newt skin aren’t yet known to emanate from bacteria.

"What’s more, nobody knows how bacteria manufacture TTX in the first place, adds Hanifin,so it's still possible that the newts may potentially be making some of the potent toxin themselves."

Comment: A neat arrangement. No explanation as to how it came about. Other questions besides how do they do it, are why do the bacteria bother to make toxin at all, and what caused them to decide to do it.

Natures wonders: Beck compass

by David Turell @, Friday, April 20, 2012, 06:04 (4351 days ago) @ David Turell

Birds navigating with compass?-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/04/12/those-magnetic-neurons-birds-use-to-steer-theyre-not-neurons-and-arent-for-steering/

Natures wonders: Beck compass

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, April 20, 2012, 19:54 (4350 days ago) @ David Turell

Birds navigating with compass?
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/04/12/those-magnetic-neurons-birds-use-t...Seeing Magnetic Lines-If this turns out to be true then it could have major impacts on research. Will be interesting to see what comes from it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Raven memory

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 21, 2012, 15:47 (4350 days ago) @ David Turell

Edgar Alan Poe's friends appear to hve an extended memory:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419132558.htm

Natures wonders: Plants listen & Hag fish emetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 17, 2012, 22:20 (4323 days ago) @ David Turell

Auditory offense and very tasty defense:-http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/12-plants-repel-bacterial-assault-spying-chatter-http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/12-hagfish-special-trick-slime-mucus

Natures wonders: Insect trapping

by David Turell @, Friday, June 15, 2012, 01:39 (4295 days ago) @ David Turell

A new approach by a pitcher plant. 'Raindrops are falling on my head':-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613184007.htm

Natures wonders: Insect trapping

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 15, 2012, 01:47 (4295 days ago) @ David Turell

A new approach by a pitcher plant. 'Raindrops are falling on my head':
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613184007.htm-That smacks more of chance: how many nasty storms will a pitcher plant see in its lifetime? 1/3? 1/2 at best?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Natures wonders: Insect trapping

by David Turell @, Friday, June 15, 2012, 05:06 (4295 days ago) @ xeno6696

A new approach by a pitcher plant. 'Raindrops are falling on my head':
> > 
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613184007.htm
> 
> That smacks more of chance: how many nasty storms will a pitcher plant see in its lifetime? 1/3? 1/2 at best?-It appears to live by rain drops.

Natures wonders: Nitrogen transfer

by David Turell @, Friday, June 22, 2012, 16:34 (4288 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungal transfer of killed insect nitrogen to plants through the soil-
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-nitrogen-fungi-insects.html

Natures wonders: Nitrogen transfer

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 28, 2012, 21:48 (4281 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungal transfer of killed insect nitrogen to plants through the soil
> 
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2012-06-nitrogen-fungi-insects.html-Another article on fungal nitrogen trasfer:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/06/21/plants-use-fungi-to-eat-insects-by-proxy/

Natures wonders: Photosynthesis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2012, 02:01 (4277 days ago) @ David Turell

More than 95% efficient in producing energy. Takes only four photons. Humans have created solar panels at 10-15% efficiency:-http://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-key-secrets-photosynthesis.html

Natures wonders: Reacting to toxins

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2012, 16:57 (4277 days ago) @ David Turell

"We have multiple codons for any one amino acid. What the cell seems to be doing is using these to fine-tune the ultimate expression of that protein," he says. "Probably what we're going to find is a code in the use of codons in the genome, where classes of proteins are grouped together by what the cell needs for a particular stress response."-
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-genetic-cells-exploit-gene-sequences.html-codes within the code!

Natures wonders: Bee brains youthen

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2012, 17:01 (4277 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: Gecko feet

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2012, 18:28 (4277 days ago) @ David Turell

not advertising for car insurance. Geeko feet stick or don't stick. Depends on need. Sticky pads come and go. Convergent evolution, not Darwinian evolution:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628131053.htm

Natures wonders: piggyback bacteria

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2012, 16:18 (4274 days ago) @ David Turell

Toxic bacteria can make the way for non-toxic ones to piggyback into play.-http://the-scientist.com/2012/07/05/bacterial-exploitation/

Natures wonders: diving beetle legs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 08, 2012, 20:39 (4240 days ago) @ David Turell

Quite a natural construction:-https://twitter.com/TheScientistLLC/status/231466251401195521/photo/1

Natures wonders: reptile sex change

by David Turell @, Friday, August 10, 2012, 15:24 (4239 days ago) @ David Turell

Most reptiles have no sex chromosomes. Sex is set by the thermometer, hot or hotter:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-alligators-become-hes-or-shes-by-an-expert/-Please ignore the creationist blather. The facts are fascinating.

Natures wonders: mouse retina

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 14:42 (4235 days ago) @ David Turell

Specialized retinal cells are an air raid warning system in mice:-http://phys.org/news/2012-08-high-resolution-retina-cells-mice-birds.html

Natures wonders: colored aphids

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 19, 2012, 03:15 (4230 days ago) @ David Turell

Aphid can make carotinoids, yes the yellow color of carrots. No one else can. They also may photosynthesize. The article doesn't mention this but ants run plant ranches with herds of aphids. Evolution can certainly get wild.-http://www.nature.com/news/first-evidence-for-photosynthesis-in-insects-1.11214

Natures wonders: sunbathing bugs

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 25, 2012, 15:53 (4224 days ago) @ David Turell

These guys produce a chemical which becomes a fungus killer by sunbathing. How does Darwin explain this one?-http://phys.org/news/2012-08-sunbathing-bugs-healthy.html

Natures wonders: bacterial weapons

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 09, 2012, 15:40 (4209 days ago) @ David Turell

Some marine bacteria produce antibiotics against others, while its relatives maintain a resistance and enjoy the protection:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120906144837.htm

Natures wonders: wasp hunts spiders

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 15:17 (4206 days ago) @ David Turell

A small wasp hunts one type of poisonous spider, paralyzes it so larvae have a meal.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911102950.htm

Natures wonders: ants using bacteria

by David Turell @, Friday, September 14, 2012, 15:48 (4204 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants farm fungus for food. The bacteria produce antibiotics to protect the fungus:-http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/14/ants-select-better-microbes/

Natures wonders:bright crows again

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 15:13 (4200 days ago) @ David Turell

Thinking New Caledonian crows, smarter than ever. But they are not us:-
http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/18/crows-do-it-again/

Natures wonders:insect trapping

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 27, 2012, 15:58 (4191 days ago) @ David Turell

Further research in fly traps. These plants use trapping to make up for nutrient poor soil.-http://phys.org/news/2012-09-touch-sensitive-tentacles-catapult-prey-carnivorous.html

Natures wonders:wandering DNA

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 27, 2012, 16:11 (4191 days ago) @ David Turell

Perhaps this is why women are outdistancing men in college: in numbers, in grades, in achievements:-
http://the-scientist.com/2012/09/27/swapping-dna-in-the-womb/

Natures wonders:migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 29, 2012, 15:42 (4189 days ago) @ David Turell

Whimbrels, shore birds make long distance flights to migrate with the seasons. One bird flew for 145 hours. This reqires metabolic changes with enough fat on board as well as muscle building prior to the jump. And then one might ask how did Darwinian evolution theory provide for this? Was there a first brave bird who took the chance because he 'knew' the benefits of warmer weather? This is all instinct, developed how? Darwin has no answer for any of this, that is obvious.-http://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientists-fall-migratory-pathways-habits.html

Natures wonders: archer fish hunt insects

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 25, 2012, 17:03 (4163 days ago) @ David Turell

Using a well-aimed jet of water:-http://phys.org/news/2012-10-archer-fish-insects-jet-stronger.html

Natures wonders: Nitrogen transfer

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 18, 2012, 21:46 (4169 days ago) @ David Turell

Getting rid of nitrogenous wastes by mouth. A salt water turtle's adaptation:-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/11/this-chinese-turtle-urinates-through-its-mouth/

Natures wonders: Instinct

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 25, 2012, 18:56 (4163 days ago) @ David Turell

How do newborns know what to do in their life cycles?-http://youtu.be/WJxIy2ciHAg

Natures wonders: Spider eyes

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 01, 2012, 14:18 (4156 days ago) @ David Turell

What do spiders do with eight eyes? Help avoid trouble if you are a jumping hunting spider:-http://www.livescience.com/24054-why-spiders-have-eight-eyes.html

Natures wonders: Death by predator

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 01, 2012, 18:09 (4156 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: zombies

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 07, 2012, 20:46 (4149 days ago) @ David Turell

How animals are zombified by others:-http://youtu.be/WtdMbSk3h3o-It is all in a life cycle. How did Darwin do this? Or did he?

Natures wonders: fatty acid defense

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 08, 2012, 15:26 (4149 days ago) @ David Turell

How to defend oneself with chemicals:-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-gene-discovery-soldier-beetle-defence.html

Natures wonders: inventions

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 08, 2012, 15:30 (4149 days ago) @ David Turell

Copy nature and invent new surfaces with better properties:-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-butterfly-wings-high-tech-surfaces.html

Natures wonders: 911 fish

by David Turell @, Friday, November 09, 2012, 15:48 (4148 days ago) @ David Turell

Corals can call fish to eat damaging seaweed. The fish are protected and have plenty to eat:--http://phys.org/news/2012-11-bodyguard-fish-corals-toxic-seaweed.html

Natures wonders:zombie ants again

by David Turell @, Friday, November 09, 2012, 20:55 (4147 days ago) @ David Turell

Zombie fungus attacks ants, but is itself attacked by another fungus--http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=zombie-ant-fungus-parasite&page=3-
"Andersen and her colleagues have found that a different breed of fungi grow over the ant corpse and the emerging fungus stalk. By covering the original fungus and its stalk, this secondary fungus—or hyperparasite—effectively prevents the zombie-ant fungus from ejecting its spores. "It looks like they completely sterilize it," Andersen says of the second-level parasite.
 
Even these hyperparasites seem to be specialized for growing on specific parasitizing fungi. "They're not really growing on anything else" in the area, Andersen says. This makes the hyperparasite another obligate parasite, which depends on the zombie-ant fungus, which depends, in turn, on the carpenter ant colony. "Once you're very successful, something else will take advantage of it," she notes. "It's really a little ecosystem in its own [right].'"

Natures wonders: human lens

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 14, 2012, 15:07 (4143 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, November 14, 2012, 15:19

"The fundamental technology behind this new lens is called "GRIN" or gradient refractive index optics. In GRIN, light gets bent, or refracted, by varying degrees as it passes through a lens or other transparent material. This is in contrast to traditional lenses, like those found in optical telescopes and microscopes, which use their surface shape or single index of refraction to bend light one way or another.
 
"'The human eye is a GRIN lens,' said Michael Ponting, polymer scientist and president of PolymerPlus, an Ohio-based Case Western Reserve spinoff launched in 2010. 'As light passes from the front of the human eye lens to the back, light rays are refracted by varying degrees. It's a very efficient means of controlling the pathway of light without relying on complicated optics, and one that we attempted to mimic.'"-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113122046.htm-Another explanation:-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-human-eye-visionary-natural-lens.html-There are many examples of developing an application by copying nature. Think velcro, etc.

Natures wonders:zombie ants again

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 15:57 (3500 days ago) @ David Turell

Another study on fungus control of ants:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140818153607.htm

Natures wonders: shiny squid

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 14:49 (3499 days ago) @ David Turell

More bacerial symbiosis:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40795/title/Image-of-the-Day--Squid-Shine/

Natures wonders: ants are herdsmen

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 21, 2014, 15:04 (3498 days ago) @ David Turell

A common sight in our garden:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40811/title/Image-of-the-Day--Vine-Farming/

Natures wonders:zombie ants again

by David Turell @, Monday, August 25, 2014, 19:35 (3494 days ago) @ David Turell

The fungus knows when it finds the right ant brain to attack!-http://phys.org/news/2014-08-zombie-ant-fungi-brains-hosts.html

Natures wonders:frog tongue stickyness

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 15:10 (3493 days ago) @ David Turell

high speed tongues get dinner:-http://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000003068157/the-frog-slap-shot.html?emc=edit_th_20140826&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861

Natures wonders:Harp sponge

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 10, 2012, 15:03 (4147 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, November 10, 2012, 15:41

Some sponges are carnivorous: This one sieves ocean water like a whale's mouth.-http://www.sci-news.com/biology/article00703.html-Another more scientifi verson of the find:-http://www.nature.com/news/new-carnivorous-harp-sponge-discovered-in-deep-sea-1.11789

Natures wonders:flower power

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 13, 2012, 23:39 (4113 days ago) @ David Turell

Look like an orchid and catch your dinner:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33661/title/Image-of-the-Day/

Natures wonders:puffer fish art

by David Turell @, Friday, December 14, 2012, 23:39 (4112 days ago) @ David Turell

Beautiful with a purpose. This is instinct!!! But, where did the info come from?-http://www.spoon-tamago.com/2012/09/18/deep-sea-mystery-circle-love-story/

Natures wonders:plants smell danger

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 16:07 (4108 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants can detect when an insect is going to injure them:-"The researchers found that females were significantly less likely to lay eggs on plants exposed to the male emission and about four times more likely to lay eggs on plants in a control group that were not exposed to this odor cue."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121217140747.htm

Natures wonders:water slide traps

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 16:29 (4108 days ago) @ David Turell

Water slides are fun at pool side. An insect trapping plant uses the technique for dinner:--"They found that wetting strongly enhanced the slipperiness of the trap and increased the capture rate for ants almost three-fold - from 29 per cent when dry to 88 per cent when wet. Upon further examination, they found that the wetting affected the insets' adhesive pads while the directional arrangement of the hairs was effective against the claws."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-venezuelan-pitcher-wettable-hairs-insects.html#jCp

Natures wonders:a Michaelangelo spider

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 16:37 (4108 days ago) @ David Turell

Sculpting scarey spiders?-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33747/title/Spider-Sculpts-Fake-Spider/-"In examining the decoys, Torres found them to be made up of compiled masses of dead insects, leaf bits and assorted debris. And while each was somewhat different from all the others, the overriding theme was the image of a spider, with legs and a body that resemble the real thing."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-species-spider-fake-decoys.html#jCp

Natures wonders:Anti-freeze molecules or gene editing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 15:15 (4094 days ago) @ David Turell

Natural antifreeze molecules exist in arctic fish and in insects. This is a recent study:-http://phys.org/news/2013-01-molecules-fire-colored-beetles-antifreeze-artists.html-And octopi control nerve transmission effects of cold climate by coding the treansmission of gene instructions differently than warm climate octopi.-http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/cellular-machinery-redesigns-genes-for.html

Natures wonders:Producing zombies and antibiotics

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 08, 2013, 23:00 (4087 days ago) @ David Turell

I've presented the art of zombifying before, and I think how wasps use cockroaches for larval food. New research shows how the larvae contend with the awful bacterial bugs in cockroaches. They secrete antibiotic saliva on the cockroach before feasting! Those saliva molecules may turn out to be new antibiotics for us to use!-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2013/01/07/parasitic-wasps-master-microbiology-on-addition-to-neurochemistry/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130108

Natures wonders:Dragon fly hunting

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 10, 2013, 13:10 (4086 days ago) @ David Turell

These insects which go back 325 million years can hone in on prey with accuracy 95% of the time. A tiny brain that works:-http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news58341.html

Natures wonders:Dragon fly hunting

by dhw, Thursday, January 10, 2013, 20:03 (4085 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: These insects which go back 325 million years can hone in on prey with accuracy 95% of the time. A tiny brain that works:-http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news58341.html-
Actually, they say 97% accuracy. Thank you for this and for the many other fascinating posts under the same heading.-QUOTES: "What's exciting for us is that this is the first direct demonstration of something akin to selective attention in humans shown at the single neuron level in an invertebrate," Associate Professor O'Carroll says.-"Recent studies reveal similar mechanisms at work in the primate brain, but you might expect it there. We weren't expecting to find something so sophisticated in lowly insects from a group that's been around for 325 million years."-People are constantly surprised at the sophisticated level of intelligence demonstrated by insects, birds and animals. Even when they are shown to have the ability to solve problems, to communicate complex information, to feel and display emotions, to behave altruistically, to form highly efficient social groups ... still we fail to recognize that all these abilities within ourselves have been inherited from our fellow creatures. The smaller they are, the less we can identify with them because they seem so unlike us, but I suspect that the more scientists study them, the more "sophistication" they will discover.

Natures wonders: Jumping Spider eyes

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 15, 2017, 18:43 (2530 days ago) @ David Turell

They've got eight for a very full range of vision:

https://aeon.co/essays/an-enigmatic-spider-and-the-fragile-threads-of-human-memory?utm_...

"P. mystaceus, which lives in North America, is a jumping spider. It is one of about 5,000 species in a highly successful family of arachnids (eight-legged, air-breathing, venom-fanged arthropods) that thrive almost everywhere except Greenland and Antarctica.

***

"Some species have better visual acuity than cats, which are more than 100 times their size, and though each of their pairs of anterior eyes has a limited field of view, the full complement of eight allows them to scan large sections of the world around them. (Like most spiders, they also have acute hearing, mediated by tiny hairs on their legs which are sensitive to the smallest vibrations.) They are much more powerful jumpers than cats, able to pounce up 50 times their body length and land with precision. And they have a safety rope: a silk thread tethered to the launch point in case they misjudge their leap and fall short. A jumping spider is a voracious panopticon, bungee-jumper and traceur in one.

***

"...the beauty of some jumping spiders is more apparent in their brains than their bodies. Just as we create patterns of the world, searching it for faces and symbols, they are mapping out their own lives in surprising detail. The drabbest genus contains some of the cleverest species known. Among them is Portia labiata, a jumping spider of South and East Asia that lives solely on the flesh of other spiders. P. labiata varies and adapts its behaviour according to the characteristics of the species it is hunting: using trial and error it observes and then mimics rhythms tapped out by species it has not encountered before in order to deceive them, and plots devious lines of attack if a full frontal assault looks too risky. The spider may spend an hour or more scanning the tangles of vegetation and gaps between itself and its intended victim, calculating the best route for a surprise attack. Scientists believe the reason labiata takes so long to do this is because, for all its excellent vision, it has very limited ability to take in and process information. So it systematically scans small sections of the surroundings with its anterior eyes, gradually building up enough information in its memory to build a mental map which it can then use. It’s a little like trying to download a large and fine-grained picture over a very slow internet connection. Once the map is complete, however, Portia will usually execute without fail, rapidly retracing its course if it finds it has started down a blind alley, choosing the correct option and finally swooping on its prey like a special forces ninja."

Comment: The spider obviously uses its brain to plan its attack. It must need all its eyes for the 3-D analysis of how to pounce. Each attack will be different, as circumstances will vary in each chance encounter. So the spider slowly plans each. the issue is not that the brain works efficiently, it is how did this spider reach its current form, bit by bit or all at once? All at once by design seems most logical. It could not live by jumping (pouncing like a cat)without its optical system intact for full 3-D planning.

Natures wonders:Algae salamander symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, January 18, 2013, 16:29 (4078 days ago) @ David Turell

Algae use photosynthesis to feed spotted salamanders:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23090-zoologger-the-first-solarpowered-vertebrate.html

Natures wonders:Algae salamander symbiosis

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2013, 05:43 (4077 days ago) @ David Turell

Algae use photosynthesis to feed spotted salamanders:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23090-zoologger-the-first-solarpowered-vertebrate... on this aspect of photosynthetic symbiosis with plastids:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33711/title/Steal-My-Sunshine/

Natures wonders: Magnetite teeth

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2013, 15:22 (4077 days ago) @ David Turell

Growing very hard teeth to get a meal from rock. Observations in nature leads to biomimicry inventions:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130116131410.htm

Natures wonders: escape ditching organs!

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 02, 2013, 15:07 (4063 days ago) @ David Turell

Using every trick of escape:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23124-zoologger-how-to-eat-without-a-digestive-system.html

Natures wonders: Insect navigation

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 02, 2013, 18:35 (4063 days ago) @ David Turell

Using the milky Way. Migratory routes using several generations of Monarchs:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578269963079963082.html?KEYWORDS=Mind+and+Matter%3A+matt+ridley+

Natures wonders: Frozen frogs

by David Turell @, Monday, February 04, 2013, 15:32 (4061 days ago) @ David Turell

These little wonders survive freezing solid:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34190/title/Icing-Organs/

Natures wonders: spider silk

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 07, 2013, 15:16 (4058 days ago) @ David Turell

"As fibers go, there's never been anything quite like spider silk. Stretch it. Bend it. Soak it. Dry it out. Spider silk holds up. It is five times stronger than steel and can expand nearly a third greater than its original length and snap right back like new. Ounce-for-ounce spider silk is even stronger than Kevlar, the man-made fiber used in bulletproof vests."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-spectroscopy-mysteries-spider-silk.html#jCp-Add water and the fibers shrink. Perhaps to add strength when it rains.

Natures wonders: long-distance migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 09, 2013, 00:31 (4056 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, February 09, 2013, 00:36

Tiny song birds hold the record:-http://phys.org/news/2012-02-featherweight-songbird-long-distance-champ.html-Also migration by magnetism in salmon:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207131713.htm-But the truly amazing part is the metamorphosis of the gills from fresh water to salt water to back again. Those gills must change to handle the salt:-"When migrating, salmon must transition from fresh water to sea water, and then back again. During each transition, the salmon undergo a metamorphosis that Putman says is almost as dramatic as the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Each such salmon metamorphosis involves a replacement of gill tissues that enables the fish to maintain the correct salt balance in its environment: the salmon retains salt when in fresh water and pumps out excess salt when in salt water."-How did this evolve?

Natures wonders: immunity

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 09, 2013, 15:18 (4056 days ago) @ David Turell

The memory of our immune system:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207131602.htm-We remember pathogens we haven't even met!

Natures wonders: salmon migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 09, 2013, 15:20 (4056 days ago) @ David Turell

Using the Earth's magnetic field:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207131713.htm

Natures wonders:plant warnings

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 15:43 (4052 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants communicate warnings if attacked:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23164-plants-listen-more-closely-to-kin-than-strangers.html

Natures wonders:bird migration patterns video

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 14, 2013, 21:46 (4050 days ago) @ David Turell

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=citizen-science-do-birds-really-migrat... this is a small distance. Some are thousands of miles across oceans

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by David Turell @, Friday, February 15, 2013, 15:38 (4050 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria have defenses against each other:-http://phys.org/news/2013-02-deadly-bacteria-remarkable-precision.html

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by dhw, Saturday, February 16, 2013, 12:32 (4049 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Bacteria have defenses against each other:-http://phys.org/news/2013-02-deadly-bacteria-remarkable-precision.html-QUOTE: Bacteria live in huge communities that involve cooperation as well as competition.
"This may reflect ecological decisions that are made by bacteria to form mixed biofilms living together, either in the extracellular environment or even inside the human host where they coexist in large, diverse communities," Mekalanos said. "When we first embarked on this work, we were really surprised to find out that the bacteria could respond to each other in such an intimate and dynamic way."-Could you possibly find a clearer instance of the "intelligent cell" at work, or of the evolutionary process of cooperation as expounded by Margulis? Communication between individual cells, the formation of communities that live and work together, making use of whatever environment they find themselves in...Isn't this the key to adaptation and innovation within living organisms, thereby leading to new organs and new species? No need for random mutations, no problem with gaps in the fossil record, no problem with saltation, no problem with the Cambrian Explosion... "Intelligent cells" are the answer to all the evolutionary questions except that of their origin.

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 16, 2013, 15:26 (4049 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Could you possibly find a clearer instance of the "intelligent cell" at work, or of the evolutionary process of cooperation as expounded by Margulis? Communication between individual cells, the formation of communities that live and work together, making use of whatever environment they find themselves in...Isn't this the key to adaptation and innovation within living organisms, thereby leading to new organs and new species? No need for random mutations, no problem with gaps in the fossil record, no problem with saltation, no problem with the Cambrian Explosion... "Intelligent cells" are the answer to all the evolutionary questions except that of their origin.-I have no argument with the intelligence in the first cells, or your obvious conclusions ,short of thed comment about origin. Information and intelligence are two sides of the same coin. Those cells are imbued with information. Information comes from an intelligent mind which supplied that information. Information does not come from blind chance. Therefore??? It is difficult to escape that thought that God exists.

Natures wonders:bacteria rule the world

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 16, 2013, 16:11 (4049 days ago) @ David Turell

This article explains why Margulis was correct. We live in symbiosis with helpful bacteria;-http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by dhw, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 13:05 (4048 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Could you possibly find a clearer instance of the "intelligent cell" at work, or of the evolutionary process of cooperation as expounded by Margulis? Communication between individual cells, the formation of communities that live and work together, making use of whatever environment they find themselves in...Isn't this the key to adaptation and innovation within living organisms, thereby leading to new organs and new species? No need for random mutations, no problem with gaps in the fossil record, no problem with saltation, no problem with the Cambrian Explosion... "Intelligent cells" are the answer to all the evolutionary questions except that of their origin.-DAVID: I have no argument with the intelligence in the first cells, or your obvious conclusions ,short of the comment about origin. Information and intelligence are two sides of the same coin. Those cells are imbued with information. Information comes from an intelligent mind which supplied that information. Information does not come from blind chance. Therefore??? It is difficult to escape that thought that God exists.-It depends on what you mean by information. Winds, rocks and heads are all imbued with information. So if a gust of wind dislodges a rock, which accidentally falls on my head and kills me, the authorities will examine the relevant information (e.g. speed of wind, composition and position of rock, position of dhw, composition of head etc.), and will attribute this truly tragic combination of information to blind chance rather than to the planning of an intelligent mind. It does, however, take intelligence to perceive, classify, identify and use information. If you think ALL information has to come from and be supplied by God, it would be very helpful if you could define exactly what you mean by "information".

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 15:46 (4048 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:It depends on what you mean by information. Winds, rocks and heads are all imbued with information. So if a gust of wind dislodges a rock, which accidentally falls on my head and kills me, the authorities will examine the relevant information (e.g. speed of wind, composition and position of rock, position of dhw, composition of head etc.), and will attribute this truly tragic combination of information to blind chance rather than to the planning of an intelligent mind. It does, however, take intelligence to perceive, classify, identify and use information. If you think ALL information has to come from and be supplied by God, it would be very helpful if you could define exactly what you mean by "information".-I refer to the information that runs the processes of life. Rocks have information of a diffrent kind, as an example. They don't 'process' anything. They are processed by erosion, but we are now discussing physical non-living forces. The processes of life require information from the beginning of life.
This information for life to work must come from somewhere and only thinking minds can supply information of that sort. The information in rocks is a discovery of rocks conents by minds who study rocks. Viewed this way it is hard to avoid God.

Natures wonders:bacteria fight each other

by dhw, Monday, February 18, 2013, 19:34 (4046 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: If you think ALL information has to come from and be supplied by God, it would be very helpful if you could define exactly what you mean by "information".-DAVID: I refer to the information that runs the processes of life. -Thank you for this clarification. Information clearly exists on a variety of levels that do NOT require intelligence (in the sense of creation by God). I agree with you that the information that runs the processes of life requires intelligence, and we agreed earlier that this intelligence resides within the cells of living organisms themselves. The perpetual dispute is over how it got there.-DAVID: This information for life to work must come from somewhere and only thinking minds can supply information of that sort. [...] Viewed this way it is hard to avoid God.-Obviously atheists don't find it hard at all, and I'm afraid the argument takes us back yet again to a choice of faiths (see my reply to George, under "Evolution and atheism", and to yourself under "The difference of Man"). Neither of you has any evidence for your respective hypotheses. Viewed this way it should be hard to avoid the picket fence.

Natures wonders:antifreeze

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 15:28 (4046 days ago) @ David Turell

Many organisms produce anti-freeze proteins. Some are very potent and used in many ways, such as low fat icecream:-http://phys.org/news/2013-02-antifreeze-survive-cold.html

Natures wonders:fog collectors

by David Turell @, Friday, February 22, 2013, 14:33 (4043 days ago) @ David Turell

Cacti use spikes to collect fog. Red wood trees also have a collection method:-http://english.ic.cas.cn/rh/rp/201301/t20130114_98111.html-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/21/harvesting-fog-the-no-regrets-option/#more-80263

Natures wonders:regenerating parts

by David Turell @, Friday, February 22, 2013, 22:18 (4042 days ago) @ David Turell

Newts can regenerate large parts of their body, and have a huge very complex genome with an enormous number of RNAs:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=newt-finding-might-set-back-efforts-to-regrow-human-limbs&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130222

Natures wonders:Leatherback turtles

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 19:18 (4037 days ago) @ David Turell

Seagoing monsters have a complex migratory lifestyle in the Pacific:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226141233.htm-Were they taught to migrate?

Natures wonders:Squid skin signals

by David Turell @, Friday, March 01, 2013, 15:09 (4036 days ago) @ David Turell

How did this develop? Squid signal with their skin, protect themselves with their skin with highly developed nervous system and complex eyes:-http://sciencereasonfaith.com/caribbean-reef-squid-a-conundrum-for-neo-darwinian-evolution/

Natures wonders:Nut cracking

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 02, 2013, 15:32 (4035 days ago) @ David Turell

Monkeys have some smarts; we invent nut crackers:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/video-capuchins-are-nutcracking-.html?ref=hp-Monkey is very aware of what he needs to do for the moment. But our awareness leads us to find a better solution.

Natures wonders:shredding bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 06, 2013, 02:42 (4031 days ago) @ David Turell

With cricket wings!-http://www.nature.com/news/insect-wings-shred-bacteria-to-pieces-1.12533-What will life think of next?

Natures wonders:camouflage

by David Turell @, Friday, March 15, 2013, 22:31 (4021 days ago) @ David Turell

Look, it's a leaf!-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34715/title/Image-of-the-Day--Drab-Disguise/

Natures wonders:inside a cell

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 14:03 (4017 days ago) @ David Turell

What E. coli, a bacterium looks like inside; packed tight!-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/34767/title/Image-of-the-Day--Crowded-Cytoplasm/

Natures wonders:fly traps

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 16:05 (4017 days ago) @ David Turell

Complex chemicals control plants' leaves that trap insects:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/scienceshot-snap-how-carnivorous.html?ref=hp-Any just-so story as to how this developed?

Natures wonders:fly traps

by dhw, Thursday, March 21, 2013, 11:42 (4016 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Complex chemicals control plants' leaves that trap insects:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/scienceshot-snap-how-
carnivorous.html?ref=hp-Any just-so story as to how this developed?-1) God said, "Let there be flycatching sundews" and there were flycatching sundews. For although God's purpose was to create humans, flycatching sundews were also his purpose.-2) God preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on the blueprint for flycatching sundews. For although God's purpose was to create humans, flycatching sundews were also his purpose.-3) God saw a non-flycatching sundew and thought, "Although my purpose is to create humans, flycatching sundews are also my purpose." And thus did God fiddle with the non-flycatching sundew's genome so that it did become a flycatching sundew.-4) God invented a mechanism called "the intelligent genome". There was once a non-flycatching sundew with an especially intelligent genome which invented a flycatching process, whereby it turned into a flycatching sundew. Flycatching sundews have survived to this day, thus proving that God's purpose was to create flycatching sundews. (There was once a unilobite with an especially intelligent genome which invented a complex eye, whereby it turned into a trilobite, and for millions of years the trilobites survived. But then something nasty happened and there were no trilobites with genomes intelligent enough to adapt. And so they died out, thus proving that God's purpose was and was not to create trilobites.) -5) As in 4), except that the "intelligent genome" just happened to assemble itself by sheer luck, and has continued its experiments ever since, thus creating a higgledy-piggledy bush of extant flycatching sundews and extinct trilobites.-6) As in 4), except that the "intelligent genome" was assembled through experiments carried out by chemicals intelligently combining, just as their invention the cell later combined intelligently with other cells, thus creating a higgledy-piggledy bush of extant flycatching sundews and extinct trilobites. -And now, David, it's your turn to tell us a just-so story.

Natures wonders:fly traps

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 21, 2013, 14:56 (4016 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:1) God said, "Let there be flycatching sundews" and there were flycatching sundews. For although God's purpose was to create humans, flycatching sundews were also his purpose.-God's purpose was to produce inventive life. Flycatching was a by-product-
> 
> dhw:2) God preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on the blueprint for flycatching sundews. For although God's purpose was to create humans, flycatching sundews were also his purpose.-See my answer above
> 
> dhw:3) God saw a non-flycatching sundew and thought, "Although my purpose is to create humans, flycatching sundews are also my purpose." And thus did God fiddle with the non-flycatching sundew's genome so that it did become a flycatching sundew.-God did not have to fiddle. The genome did it all by itself, it was so smart given the information god implanted into DNA in the beginning.
 
> 
> dhw:4) God invented a mechanism called "the intelligent genome". There was once a non-flycatching sundew with an especially intelligent genome which invented a flycatching process, whereby it turned into a flycatching sundew. Flycatching sundews have survived to this day, thus proving that God's purpose was to create flycatching sundews. (There was once a unilobite with an especially intelligent genome which invented a complex eye, whereby it turned into a trilobite, and for millions of years the trilobites survived. But then something nasty happened and there were no trilobites with genomes intelligent enough to adapt. And so they died out, thus proving that God's purpose was and was not to create trilobites.-Natural selection was God's gift to Darwin. It sorts out life's good attempts from the bad attempts. As you see life is programmed to produce complexity 
> 
>dhw: 5) As in 4), except that the "intelligent genome" just happened to assemble itself by sheer luck, and has continued its experiments ever since, thus creating a higgledy-piggledy bush of extant flycatching sundews and extinct trilobites.-Sheer luck and chance are the pipedream of atheists
> 
> dhw: 6) As in 4), except that the "intelligent genome" was assembled through experiments carried out by chemicals intelligently combining, just as their invention the cell later combined intelligently with other cells, thus creating a higgledy-piggledy bush of extant flycatching sundews and extinct trilobites. -How much intelligence does your table salt have?
> 
> dhw;And now, David, it's your turn to tell us a just-so story.-And I have just shown why I do not believe in just-so stories. Kipling was the master and his tongue was in his cheek!-The real point is that DNA is programmed to experiment and create natures wonders as I have demonstrated on this website for many years. In my estimation God has been sitting back watching all of this and proud of His invention, since humans appeared just as He knew they would at some point. Now that is the real just-so story.

Natures wonders:fly traps

by dhw, Friday, March 22, 2013, 13:05 (4015 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: And now, David, it's your turn to tell us a just-so story.-DAVID: And I have just shown why I do not believe in just-so stories. Kipling was the master and his tongue was in his cheek!-"To be great is to be misunderstood" (Emerson), though "to be misunderstood is not to be great" (dhw). You asked for a just-so story, and with tongue-bulging cheek I gave you six of the best, rattling through some of the world's great theories, with a sideswipe at your anthropocentrism as an added bonus. But if a man understandeth not cricket, how shall he understand British irony?
We must, then, be serious:-DAVID: The real point is that DNA is programmed to experiment and create natures wonders as I have demonstrated on this website for many years. In my estimation God has been sitting back watching all of this and proud of His invention, since humans appeared just as He knew they would at some point. Now that is the real just-so story.-Let us delve: you said in the same post that "God's purpose was to produce inventive life. Flycatching was a by-product". He certainly succeeded, though I'm a little surprised to hear that in contrast to your earlier refusal to anthropomorphise him, you now have him proudly enjoying the entertainment. Apart from pride, I wonder what other human emotions you'll allow him to feel as he gazes at the astonishingly rich, beautiful, kindly, cruel, destructive and selfish products of his invention.
 
Be that as it may, I like your latest scenario, because it's clear that since God's purpose was "inventive life", he left the course of evolution in the "hands" of his intelligent invention ... apparently preprogrammed to experiment and take its own decisions (much like us humans, then!). In other words, he did not preprogramme "by-products" like flycatchers, trilobites, dinosaurs, dodos or duck-billed platypuses, but sat back watching while the intelligent genome produced its own inventions, some of which survived, and some of which perished. Why he should have predicted the eventual arrival of humans is not at all clear from your just-so story. Perhaps he used Dawkins-like reasoning: given enough combinations, eventually you are bound to come up with the right one. Alternatively, since we are now playing the game of reading God's mind, he hadn't got a clue where it would lead (after all, who likes a show with a predictable outcome?), and so like flycatchers, humans were a "by-product" ... though no doubt providing the best entertainment of all. What is clear from the above is that humans were not planned either. This scenario fits in well with evolution's higgledy-piggledy bush, and of all the God hypotheses, it seems to me the most plausible.

Natures wonders:fly traps

by David Turell @, Friday, March 22, 2013, 15:16 (4015 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I'm a little surprised to hear that in contrast to your earlier refusal to anthropomorphise him, you now have him proudly enjoying the entertainment. Apart from pride, I wonder what other human emotions you'll allow him to feel as he gazes at the astonishingly rich, beautiful, kindly, cruel, destructive and selfish products of his invention.-I've allowed myself a little latitude in my just-so story abuot God's thinking. I have no idea if I am anywhere near correct.
> 
> dhw: Be that as it may, I like your latest scenario, because it's clear that since God's purpose was "inventive life", he left the course of evolution in the "hands" of his intelligent invention ... apparently preprogrammed to experiment and take its own decisions (much like us humans, then!). In other words, he did not preprogramme "by-products" like flycatchers, trilobites, dinosaurs, dodos or duck-billed platypuses, but sat back watching while the intelligent genome produced its own inventions, some of which survived, and some of which perished. -A good synopsis of my view of evolution.- -> dhw:Why he should have predicted the eventual arrival of humans is not at all clear from your just-so story. Perhaps he used Dawkins-like reasoning: given enough combinations, eventually you are bound to come up with the right one. Alternatively, since we are now playing the game of reading God's mind, he hadn't got a clue where it would lead (after all, who likes a show with a predictable outcome?), and so like flycatchers, humans were a "by-product" ... though no doubt providing the best entertainment of all. What is clear from the above is that humans were not planned either. This scenario fits in well with evolution's higgledy-piggledy bush, and of all the God hypotheses, it seems to me the most plausible.-The material I have read about human development makes it look 'favored'. The primates we sprung from, for seemingly no good reason, are still happily doing their thing (not with the poaching), and we have advanced way beyond them, a la' Adler, The Difference in Kind and the Difference it Makes, a strong suggestion of a favored outcome. Here my scenario implies a desired result, despite the bush of life; and a very interesting bush of inventions at that, as I show in the Natures Wonders thread. But there is nothing like us but us!

Natures wonders:camoflage

by David Turell @, Friday, March 29, 2013, 15:15 (4008 days ago) @ David Turell

How to evade a lobster. Block chemicals with chemicals:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/34904/title/The-Sea-Hare-s-Chemical-Attack/

Natures wonders:early birth

by David Turell @, Friday, April 05, 2013, 21:37 (4000 days ago) @ David Turell

Skink babies in the egg can detect a predator and bail out of the shell and scamper away to stay alive. How did evolution figure that one out?-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/04/an-emergency-hatch-for-baby-liza.html?ref=hp

Natures wonders:heaviest migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 06, 2013, 16:10 (4000 days ago) @ David Turell

Huge bustards fly 4,000 kilometers to escape Siberian winters:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829116.000-heaviest-flying-bird-makes-epic-journeys-to-keep-warm.html

Natures wonders: monarch navigation

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 09, 2013, 05:50 (3997 days ago) @ David Turell

Kind of by the seat of their pants:-http://phys.org/news/2013-04-problems-monarchs.html

Natures wonders: ant rebellion

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 11, 2013, 21:28 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell

It's an ant eat ant world:-http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/05-how-ant-slaves-overthrow-their-masters

Natures wonders: migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 27, 2013, 05:53 (3979 days ago) @ David Turell

Iron balls and neurons; a way to navigate long migrations:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130426073811.htm

Natures wonders: ice fish

by David Turell @, Monday, April 29, 2013, 16:13 (3977 days ago) @ David Turell

These little characters have no hemoglobin; their blood is white and oxygen is carried as dissolved material:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34797/title/-White-Blooded--Icefish--1927/-Evolution can be very inventive. As a result the ice fish have a low metabolism

Natures wonders: cicada wings

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 30, 2013, 18:43 (3976 days ago) @ David Turell

Keeping them clean is the result of the surface and jumping water droplets. The surface tension of water must play a role in droplet formation, so I think it is a combination of the amazing attributes of water and the evolution developed surface of the wings:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cicada-wings-self-cleaning

Natures wonders: plant signals

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 07, 2013, 14:36 (3969 days ago) @ David Turell

Basal helps pepper seeds grow!-http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1756757526887438_article.pdf?random=50642-Sound waves in the soil. Wow! Everything else seems ruled out.

Natures wonders: erectile bat tongues

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 07, 2013, 15:09 (3969 days ago) @ David Turell

How to sop up nectar quickly. A hairy tongue made erect by blood just as other organs are made erect:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/35463/title/Dynamic-Bat-Tongue-Mops-Up-Nectar/

Natures wonders: Calcium controls

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 09, 2013, 15:50 (3967 days ago) @ David Turell

Cells use calcium, and neurons use it for electerical signals. The cell must control the calcium levels by opening and closing pores in the cell membrane:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-cells-calcium-influx.html

Natures wonders: Communication

by David Turell @, Friday, May 10, 2013, 15:08 (3966 days ago) @ David Turell

Not just above ground,which is well recognized, but through fungus below ground:-http://phys.org/news/2013-05-underground-networks-enemy.html

Natures wonders: Cannibal queens

by David Turell @, Monday, May 13, 2013, 20:57 (3962 days ago) @ David Turell

Usurping another ant colony by a queen eating the queen:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2013/05/12/ants-and-the-problem-of-impostor-mothers/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20130513

Natures wonders: Wasp vs. fruit fly

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 13:18 (3955 days ago) @ David Turell

A molecular battle to the end. How the wasp larvae win with a calcium channel blocker:-http://phys.org/news/2013-05-parasitic-wasps-calcium-block-fruit.html

Natures wonders: Turtle migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 30, 2013, 16:26 (3946 days ago) @ David Turell

Always return to your island of birth:-http://phys.org/news/2013-05-scientists-evidence-female-loggerhead-sea.html-And they travel the oceans of the world

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by David Turell @, Friday, May 31, 2013, 02:03 (3945 days ago) @ David Turell

The longest insect life cycle around. Why this evolved is any bodies guess.-http://www.nature.com/news/long-lived-insects-raise-prime-riddle-1.13080

Natures wonders: Turtle development

by David Turell @, Friday, May 31, 2013, 15:23 (3945 days ago) @ David Turell

Until recently turtles appeared out of nowhere in the fossil record. Turtles take their bones and put them outside instead of inside. That makes them having to breathe by an air swallowing mechanism. They had to develop both the breathing method and the bony armor simultaneously. Darwin cannot explain that one: a little more bone outside, a little more swallowing air, while all chance mutations are luckily in sinc?? Not likely. -Now there are two fossils, one from 2008 and one this year that flesh out the fossil story.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530132431.htm

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by dhw, Friday, May 31, 2013, 17:15 (3945 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The longest insect life cycle around. Why this evolved is any bodies guess.
 
 http://www.nature.com/news/long-lived-insects-raise-prime-riddle-1.13080-My guess is it's just one more invention by one of the countless intelligent genomes that have added their particular squiggle to the higgledy-piggledy bush. Cicada lovers, however, might argue that it is living proof of the cicacentric teleology of evolution.

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by David Turell @, Friday, May 31, 2013, 17:34 (3945 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The longest insect life cycle around. Why this evolved is any bodies guess.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/long-lived-insects-raise-prime-riddle-1.13080
&#... 
> dhw: My guess is it's just one more invention by one of the countless intelligent genomes that have added their particular squiggle to the higgledy-piggledy bush. Cicada lovers, however, might argue that it is living proof of the cicacentric teleology of evolution.-I guess the same would apply to turtles. What a weird branch of the bush they are! I think they were put on Earth to show that Darwinism doesn't work as an explanation for evolution.

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by dhw, Saturday, June 01, 2013, 12:03 (3944 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The longest insect life cycle around. Why this evolved is any bodies guess.-http://www.nature.com/news/long-lived-insects-raise-prime-riddle-1.13080-dhw: My guess is it's just one more invention by one of the countless intelligent genomes that have added their particular squiggle to the higgledy-piggledy bush. Cicada lovers, however, might argue that it is living proof of the cicacentric teleology of evolution.-DAVID: I guess the same would apply to turtles. What a weird branch of the bush they are! I think they were put on Earth to show that Darwinism doesn't work as an explanation for evolution.-Maybe they evolved on Earth to show that the Turellist Theory of Anthropocentric Evolution has turned turtle.

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 01, 2013, 15:46 (3944 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: I guess the same would apply to turtles. What a weird branch of the bush they are! I think they were put on Earth to show that Darwinism doesn't work as an explanation for evolution.
> 
> dhw: Maybe they evolved on Earth to show that the Turellist Theory of Anthropocentric Evolution has turned turtle.-I look at a turtle and feel sorry for them. Like medieval knights lugging around their armor, can't get right when they on their backs. I think God created them so we can see how lucky we are. My evolutionary bush is teleological. Purpose everywhere.-Speaking of turtles, a bit of autobiography: my birth surname was Turkeltaub, a slavic version of the German, Turteltaube, or turtledove in English. Why a bird mentioned in the OT got co-mingled with turtles is beyond me, but no more confusing than the strange branches of the bush of life. All they prove is that God made life's attempts at complexity very inventive. After all, travelling from rocks to life to consciousness is a major accomplishment. -But my family name lives on through the internet as well as procreation. There was a website that covered 19 branches of the name. I'm not sure it is active now. It was run by a distant cousin of mine in Venezuela. We have the same great-great grandfather.

Natures wonders: Arthorpod and insect eyes

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 01, 2013, 22:19 (3943 days ago) @ David Turell

Wonders of design. Nothing anticedent in the fossil record before the Cambrian. No evidence of evolutionary tinkering per current Darwinian theories of evolution:-http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/06/01/camera_designs_inspired_by_arthropod_eye

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by dhw, Sunday, June 02, 2013, 12:14 (3943 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I guess the same would apply to turtles. What a weird branch of the bush they are! I think they were put on Earth to show that Darwinism doesn't work as an explanation for evolution.-dhw: Maybe they evolved on Earth to show that the Turellist Theory of Anthropocentric Evolution has turned turtle.-DAVID: I look at a turtle and feel sorry for them. Like medieval knights lugging around their armor, can't get right when they on their backs. I think God created them so we can see how lucky we are. My evolutionary bush is teleological. Purpose everywhere.-Speaking of turtles, a bit of autobiography: my birth surname was Turkeltaub, a slavic version of the German, Turteltaube, or turtledove in English. Why a bird mentioned in the OT got co-mingled with turtles is beyond me...-The German turteln means to bill and coo, or to whisper sweet nothings ... which I think is wonderfully appropriate when applied to your teleology. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with the German for turtle, which is Schildkröte, though in British English we distinguish between turtle (German: Wasserschildkröte) and tortoise (German: Landschildkröte). And so, dear David, you are a turtle dove, a whisperer of sweet nothings, and not a medieval knight in shining armour.

Natures wonders: 13, 17-year cicadas

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 02, 2013, 15:48 (3943 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:The German turteln means to bill and coo, or to whisper sweet nothings ... which I think is wonderfully appropriate when applied to your teleology. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with the German for turtle, which is Schildkröte, though in British English we distinguish between turtle (German: Wasserschildkröte) and tortoise (German: Landschildkröte). And so, dear David, you are a turtle dove, a whisperer of sweet nothings, and not a medieval knight in shining armour.-I knew of your mastery of the German language. I appreciate the explanation. My high school German only went so far. My Jewish ancestors in Poland had to assume last names in the 17th century and went to their bible to pluck something out. I guess I have to thank my gr-gr-gr grandpa Herscz from Serpic Poland.

Natures wonders: poisonous snail eggs

by David Turell @, Monday, June 03, 2013, 23:17 (3941 days ago) @ David Turell

An unusual neurotoxin makes for unappetizing eggs:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/scienceshot-invasive-snails-prot.html?ref=hp

Natures wonders: painted lady butterflies

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 06, 2013, 02:31 (3939 days ago) @ David Turell

Their migration is up to 9,000 miles and take six generations, outdoing the Monarchs by far:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19991550

Natures wonders: butterfly metamorphosis

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 06, 2013, 02:34 (3939 days ago) @ David Turell

Every part of the body changes except the lung function:-http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/84/20130304-3-D video:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GxyZSzs7Seg

Natures wonders: cell division

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 06, 2013, 02:44 (3939 days ago) @ David Turell

The DNA lines up in chromosomes and is pulled apart in to two new cells:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGV3fv-uZYI&feature=player_embedded

Natures wonders: brain clock

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 06, 2013, 17:44 (3939 days ago) @ David Turell

Our boldy follows a diurnal rhythm of sleep and awake set by our environment's sun times. Very complex and causes jet lag, because it takes time to reset.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605130107.htm-Note it is a complex of both neuron activity and various chemicals.

Natures wonders: cell division

by dhw, Thursday, June 06, 2013, 20:13 (3938 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The DNA lines up in chromosomes and is pulled apart in to two new cells: -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGV3fv-uZYI&feature=player_embedded-Thank you as always for all these references. When I see such things, I sometimes wonder whether cells aren't reliving some kind of evolutionary history. Too fanciful?

Natures wonders: turtle embryos move around

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 13, 2013, 14:58 (3932 days ago) @ dhw

Responding to heat or cold, the embryos shift in the egg:-http://phys.org/news/2013-06-turtle-embryos-shells-exploit-temperature.html

Natures wonders: Fibonacci numbers

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 15, 2013, 14:45 (3930 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature is a math major:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/scienceshot-sunflowers-do-the-ma.html?ref=hp-Branching is also math based.

Natures wonders: Enzymes

by David Turell @, Monday, June 17, 2013, 15:09 (3928 days ago) @ David Turell

In Archaea type bacteria, the most ancient kind, is an enzyme that is of an extremely complex structure:-http://phys.org/news/2013-06-uniquely-enzyme-amazes-chemists.html

Natures wonders: balance

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 18:05 (3926 days ago) @ David Turell

Whenever we introduce foreign species into a new ecologic area there is trouble. Existing nature is always balanced, and we wittingly or unwittingly unbalance it. -http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35588/title/Ladybird-Bioterrorists/-Ladybird, ladybird fly away home, your house is on fire, your children alone....as the nursery rhyme tells us.

Natures wonders: immune response

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 20, 2013, 15:49 (3925 days ago) @ David Turell

White cells in action:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/36106/title/Image-of-the-Day--Anthrax-Killer/

Natures wonders: modulating food supply

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 06:08 (3920 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants manage starch consumption by feedback mechanisms akin to math formulas:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22991838

Natures wonders: magnetic migration

by David Turell @, Friday, June 28, 2013, 22:10 (3916 days ago) @ David Turell

Cuting nerves and confusing the birds by relocation begins to find the migration magnetic mechanism:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/beak-to-brain-nerve-may-help-bir.html?ref=hp

Natures wonders: static electricity

by David Turell @, Friday, July 05, 2013, 15:56 (3910 days ago) @ David Turell

Spider webs use static electricity to catch bugs:-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/07/scienceshot-gotcha-spider-silk-g.html?ref=hp-Bugs use it in other ways

Natures wonders: jamming bat sonar

by David Turell @, Friday, July 05, 2013, 15:59 (3910 days ago) @ David Turell

Some moths can jam bat sonar:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130704100835.htm

Natures wonders: clever cockatoos

by David Turell @, Friday, July 05, 2013, 16:04 (3910 days ago) @ David Turell

Solving a series of puzzle locks:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130704095123.htm-Using beak, eyes, feet

Natures wonders: clever cockatoos

by dhw, Saturday, July 06, 2013, 08:54 (3909 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Solving a series of puzzle locks:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130704095123.htm-Using beak, eyes, feet-Another revealing post. Some people (including scientists) often seem surprised that our fellow animals should display such intelligence, such awareness, such powers of reason. How do humans think other creatures survive? Do they believe that Nature simply runs like clockwork, and animals, birds, insects never have problems to solve? For those of us who believe in evolution, it is absurd to suppose that our own intelligence has nothing in common with theirs. Just as our limbs, our skeletons, our organs are variations on theirs, so too are our mental capacities. Vastly more complex, no doubt, as is proven by our technology, our abstract thinking, our art. But brilliant though we are, we cannot read the minds of our fellow animals, let alone those of other organisms that seem totally dissimilar to ourselves. I would carry that still further, and while not wishing to use the word "mind", I would suggest that "intelligence" of many different sorts is to be found throughout the organic world, right down to the single cell. Panpsychists go further still, and suggest that even inorganic matter may have an inner 'mental' aspect.

Natures wonders: triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, July 08, 2013, 19:14 (3907 days ago) @ dhw

Three bugs living together and sharing genome functions:-http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/science/how-simple-can-life-get-its-complicated.html?_r=0

Natures wonders: Crab grass poison

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 10, 2013, 17:57 (3905 days ago) @ David Turell

Crab grass can stunt neigboring plants:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=crabgrass-carries-on-chemical-warfa-13-07-09&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130710

Natures wonders: Making bird feathers

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 11, 2013, 02:53 (3904 days ago) @ David Turell

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-patterns-bird-feathers.html-
"The researchers transplanted a pigment-producing quail follicle into a white chicken and found the chicken produced colored feathers. This led them to believe that the patterning on the bird's coat is not controlled directly by the DNA code, but rather by the spatial organization of MsSC's in the follicle and the regulatory mechanisms. Something in the genome must control these factors, though, for each member of a species, like a black-capped chickadee or bald eagle, to produce identical feather patterns." - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/feather_pattern074161.html#sthash.TsEf6B6o.dpuf

Natures wonders: Gender reproducion

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 11, 2013, 14:09 (3904 days ago) @ David Turell

Can females control offspring gender? Perhaps:-"To really prove this idea works, you need a perfect, complete pedigree across three generations — near impossible to get in the wild. Garner and his team tested whether, for a female that produces only sons, those sons are actually outcompeting the majority of their male peers in the population by having more offspring."-http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/mammals-pick-offsprings-sex-to-maximize-number-of-grandchildren-study-shows/2013/07/10/553b1a5a-e969-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Natures wonders: Locusts

by David Turell @, Friday, July 12, 2013, 14:40 (3903 days ago) @ David Turell

Their appearance depends on population density:-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-destructive-locusts-genetics.html

Natures wonders: Diving mammals

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 11, 2013, 20:18 (3903 days ago) @ David Turell

High O2 concentrations in myglobin (muscle hemoglobin-like molecule) allows this:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/visualscience/2013/07/09/how-animals-evolved-to-live-in-low-oxygen-locales/-"The key is the famous oxygen-storing protein myoglobin. Myoglobin makes human muscles look red, and is so bountiful in the muscles of diving mammals that they look black. But at such high concentrations, myoglobin ought to clump together and render itself useless.
 
Mirceta's team studied the charges on myoglobin in marine mammals and found that it was so highly positively charged that it was repelled by itself, allowing more of it to be safely packed into smaller volumes. The researchers found a significant correlation between how long an animals dives for and how positively charged its myoglobin is—thus a sperm whale has a much higher positive charge on its myoglobin than a human.
 
In the case of the sperm whale, that density of myoglobin paired with large body size means the whale can stay submerged for nearly two hours. Extreme human athletes everywhere gnash their teeth"

Natures wonders: Killer wasps

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 13, 2013, 21:41 (3901 days ago) @ David Turell

The female wasp stings the cicada, drags it to its nest, lays eggs with it, and the larva have a ready made meal:-http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/another-wonderful-creature-the-cicada-killing-wasp/

Natures wonders: bacterial language

by David Turell @, Monday, July 15, 2013, 15:40 (3900 days ago) @ David Turell

They use chemical signals:-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-bacterial-language.html

Natures wonders: blue bloods

by David Turell @, Monday, July 15, 2013, 19:30 (3900 days ago) @ David Turell

Some cold area octopi have blue blood which works better than red blood when it is cold:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/octopus-chronicles/2013/07/13/octopuses-survive-sub-zero-temps-thanks-to-specialized-blue-blood/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130715

Natures wonders: bacterial language

by dhw, Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 12:55 (3899 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: They use chemical signals:-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-bacterial-language.html-In nature, bacteria are no mavericks but live in close association with neighboring bacteria. They have evolved specific cell-cell communication systems that allow them to detect the presence of others and even to build up cooperative networks.-LMU microbiologist PD Dr. Ralf Heermann and Professor Helge Bode of the Goethe-University in Frankfurt have just reported the discovery of a previously unknown bacterial "language". Their findings are detailed in the latest issue of the journal Nature Chemical Biology. "Our results demonstrate that bacterial communication is much more complex than has been assumed to date," Heermann says.-And so once again we learn that the simplest forms of life have complex methods of communicating, which enable them to cooperate, to create new communities, to innovate. These are forms of intelligence that may be very different from ours, but we only need to think about our own bodies to realize that there are countless intelligent mechanisms which perceive, calculate, decide and act independently of our will and our consciousness. Each one of us is a community of cell communities, and these function just like all communities, through a common language and a shared goal. It's the same throughout Nature ... forms of intelligence which we do not understand, but which function just as efficiently as those within us. How the first forms arose is a mystery, but once we acknowledge the inventive, cooperative intelligence of cells, all the other mysteries of evolution seem to me to solve themselves.

Natures wonders: bacterial language

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 16:19 (3899 days ago) @ dhw

"Our results demonstrate that bacterial communication is much more complex than has been assumed to date," Heermann says.[/i]
> 
> dhw: And so once again we learn that the simplest forms of life have complex methods of communicating, which enable them to cooperate, to create new communities, to innovate. These are forms of intelligence that may be very different from ours, but we only need to think about our own bodies to realize that there are countless intelligent mechanisms which perceive, calculate, decide and act independently of our will and our consciousness...... How the first forms arose is a mystery, but once we acknowledge the inventive, cooperative intelligence of cells, all the other mysteries of evolution seem to me to solve themselves.-Yes, the $64,000 question. where did intelligence and consciousness come from? And your very unreasonable answer is I&C self-invented themselves. That is bootstrapping of the highest order!

Natures wonders: bacterial language

by dhw, Wednesday, July 17, 2013, 19:16 (3898 days ago) @ David Turell

And so once again we learn that the simplest forms of life have complex methods of communicating, which enable them to cooperate, to create new communities, to innovate. These are forms of intelligence that may be very different from ours, but we only need to think about our own bodies to realize that there are countless intelligent mechanisms which perceive, decide, calculate and act independently of our will and our consciousness. Each one of us is a community of cell communities, and these function just like all communities, through a common language and a shared goal. It's the same throughout Nature ... forms of intelligence which we do not understand, but which function just as efficiently as those within us. How the first forms arose is a mystery, but once we acknowledge the inventive, cooperative intelligence of cells, all the other mysteries of evolution seem to me to solve themselves.-DAVID: Yes, the $64,000 question, where did intelligence and consciousness come from? And your very unreasonable answer is I&C self-invented themselves. That is bootstrapping of the highest order!-That is not my answer at all. In five and a half years of discussion you still haven't cottoned on to the fact that I am an agnostic! I have no answers. See above: "How the first forms arose is a mystery". Only theists and atheists believe they have an answer. Your theist answer is that I&C invented themselves and their name is God. The atheist answer is that I&C invented themselves by chance. You both have a bootstrapping belief of the "highest order". I have no belief at all.

Natures wonders: floppy flagellum

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 18, 2013, 15:19 (3897 days ago) @ dhw

How to make a fast turn if you are a bacterium:-http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/351657/description/Flagellum_failure_lets_bacteria_turn

Natures wonders: two worms, one memory

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 18, 2013, 21:20 (3896 days ago) @ David Turell

Work with planaria show that if the head of one is cut off after training, two worms are regrown and both show the same training:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2013/07/15/memories-that-can-survive-decapitation/

Natures wonders: longer life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 15:29 (3884 days ago) @ David Turell

Perhaps eating wasabi will help:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36128/title/Cool-Genes/-Seriously, nature develops tricks to expand the range of climate to allow life to exist.

Natures wonders: Frozen frogs and more

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 17, 2022, 21:18 (487 days ago) @ David Turell

A definite survival technique explained:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/animals-freeze-then-thaw-explained?r...

"The wood frog is one of the most frequently studied animals on Earth that freezes. When temperatures drop in the fall, it nestles in leaves and lets the cold creep into its body until it fully succumbs—heart, brain, and all. But it’s not the only species that essentially dies and then comes back to life.

"Thousands of insect larvae freeze and thaw, and some go back and forth every day depending on the weather. Young painted turtles manage to freeze without the same methods as the wood frog. And then there are tardigrades, which dehydrate completely and wait for spring.

***

"This transition requires major changes in biochemistry. The frog’s microRNA molecules reorganize cells to protect them from damage. Ice then slowly forms around the outside of organs and cells. At the same time, the frog’s liver pumps out incredible amounts of glucose—a syrupy liquid that acts like antifreeze for vital organs—that seeps everywhere including the insides of cells to keep them from shrinking and dying.

***

"But it’s not the only way animals freeze. According to new research published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, painted turtle hatchlings freeze as microRNA reorganize their metabolism in a way that requires significantly less glucose than wood frogs. And as adults, they don’t freeze so much as hold their breath. The adults hibernate underwater in mud where they can survive up to four months without breathing.

***

"Ice needs something to form around, otherwise known as a nucleating agent, which can be as small as a piece of dust or a cholesterol molecule. But if an insect or animal can ward off the formation of ice crystals, their frozen blood remains liquid.

"That’s a big if. Outside of a very controlled laboratory, our world is full of nucleating agents, Tessier says. The Arctic ground squirrel has been shown to outrun freezing by eliminating all potential nuclei for crystals to form.

"'Different insects have evolved different wants to accomplish this same goal. Gall fly larvae freezes solidly in the winter when it’s subzero and thaws when it warms, even over the course of 24 hours. Gall moth larvae, on the other hand, stay liquid during the day and night, Storey says.

"Gall fly larvae use sugar like the wood frog to buffer its cells from the damaging effects of subzero temperatures. Gall moth larvae use sugar to prevent freezing, essentially supercooling to as cold as negative 36 degrees Fahrenheit.

"Tardigrades, the microscopic invertebrates found in Earth’s most extreme environments, have found an inventive way to prevent water in their cells from freezing: They just expel it."

Comment: How did these tricks evolve? By steps a little colder each time. You get to a critical point when it freezes, and this is where the mechanism should work. But real cold is not the state of frozen. I think these are designed mechanisms.

Natures wonders: how fungus attacks frogs

by David Turell @, Friday, November 18, 2022, 14:47 (487 days ago) @ David Turell

All over the world:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/chytrid-fungus-deploys-varying-strategies-...

"Since the 1970s, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has spread globally amongst amphibian populations, wiping out entire species and decimating others. Yet while the pathogen, which infects an amphibian’s porous skin and disrupts gas and water exchange, is deadly and ubiquitous, some species are more susceptible than others. Past studies have focused on animals’ immune responses to Bd infection, but not on how the fungus might be adapting to different hosts. “It was not clear if the fungus itself was doing the same thing in the different species it is infecting,” says María Torres-Sánchez, a postdoc at the University of Florida.

"To find out, Torres-Sánchez took datasets from those early experiments and turned them on their heads, looking instead at what genes the fungus was expressing on the skins of different amphibian species with varying susceptibility to Bd. She and her colleagues compared the transcriptomes of Bd growing on 14 species of frogs, newts, and salamanders, and of Bd grown on plates without a host.

"While the fungus maintained a consistent set of housekeeping genes, the team found that Bd tailored the expression of other genes to each host, allowing it to pursue multiple infection strategies. For example, in more-vulnerable species, genes essential for attaching to and invading leukocytes, cells that defend a host from pathogens, were upregulated. In more-resistant species, genes promoting quicker reproduction, perhaps to evade or overwhelm a host’s defenses, were elevated.

"The results are “really exciting,” according to Amy Ellison, a molecular parasitologist at Bangor University in Wales who was not involved with the study. The list of differently expressed genes could provide “interesting targets” for further studies looking at the mechanism of Bd infection, Ellison adds, or in “identifying populations of amphibians that might be more at risk” for severe disease."

Comment: it is still a do g eat dog out there. Since the fungus lifestyle is to feast on others, it is obvious they must use a variety of attacking mechanisms which were designed for them.

Natures wonders: how roots find water

by David Turell @, Friday, November 18, 2022, 17:47 (487 days ago) @ David Turell

How they adapt is a definitive mechanism:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221117141204.htm

"Researchers have discovered how plant roots adapt their shape to maximise their uptake of water, pausing branching when they lose contact with water and only resuming once they reconnect with moisture, ensuring they can survive even in the driest conditions.

"Plant scientists from the University of Nottingham have discovered a novel water sensing mechanism that they have called 'Hydro-Signalling', which shows how hormone movement is linked with water fluxes. The findings have been published today in Science.

***

"Roots play a critical role to reduce the impact of water stress on plants by adapting their shape (such as branching or growing deeper) to secure more water. Discovering how plant roots sense and adapt to water stress is vital importance for helping 'future proof' crops to enhance their climate resilience.

***

"The study provides critical information about the key genes and processes controlling root branching in response to limited water availability, helping scientists design novel approaches to manipulate root architecture to enhance water capture and yield in crops.

"Dr. Poonam Mehra, postdoctoral fellow, from the School of Biosciences is one of the lead authors and explains: "When roots are in contact with moisture, a key hormone signal (auxin) moves inwards with water, triggering new root branches. However, when roots lose contact with moisture, they rely on internal water sources that mobilises another hormone signal (ABA) outwards, which acts to block the inwards movement of the branching signal. This simple, yet elegant mechanism enables plant roots to fine tune their shape to local conditions and optimize foraging.""

Comment: Once plants appeared they had to be in constant contact with water. Plants developed in ocean so that was not a problem. It is a giant jump to purch on dry land. Roots can't just spring into soil. Is it a Darwinian solution in itty-bitty steps or is design required.

Natures wonders: toad tongues

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 19, 2022, 17:50 (486 days ago) @ David Turell

Fast as a whip out and in:

https://www.sciencealert.com/something-really-weird-happens-when-a-cane-toad-sits-down-...

"Contrary to popular belief, it's not possible for you to swallow your own tongue. If you're a human, at least. It turns out toads actually do it on purpose every time they eat.


***

"Frogs are well known for capturing their prey with fast, sticky tongues, but therein lies the problem their unusual anatomy had to solve: how to then pry the food from that clingy whip to send it down their guts.

"From capture to swallowing, the whole process takes under two seconds, but there are a whole series of events happening within the toad during this short timeframe.

"The team attached tiny metallic beads to the toad's tongue so they could track the muscle's movements in the x-ray footage. As shown in the video below, the orange marker at the tip of its tongue lashes out to snag an insect, then snaps back into the toad's mouth. But it doesn't stop there, continuing down the throat a whole 4.5 centimeters (1.8 inches), until it almost touches the toad's heart.

"The mean distance that the tongue stretches during retraction equals or exceeds the mean distance that it stretches during protrusion," the researchers write in their paper, explaining the tongue's maximum protrusion was 4.1 centimeters on average.

"Here near their heart, the hyoid – a flexible cartilage plate suspended by strings of muscles – snaps shut against the tongue.

"'The hyoid shoots up and presses the tongue against the roof of the mouth, after which it moves forward, essentially scraping the food off into the esophagus," explains Keeffe.

"The hyoid (which some toads also use to make clicking calls) naturally seals the floor of the mouth while the toad is resting. But its connection to the tongue means it flings open as the muscle extends, opening wide as the toad gapes its mouth, ready for the tongue's snapback.

"This is probably why toads and many frogs have strange ridges or bump-like 'teeth' on the roof of their mouths, Keeffe and team suspect; to aid with this food de-sticking. The hyoid markers hit this area with precision in the researchers' 3D reconstruction. The hyoid's flexibility would also help with its scraping task.

"'Even if a toad repositions the tongue within the mouth during a double-swallow, the prey remains attached to the tongue throughout manipulation," Keeffe and colleagues write. This suggests the frogs need the hyoid mechanism to dislodge their food successfully."

Comment: interesting how the anatomy handles the returning momentum of the tongue. This has to be designed all at once. There are too many necessary working parts, so it is irreducibly complex.

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 15:44 (3890 days ago) @ David Turell

Homing pigeons have maps in thier brains:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130725091133.htm

Natures wonders: Changing color

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 27, 2013, 00:54 (3888 days ago) @ David Turell

By changing tissue thickness and and altering light wave length and refraction:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130725141759.htm

Natures wonders: The eyes have it

by David Turell @, Monday, July 29, 2013, 17:28 (3886 days ago) @ David Turell

False eyes fool predators:-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-young-angelfish-fake-eyes-ward.html-Making eyes when threatened. Epigenetics at work

Natures wonders: The eyes have it

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 12:21 (3885 days ago) @ David Turell

This is actually an interesting puzzle for the evolution debate, because one way or another, evolutionary theorist will have to admit possibilities that do not fit in with their main theory. -Natural selection would dictate that fish with the bigger eyes in a different position of their body would lead to better chance of survival, then why do the fish not have bigger eye spots all the time? Also, where or how did they develop the ability in the first place? If they never had big eye spots, how did natural select act upon something that did not exist in order to produce them? If they witnessed them on another creature, then we have to admit that fish have a higher level of cognizance than they have previously been acknowledged as having and that natural selection is able to act upon a creature by selecting a trait that another creature possess and applying it to the host creatures physiology, which grants natural selection some semblance of omnipotency. None of these things fit with evolutionary theory.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: The eyes have it

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 14:53 (3885 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: Natural selection would dictate that fish with the bigger eyes in a different position of their body would lead to better chance of survival, then why do the fish not have bigger eye spots all the time? Also, where or how did they develop the ability in the first place? If they never had big eye spots, how did natural select act upon something that did not exist in order to produce them? -Keep in mind the context of natural election. It is active only when variations are produced by changes in the genome. NS produces nothing. It only judges among presented choices, as a final arbitor.

Natures wonders: The eyes have it

by dhw, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 17:56 (3885 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: False eyes fool predators:-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-young-angelfish-fake-eyes-ward.html-Making eyes when threatened. Epigenetics at work-TONY: This is actually an interesting puzzle for the evolution debate, because one way or another, evolutionary theorist will have to admit possibilities that do not fit in with their main theory. -Natural selection would dictate that fish with the bigger eyes in a different position of their body would lead to better chance of survival, then why do the fish not have bigger eye spots all the time? Also, where or how did they develop the ability in the first place? If they never had big eye spots, how did natural select act upon something that did not exist in order to produce them? If they witnessed them on another creature, then we have to admit that fish have a higher level of cognizance than they have previously been acknowledged as having and that natural selection is able to act upon a creature by selecting a trait that another creature possess and applying it to the host creatures physiology, which grants natural selection some semblance of omnipotency. None of these things fit with evolutionary theory.-As David has pointed out, natural selection does not innovate or adapt. It only ensures the survival of whatever is useful and is the LAST stage in the process of evolution. The questions you're asking concern the source of innovation, and how it happens that different species can develop similar mechanisms. Yet again I would argue that the mechanism for innovation and adaptation is "the intelligent cell/genome" (an expression David diligently avoids using), which as a theist you can argue is God's invention. Convergence might explain why different species have devised the same solution. Why aren't the false eyes there all the time? Presumably because they are a defence mechanism used only when needed. Clint carries a gun, but he only draws it when he has to. Fish have their methods, and we have ours! What is the anti-evolutionary theory?

Natures wonders: Starfish eyes

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 14:55 (3885 days ago) @ David Turell

They really work and are used for navigation to food.-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130705101826.htm

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, July 27, 2013, 11:52 (3888 days ago) @ David Turell

A tiny brain capable of complex computations..

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 18:54 (3878 days ago) @ David Turell

More on magnetoreception, a sense we humans don't have but migratory anumals do.-Iron compounds and quantum reactions are all present:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36722/title/A-Sense-of-Mystery/

Natures wonders: Frog antifreeze

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 22, 2013, 15:25 (3862 days ago) @ David Turell

Wood frogs can be frozen and survive. They have antifreeze in their tissues:--http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/352629/description/News_in_Brief_Natural_antifreeze_prevents_frogsicles

Natures wonders: Dance of the peacock spider

by David Turell @, Friday, August 23, 2013, 18:06 (3861 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazingly complex mating dance in a spider!-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unusual-mating-dance-peacock-spider

Natures wonders: our kidney

by David Turell @, Monday, September 09, 2013, 18:14 (3844 days ago) @ David Turell

Look how much stuff the kidney excretes and controls; over 3,000 items. And this doesn't count for the exretions in liver bile, more difficult to obtain:-http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0073076-All by chance of course, starting in the Cambrian explosion

Natures wonders: natural gear mesh

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Friday, September 13, 2013, 07:17 (3840 days ago) @ David Turell

First gear discovered in nature-http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/the-first-gear-discovered-in-nature-15916433?src=soc_twtr-Issus has gears at the top of it's legs to enable it to jump.-Thought you might like this one.

--
GPJ

Natures wonders: natural gear mesh

by David Turell @, Friday, September 13, 2013, 14:28 (3840 days ago) @ George Jelliss

First gear discovered in nature
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/the-first-gear-discovered-in-nature... 
> Issus has gears at the top of it's legs to enable it to jump.
> 
> Thought you might like this one.-George, you just beat me to it. Nature invents gears before we do:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/gears-allow-planthopper-to-super-jump-in-the-right-direction-report-says/2013/09/12/df304d10-1bc4-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Natures wonders: parasite ants help hosts

by David Turell @, Friday, September 13, 2013, 17:36 (3840 days ago) @ David Turell

got to keep your meals alive:-"They're still parasites because they're extracting resources," said Adams. "But in the context of this scenario, [the parasites] use the same chemical weaponry that helps them to invade the host colony against this other raiding species." Adams compared M. symmetochus workers to the Medieval mercenaries that protected cities for pay.
 
To Herber's mind, the work provides a neat illustration of how coevolved relationships can be transformed from purely parasitical to partially mutualistic. "Most—if not all—mutualistic interactions evolved from a parasitic relationship," she said. "So how do we get from parasitic to mutualistic? Well, this [study] shows us one way."-
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37410/title/From-Parasites-to-Protectors/

Natures wonders: Dung Beetle astronomy

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Friday, September 13, 2013, 22:15 (3839 days ago) @ David Turell

Winner of joint Ignobel Prize for Biology and Astronomy:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2013/09/12/ignobels-2013-and-the-winners-are/-"Dung Beetles use the Milky Way for orientation"-How wonderful is that!

--
GPJ

Natures wonders: Dung Beetle astronomy

by David Turell @, Friday, September 13, 2013, 22:35 (3839 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Winner of joint Ignobel Prize for Biology and Astronomy:
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2013/09/12/ignobels-2013-and-the-w... 
> "Dung Beetles use the Milky Way for orientation"
> 
> George: How wonderful is that!-Wonderful find. I had skipped over that one. The abstract:-http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982212015072

Natures wonders: egg trickery

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 01:53 (3828 days ago) @ David Turell

Cuckoo finches fool other parents into raising their young by egg mimicry:-
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-bird-world-cuckoo-finches-host.html-A hard-boiled approach

Natures wonders: electric fish

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 01, 2013, 14:14 (3822 days ago) @ David Turell

AC and DC. Don't foget electric eels:-http://phys.org/news/2013-10-electric-fish-ac-dc.html

Natures wonders: ants farming fungus

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 01, 2013, 16:07 (3822 days ago) @ David Turell

Using special enzymes:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37587/title/Biofuel-Mimicry/

Natures wonders: Noble Rot

by David Turell @, Friday, October 04, 2013, 15:22 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell

How the fungus uses a genetic attacK with RNA to rot the grapes:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37753/title/Fungus-Versus-Plant/-Sauterne anyone?

Natures wonders: Clever corvids

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 08, 2013, 17:07 (3815 days ago) @ David Turell

More on crows and their use of tools. Do they think or is it automatic:-
"Despite the striking results of the study, Dr St Clair cautions that 'We still can't say whether New Caledonian crows actually 'understand' how their tools function. But of course, this is also true of many humans I know!' "- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-canny-crows-tools.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Venus fly trap

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 17, 2013, 05:44 (3806 days ago) @ David Turell

Nothing else like it. Looks designed to me:-
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/the_venus_flytr077891.html

Natures wonders: venom producers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 18:00 (3800 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: colorful squid

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 24, 2013, 15:17 (3799 days ago) @ David Turell

No one knows why they do it whuile colorblind:-https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colorful-lives-squid

Natures wonders: triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 14:23 (3794 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: zombie ant picture

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 14:23 (3794 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: male mosquito makes eggs!

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 30, 2013, 16:09 (3793 days ago) @ David Turell

Well, not really. In the sex act he delivers a hormone which induces the female to make eggs:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38070/title/Male-Mosquitoes-Trigger-Egg-Production/

Natures wonders: homing pigeons

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 06, 2013, 00:28 (3786 days ago) @ David Turell

Smell their way home!:-"Experiments over the past 40 years have shown that homing pigeons get disoriented when their sense of smell is impaired or when they don't have access to natural winds at their home site. But many researchers were not convinced that wind-borne odors could provide the map pigeons need to navigate. Now, Hans Wallraff of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Seewiesen, Germany, has shown that the atmosphere does contain the necessary information to help pigeons find their way home."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105103536.htm

Natures wonders: stability, maneuverability

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 14, 2013, 01:56 (3778 days ago) @ David Turell

"One of the things they teach you in engineering is that you can't have both stability and maneuverability at the same time," said Noah Cowan, a Johns Hopkins associate professor of mechanical engineering, who supervised the research. "The Wright Brothers figured this out when they built their early airplanes. They made their planes a little unstable to get the maneuverability they needed."-When an animal or vehicle is stable, it resists changes in direction. On the other hand, if it is maneuverable, it has the ability to quickly change course. Generally, engineers assume that a system can rely on one property or the other—but not both. -http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/11/04/fishy-movement-solves-mystery-Nature can teach us many designs. Look at the knifefish video.

Natures wonders: fruit fly wing art

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 16, 2013, 01:44 (3776 days ago) @ David Turell

A type of fruit fly has perfect pictures of ants on its wings!-http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/fruit-fly-with-the-wings-of-beauty#ixzz2jhxlLGaH

Natures wonders: dry butterflies

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 21, 2013, 01:06 (3771 days ago) @ David Turell

How their wings stay dry:-https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-butterflies-stay-dry

Natures wonders: cryptococcal tricks

by David Turell @, Monday, November 25, 2013, 19:14 (3766 days ago) @ David Turell

A fungus figures out how to survive:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fungal-infection-accident-of-evolution-may-thrive-in-our-bodies

Natures wonders: fungus/plant root symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 15:25 (3766 days ago) @ David Turell

"Glomeromycota is an ancient lineage of fungi that has a symbiotic relationship with roots that goes back nearly 420 million years to the earliest plants. More than two thirds of the world's plants depend on this soil-dwelling symbiotic fungus to survive, including critical agricultural crops such as wheat, cassava, and rice. The analysis of the Rhizophagus irregularis genome has revealed that this asexual fungus doesn't shuffle its genes the way researchers expected. Moreover, rather than having lost much of its metabolic genes, as observed in many mutualistic organisms, it has expanded its range of cell-to-cell communication genes and phosphorus-capturing genes"- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-scavenging-fungi-friend.html#jCp

Natures wonders: ant rafts cross rivers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 01:55 (3765 days ago) @ David Turell

"Fire ant rafts hold together by constantly breaking apart. Swarms of the insects link up in vast groups to float across water, sometimes forming rafts the size of dinner plates. But how they withstand waves and other forces that threaten to sink them wasn't known.-"The ants evolved to form rafts to survive the tropical wet season in their native home, the Amazon rainforest. Entire colonies can escape flooding mounds in seconds, mobilising into buoyant heaps and floating safely to their next settlements. Invasive fire ants are now found across the southern US as well as in Australia, the Caribbean and parts of southern Asia."-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24654-fire-ants-writhe-to-make-unsinkable-rafts.html

Natures wonders: wing murals

by David Turell @, Friday, November 29, 2013, 15:28 (3763 days ago) @ David Turell

Is this visual mimickry or do we see forms automatically from our brain's interpretations of remembered forms and shapes?:-http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/08/30/a-mural-on-moth-wings/

Natures wonders: Orchid mantis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 03, 2013, 00:20 (3759 days ago) @ David Turell

Not your pious praying mantis, but just as much a predator:-http://www.livescience.com/41605-predator-lures-prey-by-mimicking-flowers.html?cmpid=556083

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2013, 05:50 (3758 days ago) @ David Turell

Stick baiting:
 
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2013/11/30/tool-use-in-crocs-and-gators/

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2013, 14:50 (3758 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Stick baiting:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2013/11/30/tool-use-in-crocs-and-g...-QUOTE: "In recent years it has ... I really, really hope ... become better known that non-bird reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, alligators and so on) are not boring dullards, but behaviourally complex creatures that get up to all sorts of interesting things. Play behaviour, complex social interactions, gaze recognition, pair-bonding and monogamy, social hunting, speedy learning abilities and good memories have all been demonstrated across these groups. And another interesting and unexpected bit of complex behaviour has just been published. It's so interesting that I feel compelled to write about it today. It concerns what seems to be tool use in crocodiles and alligators."-Isn't it amazing how scientists studying the behaviour of all organisms from crocodiles down to bacteria find the same manifestations of intelligence? The various creatures may use different sensory apparatus and different means of communicating among themselves, but the principle is always the same: they find their own way to exploit their environment, to interact, to innovate. One is therefore led to ask: Did God build the programme for crocodile stick baiting into the very first cells, to be passed down through billions of years and organisms? Did he do a dabble to reprogramme the crocobrain so that it would play its little trick? Or did some clever croc come up with the idea all by himself and then pass it on to his mates?-Is there any difference between the croc's ingenuity and that of the first fire ants who made themselves into a raft in order to survive the floods? Preprogramming? God dabbling? Or independently inventive formic intelligence?

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2013, 15:31 (3758 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Is there any difference between the croc's ingenuity and that of the first fire ants who made themselves into a raft in order to survive the floods? Preprogramming? God dabbling? Or independently inventive formic intelligence?-Asking the same question for which there is no answer. We do not know how instinct is developed.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Thursday, December 05, 2013, 15:19 (3757 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Is there any difference between the croc's ingenuity and that of the first fire ants who made themselves into a raft in order to survive the floods? Preprogramming? God dabbling? Or independently inventive formic intelligence?-DAVID: Asking the same question for which there is no answer. We do not know how instinct is developed.-Nor do we know how intelligence is developed. Nor do we know where to draw the borderline between instinct and intelligence. Instinct is normally pretty standardized, but if one croc uses sticks as bait and another doesn't, or one crow can solve puzzles while another can't, or one rat can exit the maze more quickly than another, is it not possible that the one is simply more intelligent than the other? And how many fire ants do you think might have drowned before they invented their D-I-Y raft? My earlier questions were meant to highlight the sheer scale of what your first-cell-preprogramming theory demands (with its zillions of physical and strategic variations for the trillions of species to follow during the next few billion years), even allowing for your divine dabbling theory (Creationism). One intelligent croc and maybe a couple of intelligent ants are all you need to come up with a stick-baiting or ant-rafting idea that can then be passed on to subsequent generations.-Here is an article on the recent discovery that ants teach each other one to one in the hunt for food, after which the pupil becomes a teacher, and so on. Why would pupils need to be taught what you think is an instinctive activity?
www.mindpowernews.com/AntsTeach.htm

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 05, 2013, 16:04 (3757 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Nor do we know how intelligence is developed. Nor do we know where to draw the borderline between instinct and intelligence. Instinct is normally pretty standardized, but if one croc uses sticks as bait and another doesn't, or one crow can solve puzzles while another can't, or one rat can exit the maze more quickly than another, is it not possible that the one is simply more intelligent than the other? -Or luckier in trial and error. But Sheldrake's work on animal consciousness shows that one lucky fellow will be immitated by the others until the whole species is doing it. There is no question this happens. The "100th monkey" story is one the classics.-> dhw: One intelligent croc and maybe a couple of intelligent ants are all you need to come up with a stick-baiting or ant-rafting idea that can then be passed on to subsequent generations.-I like the way you tuck in the word intelligent.
> 
> Here is an article on the recent discovery that ants teach each other one to one in the hunt for food, after which the pupil becomes a teacher, and so on. Why would pupils need to be taught what you think is an instinctive activity?-> www.mindpowernews.com/AntsTeach.htm-Excellent article and right to the point Sheldrake makes.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Friday, December 06, 2013, 20:46 (3755 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We do not know how instinct is developed.-dhw: Nor do we know how intelligence is developed. Nor do we know where to draw the borderline between instinct and intelligence. Instinct is normally pretty standardized, but if one croc uses sticks as bait and another doesn't, or one crow can solve puzzles while another can't, or one rat can exit the maze more quickly than another, is it not possible that the one is simply more intelligent than the other?
 
DAVID: Or luckier in trial and error. But Sheldrake's work on animal consciousness shows that one lucky fellow will be immitated by the others until the whole species is doing it. There is no question this happens. The "100th monkey" story is one the classics.-I've looked at three websites dealing with the 100th monkey story, all of which say it has been discredited, and the sweet potato washing is accounted for by observation and passing on from one generation to another. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
No doubt, though, Sheldrake has plenty of other examples for his theory, but this is irrelevant to the individual, supervised tests made, for instance, on crows and rats, demonstrating their intelligent ways of solving specific problems in the laboratory. You yourself drew our attention to corvids:-DAVID: More studies on how clever crow are with brains diffrent than ours:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131128103835.htm
The whole article is filled with references to intelligent behaviour, e.g.: 
"The study published in Nature Communications provides valuable insights into the parallel evolution of intelligent behavior. "Many functions are realized differently in birds because a long evolutionary history separates us from these direct descendants of the dinosaurs," says Lena Veit. "This means that bird brains can show us an alternative solution out of how intelligent behavior is produced with a different anatomy.""-The "different anatomy" comment could well apply to other organisms such as ants and bacteria. We simply don't know how "intelligence" works, but there is plenty of evidence that ours is not the only form.-dhw: One intelligent croc and maybe a couple of intelligent ants are all you need to come up with a stick-baiting or ant-rafting idea that can then be passed on to subsequent generations.
DAVID: I like the way you tuck in the word intelligent.-Hardly tucked in. That is my whole point. Meanwhile, you switch from instinct to luck ... anything but "intelligence". See your next comment.-Dhw: Here is an article on the recent discovery that ants teach each other one to one in the hunt for food, after which the pupil becomes a teacher, and so on. Why would pupils need to be taught what you think is an instinctive activity?www.mindpowernews.com/AntsTeach.htm-DAVID: Excellent article and right to the point Sheldrake makes.-Miles from the point Sheldrake makes and from the point you keep trying to make. Each ant teaches others how to detect food. How can direct one-to-one teaching and learning be linked to luck, instinct or morphogenetic fields?

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 07, 2013, 01:02 (3755 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I've looked at three websites dealing with the 100th monkey story, all of which say it has been discredited, and the sweet potato washing is accounted for by observation and passing on from one generation to another. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect -The problems with the 'discrediting' is that the 100th monkey story invoplved hopping islands in the Pacific, where other monkeys learned the trick quicker.-
> dhw: No doubt, though, Sheldrake has plenty of other examples for his theory,-He does and I only mentioned the crossword puzzles. There were other studies including one with a Japanese nursery rhyme with Western folks. The blee tit milk and cream study and many others, such as by other authors with rats in a maze with apparently speeding learning through species consciousness. My point was that instinct may in part be accomplished by species consciousness. -> dhw: but this is irrelevant to the individual, supervised tests made, for instance, on crows and rats, demonstrating their intelligent ways of solving specific problems in the laboratory. You yourself drew our attention to corvids.-I know, my poodle figures things out also. But crows, rats and dogs are several levels about ants. I will agree that animals at this level do some clear reasoning.
> 
> dhw; The "different anatomy" comment could well apply to other organisms such as ants and bacteria. We simply don't know how "intelligence" works, but there is plenty of evidence that ours is not the only form.-That is true, but single cells are still single cells. That is all automatic.-> 
> Dhw: Here is an article on the recent discovery that ants teach each other one to one in the hunt for food, after which the pupil becomes a teacher, and so on. Why would pupils need to be taught what you think is an instinctive activity?www.mindpowernews.com/AntsTeach.htm
> 
> DAVID: Excellent article and right to the point Sheldrake makes.
> 
> dhw: Miles from the point Sheldrake makes and from the point you keep trying to make. Each ant teaches others how to detect food. How can direct one-to-one teaching and learning be linked to luck, instinct or morphogenetic fields?-Wrong word. Morphogenesis relates to form not thought. Monkey see-monkey do; ant sees, ants do. I don't find that incredible, just copy-catting. wich most animals are capable of. Bees do their dance and recognize faces, but not their own.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Saturday, December 07, 2013, 12:33 (3755 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I've looked at three websites dealing with the 100th monkey story, all of which say it has been discredited.
DAVID: The problems with the 'discrediting' is that the 100th monkey story invoplved hopping islands in the Pacific, where other monkeys learned the trick quicker.-QUOTE: "Claims that the practice spread suddenly to other isolated populations of monkeys may be called into question given the fact that at least one washing monkey swam to another population and spent about four years there [...]-DAVID: My point was that instinct may in part be accomplished by species consciousness. -It is the other part that I'm interested in. You are always quick to ask about origins when we discuss the complexities of organisms, but you prefer not to discuss origins when it comes to organisms performing actions that require intelligence. Once the breakthrough has been made, the knowledge spreads, as it does throughout our own human world. But the breakthrough requires intelligence.-dhw: ...but this is irrelevant to the individual, supervised tests made, for instance, on crows and rats, demonstrating their intelligent ways of solving specific problems in the laboratory. 
DAVID: I know, my poodle figures things out also. But crows, rats and dogs are several levels about ants. I will agree that animals at this level do some clear reasoning.-In which case, you agree that there are different levels of intelligence. Experiments have also been carried out with ants and with bacteria, and the researchers have concluded that both are "intelligent".
 
dhw; The "different anatomy" comment could well apply to other organisms such as ants and bacteria. We simply don't know how "intelligence" works, but there is plenty of evidence that ours is not the only form.
DAVID: That is true, but single cells are still single cells. That is all automatic.-Questionable, since some researchers claim that bacteria are intelligent, but in any case evolution got underway when single cells combined. One cell dumb, two cells not so dumb, a billion cells...?-Dhw: Here is an article on the recent discovery that ants teach each other one to one in the hunt for food, after which the pupil becomes a teacher, and so on. Why would pupils need to be taught what you think is an instinctive activity? 
DAVID: ...Monkey see-monkey do; ant sees, ants do. I don't find that incredible, just copy-catting. wich most animals are capable of. Bees do their dance and recognize faces, but not their own.-One-to-one teaching is not copy-catting, nor is it an example of species consciousness. Here is another short article that gives more details of the teaching process. Nothing like copy-catting. 
www.bris.ac.uk/news/2006/879.html

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 07, 2013, 14:47 (3755 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: One-to-one teaching is not copy-catting, nor is it an example of species consciousness. Here is another short article that gives more details of the teaching process. Nothing like copy-catting. -> www.bris.ac.uk/news/2006/879.html-Did you carefully read the last paragraph. I've seen the article before:- "The occurrence of teaching in ants indicates that teaching can evolve in animals with tiny brains. It is probably the value of information in social animals that determines when teaching will evolve, rather the constraints of brain size."-Again that word information! It is a mix of information they contain in their brain and genome and it is a measure of the importance of useful information to be shared. The source of the initial slug of information when these animals developed their social status is what I keep requesting. They have intelligent information which they use, we all agree. Information developed by chance?

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Sunday, December 08, 2013, 17:03 (3754 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: One-to-one teaching is not copy-catting, nor is it an example of species consciousness. Here is another short article that gives more details of the teaching process. Nothing like copy-catting. www.bris.ac.uk/news/2006/879.html-DAVID: Did you carefully read the last paragraph. I've seen the article before:
"The occurrence of teaching in ants indicates that teaching can evolve in animals with tiny brains. It is probably the value of information in social animals that determines when teaching will evolve, rather than the constraints of brain size."
Again that word information! It is a mix of information they contain in their brain and genome and it is a measure of the importance of useful information to be shared. The source of the initial slug of information when these animals developed their social status is what I keep requesting. They have intelligent information which they use, we all agree. Information developed by chance?-You love to juggle with "that word information". QUOTE: Professor Franks said: "We also believe that true teaching always involves feedback in both directions between the teacher and the pupil. In other words, the teacher provides information or guidance for the pupil at a rate suited to the pupil's abilities, and the pupil signals to the teacher when parts of the 'lesson' have been assimilated and that the lesson may continue."
There would not be much point in teaching if the teacher had no information to impart! Here is my interpretation of the research. Ants learn either from experience or from their fellow ants how to trace food sources, and they pass this information on to other ants by teaching them. We humans do the same. No luck, no instinct, no copy-catting, no species consciousness, but simply the deliberate passing of information from one organism to another, which many of us would regard as a sign of intelligence.-If your question concerning the source of the "initial slug of information" relates to the mechanisms which give the ant its intelligence, the answer may possibly be your God, but the point we are discussing is whether or not the one-to-one lesson is a sign that ants are intelligent in their own right. You readily accept observation and specialist research which shows crows, rats and dogs to be intelligent. Why do you unreservedly reject observation and specialist research that shows formic intelligence? As with birds, so with ants: "This means that bird brains can show us an alternative solution out of how intelligent behavior is produced with a different anatomy." (Lena Veit)

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 08, 2013, 18:54 (3754 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You love to juggle with "that word information".-Yes I do, because you seem to have a reluctance to view what is in the ant genome is information, and you can't or won't give me a source for it. The4 genome contains information by which the ants operate. Yes, they appear to have some basic intelligence which comes from that information. Information at the beginning of the ant species requires a source for the information.- 
> dhw: There would not be much point in teaching if the teacher had no information to impart! Here is my interpretation of the research. Ants learn either from experience or from their fellow ants how to trace food sources, and they pass this information on to other ants by teaching them. We humans do the same. No luck, no instinct, no copy-catting, no species consciousness, but simply the deliberate passing of information from one organism to another, which many of us would regard as a sign of intelligence.-I'll accept your statement if you will accept mine that they operate from information in their genome in their brains. I do think that most of it is instinct, but I admit they can do some simple teaching guided by instinct
> 
> dhw;If your question concerning the source of the "initial slug of information" relates to the mechanisms which give the ant its intelligence, the answer may possibly be your God, but the point we are discussing is whether or not the one-to-one lesson is a sign that ants are intelligent in their own right. You readily accept observation and specialist research which shows crows, rats and dogs to be intelligent. Why do you unreservedly reject observation and specialist research that shows formic intelligence? As with birds, so with ants: "This means that bird brains can show us an alternative solution out of how intelligent behavior is produced with a different anatomy." (Lena Veit)-Because I think it is mostly instinct just as bees dance to show where the pollen is hiding. Did they invent the dance or was it given to them? This is where I must say I don't know. God lets life figure it out or dabble?

Natures wonders: Electrostatic spider webs

by David Turell @, Monday, December 09, 2013, 15:25 (3753 days ago) @ David Turell

They are charged enough to attract particles and insects:-http://phys.org/news/2013-12-electricity-spider-webs-prey-pollutants.html

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Monday, December 09, 2013, 18:37 (3753 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You love to juggle with "that word information".
DAVID: Yes I do, because you seem to have a reluctance to view what is in the ant genome is information, and you can't or won't give me a source for it. -No-one knows the source of the information in the human genome either. You like to juggle with the word because it enables you to switch the focus from behaviour indicative of independent intelligence to the unknown source of ALL intelligence. -dhw: Here is my interpretation of the research. Ants learn either from experience or from their fellow ants how to trace food sources, and they pass this information on to other ants by teaching them. We humans do the same. No luck, no instinct, no copy-catting, no species consciousness, but simply the deliberate passing of information from one organism to another, which many of us would regard as a sign of intelligence.
DAVID: I'll accept your statement if you will accept mine that they operate from information in their genome in their brains. I do think that most of it is instinct, but I admit they can do some simple teaching guided by instinct.-We ALL operate from information in the genome in the brain, but we regard our human capacity for processing and using information, communicating it to others, cooperating with others, taking decisions etc. as an indication of independent intelligence. "Most of it" is not "all of it", and it's the non-instinctive part that constitutes intelligence.-dhw: If your question concerning the source of the "initial slug of information" relates to the mechanisms which give the ant its intelligence, the answer may possibly be your God [...] You readily accept observation and specialist research which shows crows, rats and dogs to be intelligent. Why do you unreservedly reject observation and specialist research that shows formic intelligence? As with birds, so with ants: "This means that bird brains can show us an alternative solution out of how intelligent behavior is produced with a different anatomy." (Lena Veit)
DAVID: Because I think it is mostly instinct just as bees dance to show where the pollen is hiding. Did they invent the dance or was it given to them? This is where I must say I don't know. God lets life figure it out or dabble?-"Mostly" again. So what is the rest? Life only exists in the form of living organisms, and so your last sentence should read: "God lets the living organisms figure it out or he dabbles?" (I'm glad you've omitted your other theory that the ants' teaching or the bees' dance was just one of the zillions of programmes God planted in the first living cells). "Figuring it out" demands intelligence.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 10, 2013, 03:41 (3752 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You love to juggle with "that word information".
> DAVID: Yes I do, because you seem to have a reluctance to view what is in the ant genome is information, and you can't or won't give me a source for it. 
> 
> dhw:No-one knows the source of the information in the human genome either. You like to juggle with the word because it enables you to switch the focus from behaviour indicative of independent intelligence to the unknown source of ALL intelligence. -Information and intelligence are two separate items. I can't seem to get you to recognize the difference as one thinks about the genome. The genome, as we both know, is a code. Information is something that intelligence uses. In our experience in life we know tht information is supplied by mental intelligence and codes are made by mental thought or intelligence. This means to me there is a conscious intelligent source for the code and information in the genome. Granted from that point on we can dsicuss the possible sources all year long, but there will never be a proof we can find or agree upon for who or what that source is. -> 
> dhw: We ALL operate from information in the genome in the brain, but we regard our human capacity for processing and using information, communicating it to others, cooperating with others, taking decisions etc. as an indication of independent intelligence. "Most of it" is not "all of it", and it's the non-instinctive part that constitutes intelligence.-Agreed, but most of what animals, not humans, do is instinct.
> 
> dhw:"Mostly" again. So what is the rest? Life only exists in the form of living organisms, and so your last sentence should read: "God lets the living organisms figure it out or he dabbles?" (I'm glad you've omitted your other theory that the ants' teaching or the bees' dance was just one of the zillions of programmes God planted in the first living cells). "Figuring it out" demands intelligence.-I will agree at the corvid/ ape/ dog level that they can do some figuring out wbhich is basic intelligence. But not at the bacterial level. That they think I will never agree to.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Tuesday, December 10, 2013, 20:03 (3751 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Information and intelligence are two separate items. I can't seem to get you to recognize the difference as one thinks about the genome. The genome, as we both know, is a code. Information is something that intelligence uses. In our experience in life we know tht information is supplied by mental intelligence and codes are made by mental thought or intelligence. This means to me there is a conscious intelligent source for the code and information in the genome. Granted from that point on we can dsicuss the possible sources all year long, but there will never be a proof we can find or agree upon for who or what that source is.
 
You juggle with two types of information: information in the genetic code, and information we absorb and process from our contact with the outside world. Whenever I want to discuss the mechanism (intelligence) which deals with the latter, you switch to the former and ask for its source. -dhw: We ALL operate from information in the genome in the brain, but we regard our human capacity for processing and using information, communicating it to others, cooperating with others, taking decisions etc. as an indication of independent intelligence. "Most of it" is not "all of it", and it's the non-instinctive part that constitutes intelligence.
DAVID: Agreed, but most of what animals, not humans, do is instinct.-Once again, it is the non-instinctive element that I am focusing on. We agree that human intelligence is vastly more developed than that of other organisms, but that does not mean other organisms are not intelligent.-dhw: "Mostly" again. So what is the rest? Life only exists in the form of living organisms, and so your last sentence should read: "God lets the living organisms figure it out or he dabbles?" (I'm glad you've omitted your other theory that the ants' teaching or the bees' dance was just one of the zillions of programmes God planted in the first living cells). "Figuring it out" demands intelligence.
DAVID: I will agree at the corvid/ ape/ dog level that they can do some figuring out wbhich is basic intelligence. But not at the bacterial level. That they think I will never agree to.-As usual, you bring in words like "think", which automatically conjure up associations with human-type thinking. I have never included the word among the attributes I list (see earlier). Of course you have every right to dismiss the research of those specialists who believe bacteria to be intelligent. Any concessions for my friends the ant-teachers?-Just a reminder to anyone interested: this whole discussion centres on the question of how evolution proceeds. I am suggesting the possibility that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of "intelligent" cell communities cooperating and making their own changes as environmental conditions demand or allow, with natural selection deciding which will perish and which will survive. David believes that it is the result of God's either preprogramming the first cells with all the billions of physical and strategic variations we now know, or God dabbling. Darwin believed it was the result of billions of random mutations, followed by natural selection as above.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 02:21 (3751 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You juggle with two types of information: information in the genetic code, and information we absorb and process from our contact with the outside world. Whenever I want to discuss the mechanism (intelligence) which deals with the latter, you switch to the former and ask for its source. -That is because I want you to clearly make the distinction. I know there are both kinds of information as you do, but I am insisting that in the simple organisms, what looks like intelligence is really programs running on information in the genome, and those programs respond to information the sensory mechanism pick up.-
> dhw; Once again, it is the non-instinctive element that I am focusing on. We agree that human intelligence is vastly more developed than that of other organisms, but that does not mean other organisms are not intelligent. -At the advanced level like corvids, dogs, apes, yes they have some simple intelligence.-
> 
> dhw: Of course you have every right to dismiss the research of those specialists who believe bacteria to be intelligent. Any concessions for my friends the ant-teachers?-I agree they instruct, but perhaps by instinct only.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 06:03 (3751 days ago) @ David Turell


> > dhw: You juggle with two types of information: information in the genetic code, and information we absorb and process from our contact with the outside world. Whenever I want to discuss the mechanism (intelligence) which deals with the latter, you switch to the former and ask for its source. 
> 
>David: That is because I want you to clearly make the distinction. I know there are both kinds of information as you do, but I am insisting that in the simple organisms, what looks like intelligence is really programs running on information in the genome, and those programs respond to information the sensory mechanism pick up.
> 
> -Even a simple computer program can learn new routines.-
> > dhw; Once again, it is the non-instinctive element that I am focusing on. We agree that human intelligence is vastly more developed than that of other organisms, but that does not mean other organisms are not intelligent. 
> 
> David: At the advanced level like corvids, dogs, apes, yes they have some simple intelligence.-At about the same level of some computer programs. Corvids display basic facial recognition software, others display basic varieties of pathfinding or flocking software, all of which can be pre-programmed to account for changing conditions. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > dhw: Of course you have every right to dismiss the research of those specialists who believe bacteria to be intelligent. Any concessions for my friends the ant-teachers?
> 
>David: I agree they instruct, but perhaps by instinct only.-Again, look at basic computer AI, none of which comes remotely close to simulating the degree of intelligence found in humans.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 14:44 (3751 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > > dhw: You juggle with two types of information: information in the genetic code, and information we absorb and process from our contact with the outside world. Whenever I want to discuss the mechanism (intelligence) which deals with the latter, you switch to the former and ask for its source. 
> > 
> >David: That is because I want you to clearly make the distinction. I know there are both kinds of information as you do, but I am insisting that in the simple organisms, what looks like intelligence is really programs running on information in the genome, and those programs respond to information the sensory mechanism pick up.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Tony:Even a simple computer program can learn new routines.
> 
> 
> > > dhw; Once again, it is the non-instinctive element that I am focusing on. We agree that human intelligence is vastly more developed than that of other organisms, but that does not mean other organisms are not intelligent. 
> > 
> > David: At the advanced level like corvids, dogs, apes, yes they have some simple intelligence.
> 
> Tony; At about the same level of some computer programs. Corvids display basic facial recognition software, others display basic varieties of pathfinding or flocking software, all of which can be pre-programmed to account for changing conditions. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > dhw: Of course you have every right to dismiss the research of those specialists who believe bacteria to be intelligent. Any concessions for my friends the ant-teachers?
> > 
> >David: I agree they instruct, but perhaps by instinct only.
> 
> Tony: Again, look at basic computer AI, none of which comes remotely close to simulating the degree of intelligence found in humans.-That is all I have said to dhw in referring to the genome as a biologic computer. A computer is not intelligent. It uses information in programs.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 19:43 (3750 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: You juggle with two types of information: information in the genetic code, and information we absorb and process from our contact with the outside world. Whenever I want to discuss the mechanism (intelligence) which deals with the latter, you switch to the former and ask for its source. -DAVID: That is because I want you to clearly make the distinction. I know there are both kinds of information as you do, but I am insisting that in the simple organisms, what looks like intelligence is really programs running on information in the genome, and those programs respond to information the sensory mechanism pick up.-TONY: Even a simple computer program can learn new routines.-The rest of the post follows the same line of argument, as does David's latest. So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with a mechanism enabling them to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would also cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammned) in working out their own solutions to new problems.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 11, 2013, 20:18 (3750 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with a mechanism enabling them to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would also cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammned) in working out their own solutions to new problems.-We have found evidnece supporting all of your choices except #4. Cells are highly programmed. Read Dr. Woese's article, courtesy of George, carefully.

Natures wonders: Plant defense

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 12, 2013, 15:01 (3750 days ago) @ David Turell

How plants defend themselves from disease. It is all biochemical reactions to recognition of disease, also done biochemically. dhw, do plants think? This is automatic:-http://phys.org/news/2013-12-molecular-snapshot-immune.html

Natures wonders: Plant defense

by dhw, Friday, December 13, 2013, 13:20 (3749 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How plants defend themselves from disease. It is all biochemical reactions to recognition of disease, also done biochemically. dhw, do plants think? This is automatic:-http://phys.org/news/2013-12-molecular-snapshot-immune.html-As always, you prefer to ask whether plants "think" rather than whether plants are "intelligent". No, I don't believe plants gaze up at the sky and in best American ask themselves how they got here, what life is all about, and when the hell is it gonna rain? Nor do I believe that they have intelligence remotely like that of a corvid or your dog, and if they do have intelligence (this is, after all, only a hypothesis) it must be almost infinitely far removed from our own. But I do not define intelligence as self-awareness, or the ability to think abstractly, or to speak fluent American, or even to communicate with us humans. Flora and fauna are all cell communities, and I remain sceptical that your God would have preprogrammed the first living cells eventually to have produced not only these particular plants but also their response to every single disease that might strike them during the next few billion years. I am also sceptical that if he didn't preprogramme their responses, he will step in and dabble with the cells to help them through the crisis. -My alternative (theistic version) to these two hypotheses is that he provided the cells with a form of intelligence that would enable them to work out their own response, through some central, intelligent control system (analogous to the human brain). We are told that "the infected cells make very specific decisions about the actions actually required." Decision-making, based on the processing of information, is an attribute of intelligence.-QUOTE: "We would like to know how the plant resistance signalling system works and makes decisions in a dynamic way to confer resistance. Handling pathogen stress likely involves exquisite communication between different pathways." says Jane Parker, explaining her interest in the three proteins."-That is what we would all like to know. You insist that God has worked every detail out in advance, so no decisions are necessary ... the plant merely follows God's 10,954th set of inherited instructions (or he pops in to dabble). I am suggesting that the plant cells work it out for themselves, using biochemistry to do the job. As Woese says: "If they are not machines, then what are organisms?" Maybe plants too are intelligent beings.

Natures wonders: Plant defense

by David Turell @, Friday, December 13, 2013, 15:27 (3749 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Decision-making, based on the processing of information, is an attribute of intelligence.-Tony has carefully explained how this can work automatically, no innate intelligence involved, all programming. -> dhw:That is what we would all like to know. You insist that God has worked every detail out in advance, so no decisions are necessary ... the plant merely follows God's 10,954th set of inherited instructions (or he pops in to dabble). I am suggesting that the plant cells work it out for themselves, using biochemistry to do the job. As Woese says: "If they are not machines, then what are organisms?" Maybe plants too are intelligent beings.-If I counld accept that God is as omniscient as religions describe, than I wouldn't wonder about the issue of dabbling. Tony's answer of five hours ago covers the problem.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Thursday, December 12, 2013, 17:38 (3750 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with the ability to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would independently work out their own solutions to new problems.-DAVID: We have found evidence supporting all of your choices except 4). Cells are highly programmed. Read Dr. Woese's article, courtesy of George, carefully.-I have read it carefully. There is no evidence for any of these hypotheses. Woese makes no attempt to explain what he calls "novelty", and although in a very limited way he challenges the perceived concept of common descent, he calls for a holistic view focusing on "evolution, emergence, and biology's innate complexity". But he also quotes David Bohm's warning of 40 years ago: "If the trend continues...scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical..." N.B. Bohm did not specify humans, although it's not clear how far he was extending his notion of "beings". (Shapiro referred to bacteria as sentient beings.)Woese himself asks: "If they are not machines, then what are organisms?" The question itself shows quite clearly that he does not regard organisms (i.e. communities of cells, among which we can include ants) as machines, whereas if they are preprogrammed and have no freedom to do anything beyond what is preprogrammed, you can hardly call them anything other than machines. -Furthermore, Woese sees evolution as a bumpy road, on which the "outcomes of these transitions, saltations, are not predictable a priori" (which fits in better with higgledy-piggledy that with pre-planning). He does not go so far as to suggest that cell communities are intelligent, but the following concurs absolutely with the research done by Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler et al: "A common thread that links language and multicellularity is communication (interaction at a distance). In each case a complex, sophisticated network of interactions forms the medium within which the new level of organization (entities) comes into existence." Of course you can impose your theory and insist that it's all mechanical instinct preprogrammed by your God, but that is not what Woese says. He says explicitly that organisms are not machines.
 
What he is examining here is the pre-Darwinian evolution of cells. The first proteinaceous cells are "a kind of novelty that we would not encounter in the modern biological era, and it had to have been generated in a kind of way that we have yet to fathom." However, he does conclude that evolution began "in a highly multiplex fashion, from many initial ancestral starting points, not just a single one", and talks of a "shotgun strategy" rather than a rifle (again hardly offering support for your divine preprogramming).
 
In short, Woese rejects the notion of organisms (cell communities) as machines, makes no mention whatsoever of divine preprogramming, confirms the sophistication of the mechanisms enabling cells to communicate and cooperate, and when it comes to origins clearly shares Schrödinger's view: "In an honest search for knowledge you quite often have to abide by ignorance for an indefinite period." This doesn't mean giving up ... it is "a signpost to further quest". I've no idea what Woese's religious tendencies were, but all of this strongly suggests agnosticism to me, and you certainly can't claim that his article supports your divine preprogramming-and-dabbling hypothesis while rejecting that of "the intelligent cell". It does neither. We remain ignorant.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 06:19 (3747 days ago) @ David Turell

Surprising Discovery: Multi-cellular response is all for one->>The Northwestern researchers demonstrated something very unexpected in their studies of the worm C. elegans: Authority is taken away from individual cells and given to two specialized neurons to sense temperature stress and organize an integrated molecular response for the entire organism.--Is this a shot in the foot for DHW's theory?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by dhw, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 14:52 (3747 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW (to Tony, under "Nature's Wonders: Crocodile tools"): You and David are happy to describe computerized learning as Artificial Intelligence, but when the procedures are carried out by a living organism with a live memory, ability to perceive, process and communicate data, make decisions, pass data across generations, suddenly these attributes no longer signify intelligence! 
DHW: I am disappointed that neither of you has responded to this.-TONY: I did not coin the phrase 'Artificial Intelligence' and have repeatedly stated a need to distinguish between different levels of intelligence/consciousness. Also, see the link where major responses by hundreds of cells are controlled by two neurons. No intelligence, simple guided automatons. -I'm very happy with your acknowledgement that there are different levels of intelligence, but I'd prefer if possible to avoid "consciousness", because David likes to equate that with human self-awareness, whereas I associate it just with awareness, e.g. of the environment (including other organisms). My argument is that perception, processing and communication of data, decision-making, cooperation etc. are attributes of intelligence, and these attributes are present in all organisms from bacteria through to humans. This is also illustrated by the example you refer to:-TONY: Surprising Discovery: Multi-cellular response is all for one
"The Northwestern researchers demonstrated something very unexpected in their studies of the worm C. elegans: Authority is taken away from individual cells and given to two specialized neurons to sense temperature stress and organize an integrated molecular response for the entire organism."
Is this a shot in the foot for DHW's theory?-I would take it to be an illustration of how unicellularity and multicellularity both work. Within the single cell is an intelligent control centre (Albrecht-Buehler says it's the centrosome); within multicellular organisms there must also be an intelligent control centre. In organisms like dogs, corvids and humans we assume it is the brain. In C. elegans it appears to be bound up with two neurons which assume "authority" and "organize" the response of the entire organism. The other cells will obey their commands, just as my legs obey when my brain passes on the message that "I" want to walk. In other words, individual cells have their own intelligence, but when they merge into cell communities, they take on different functions, and these are organized by an independent, overall intelligence within or "emerging" from that community. "Multicellular response is all for one" sums it up nicely. Otherwise the organism couldn't function! Again, the ant colony provides the perfect analogy.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 16:06 (3747 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: In other words, individual cells have their own intelligence, but when they merge into cell communities, they take on different functions, and these are organized by an independent, overall intelligence within or "emerging" from that community. "Multicellular response is all for one" sums it up nicely. Otherwise the organism couldn't function! Again, the ant colony provides the perfect analogy.-Yes, cells 'own intelligence' is their ability to use implanted information wthin the genome to which they have continuous access. And yes, a community of these cooopeating cells, acting according to plan, create the emergence of life in the multicelled folks. Single celled guys amazingly do it all on their own, which in a perverse way makes them seem even more intelligent!

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, December 16, 2013, 06:18 (3746 days ago) @ dhw

If the cells were autonomously intelligent, you would expect to see some form of dissent in the ranks, a dumb cell that couldn't follow directions, or just went its own way. They behaved exactly like I would expect a computer to behave, not like I would expect an intelligent creature to behave.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by dhw, Monday, December 16, 2013, 18:02 (3746 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: In other words, individual cells have their own intelligence, but when they merge into cell communities, they take on different functions, and these are organized by an independent, overall intelligence within or "emerging" from that community. "Multicellular response is all for one" sums it up nicely. Otherwise the organism couldn't function! Again, the ant colony provides the perfect analogy.-DAVID: Yes, cells 'own intelligence' is their ability to use implanted information wthin the genome to which they have continuous access. And yes, a community of these cooopeating cells, acting according to plan, create the emergence of life in the multicelled folks. Single celled guys amazingly do it all on their own, which in a perverse way makes them seem even more intelligent!-We have no idea how life or intelligence "emerge" from chemicals or from cooperating cells. The word is simply used to indicate that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When you say "their ability", it's no different from saying that "you" have an ability to use information within your own genome, but what is the "you" that decides HOW to use the information? What is the control centre? The brain? If you have an "intelligent", autonomous but not automatic control centre, what makes you so certain that other organisms don't? No matter how often and how authoritatively you slip in words like "plan" and "seem", your divinely preprogrammed version remains a purely subjective interpretation of the evolutionary process and of the way cells/cell communities function.-TONY: If the cells were autonomously intelligent, you would expect to see some form of dissent in the ranks, a dumb cell that couldn't follow directions, or just went its own way. They behaved exactly like I would expect a computer to behave, not like I would expect an intelligent creature to behave.-That's because although you acknowledge that there are different types and levels of intelligence, you seem to think only in terms of humans and computers. Why must intelligence presuppose the possibility of dissent? Even in a human context, the general gives the orders and the soldiers obey, but they must still use their intelligence to deal with contingencies. Maybe that's how all cells and cell communities function: through orders given and obeyed by different levels of intelligence, all of which (like the ant colony) follow the precept "Multicellular response is all for one". Only humans and to a lesser degree some of our fellow animals have the self-awareness that makes them question what is good for the community ... but that doesn't mean that other organisms don't need intelligence to work out what is good, or to implement the strategies.-I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion on the nature of disease, but I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 00:43 (3745 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: No matter how often and how authoritatively you slip in words like "plan" and "seem", your divinely preprogrammed version remains a purely subjective interpretation of the evolutionary process and of the way cells/cell communities function.-We now know that protein production and transcription controls and modifications are part of two layered codes in DNA; first the simple one of 50-60 years ago, and now the second complex planning layer which helps organize single proteins into complex organs. There has to be an organizing plan controlling all of this from the beginning.
> 
> dhw: That's because although you acknowledge that there are different types and levels of intelligence, you seem to think only in terms of humans and computers. Why must intelligence presuppose the possibility of dissent? ..... Only humans and to a lesser degree some of our fellow animals have the self-awareness that makes them question what is good for the community ... but that doesn't mean that other organisms don't need intelligence to work out what is good, or to implement the strategies.-How do cells recognize what is good for the community? That is an amorphous suggestion. Tell me how it works.
> 
> dhw: I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion on the nature of disease, but I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.-No, cancer cells manage to escape the tight controls that supervise the constant turn over of living cells. None of us are the same physical person we were a few months ago in parts of our body. The escape can be due to virus, to irritation, and even to faulting genes that allow it. not preprogramming.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by dhw, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 19:42 (3744 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We now know that protein production and transcription controls and modifications are part of two layered codes in DNA; first the simple one of 50-60 years ago, and now the second complex planning layer which helps organize single proteins into complex organs. There has to be an organizing plan controlling all of this from the beginning.-Woese, whom you recommended so highly, speculates on the evolution of the cell: It is NOT a machine, evolution is a bumpy road with unpredictable outcomes, we have yet to fathom how the novelty of the proteinaceous cell was generated, but the cell evolved from many starting points through a shotgun strategy, as opposed to a rifle. Where in all this is there an organizing plan? Why don't Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler & Co tell us about God's plans, instead of insisting that cells are "intelligent" in their own right? -dhw: (to Tony) Only humans and to a lesser degree some of our fellow animals have the self-awareness that makes them question what is good for the community ... but that doesn't mean that other organisms don't need intelligence to work out what is good, or to implement the strategies.
DAVID: How do cells recognize what is good for the community? That is an amorphous suggestion. Tell me how it works.-Are you saying your own cells don't recognize what is good for your body? If there was no such recognition, organisms would not survive! How does it work? Tell me how any form of intelligence works. You know as well as I do that we have no answer.-Dhw [to Tony]: I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.
DAVID: No, cancer cells manage to escape the tight controls that supervise the constant turn over of living cells. [...] The escape can be due to virus, to irritation, and even to faulting genes that allow it. not preprogramming.-So the cancer cells are not preprogrammed to "dissent"? And yet when cells resist viruses and outside irritants, or adapt to new dangers, they have been preprogrammed by your God to do so. It's only when they fail to resist or adapt that the hypothesis of God's preprogramming sort of falls by the wayside. In other words, he preprogrammes whatever works, but whatever doesn't work is just...well...bad luck?-Here's a different hypothesis: evolution is a history of constant improvisation and experimentation, as intelligent cells and cell communities respond in a vast variety of ways to ever changing challenges from the world in which they live ... adapting, innovating, creating new lifestyles and strategies. Many of them fail, and organisms therefore come and go via the process we know as Natural Selection. Theistic slant: God created the intelligent cell.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 20:48 (3744 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Woese, whom you recommended so highly, speculates on the evolution of the cell: It is NOT a machine, evolution is a bumpy road with unpredictable outcomes, we have yet to fathom how the novelty of the proteinaceous cell was generated, but the cell evolved from many starting points through a shotgun strategy, as opposed to a rifle. Where in all this is there an organizing plan? Why don't Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler & Co tell us about God's plans, instead of insisting that cells are "intelligent" in their own right?-You are lining up atheists against me. they have their interpretation, I have mine. 
> -> DAVID: How do cells recognize what is good for the community? That is an amorphous suggestion. Tell me how it works.
> 
> dhw: Are you saying your own cells don't recognize what is good for your body? If there was no such recognition, organisms would not survive! How does it work? Tell me how any form of intelligence works. You know as well as I do that we have no answer.-The cells are automatically controlled to give proper reactions to changing stimuli in our bodies. Kidneys would lose their function otherwise.
> 
> Dhw [to Tony]: I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.
> DAVID: No, cancer cells manage to escape the tight controls that supervise the constant turn over of living cells. [...] The escape can be due to virus, to irritation, and even to faulting genes that allow it. not preprogramming.
> 
> dhw: So the cancer cells are not preprogrammed to "dissent"? And yet when cells resist viruses and outside irritants, or adapt to new dangers, they have been preprogrammed by your God to do so. It's only when they fail to resist or adapt that the hypothesis of God's preprogramming sort of falls by the wayside. In other words, he preprogrammes whatever works, but whatever doesn't work is just...well...bad luck?-Read David Raup's book on "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad luck?", and he answers bad luck! 
> 
> dhw: Here's a different hypothesis: evolution is a history of constant improvisation and experimentation, as intelligent cells and cell communities respond in a vast variety of ways to ever changing challenges from the world in which they live ... adapting, innovating, creating new lifestyles and strategies. Many of them fail, and organisms therefore come and go via the process we know as Natural Selection. Theistic slant: God created the intelligent cell.-There is not time enough for your improvisation theory, and your theistic slant should read: God put intelligent information in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed. Just a tiny variation of how cells act intelligently.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 05:27 (3744 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If the cells were autonomously intelligent, you would expect to see some form of dissent in the ranks, a dumb cell that couldn't follow directions, or just went its own way. They behaved exactly like I would expect a computer to behave, not like I would expect an intelligent creature to behave.
> 
> That's because although you acknowledge that there are different types and levels of intelligence, you seem to think only in terms of humans and computers. Why must intelligence presuppose the possibility of dissent? Even in a human context, the general gives the orders and the soldiers obey, but they must still use their intelligence to deal with contingencies. Maybe that's how all cells and cell communities function: through orders given and obeyed by different levels of intelligence, all of which (like the ant colony) follow the precept "Multicellular response is all for one". Only humans and to a lesser degree some of our fellow animals have the self-awareness that makes them question what is good for the community ... but that doesn't mean that other organisms don't need intelligence to work out what is good, or to implement the strategies.
> -It is not that I can only think in terms of computers or humans, but rather in terms of independent or not. A computer can not think independently. Humans(and other animals to a lesser extent) can. Given that the animal kingdom, at the level of complex organisms, displays the traits I was discussing (dissent, disobedience, independence, and idiocy), if we consider cells to have any form of intelligence even remotely close to that, then we should expect the same behavior. I would go as far as saying that all intelligent life(as we know it), regardless of the level of consciousness has these traits. -
> I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion on the nature of disease, but I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.-Not really. When I look at the devolution of mankind, I think of cancer much the same way as I would think of a dry-rotting tire: it's a natural consequence of decay and long-term detrimental mutations being expressed. Would you say that the designers of your car screwed up your tires if you let the car sit in the driveway untouched for a year or two? I don't consider our neglect to be his fault or responsibility.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by dhw, Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 19:41 (3743 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: Why don't Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler & Co tell us about God's plans, instead of insisting that cells are "intelligent" in their own right?DAVID: You are lining up atheists against me. they have their interpretation, I have mine. -You claim that science supports your hypothesis, and I'm lining up experts in the field who disagree with you. We're all entitled to our interpretations, but you have consistently dismissed the concept of the intelligent cell as being contrary to the findings of science, metaphorical, "poppycock", "kooky", an attempt to seek popularity. Let's have some respect here! 
 
Dhw: [...] when cells resist viruses and outside irritants, or adapt to new dangers, they have been preprogrammed by your God to do so. It's only when they fail to resist or adapt that the hypothesis of God's preprogramming sort of falls by the wayside. In other words, he preprogrammes whatever works, but whatever doesn't work is just...well...bad luck?
DAVID: Read David Raup's book on "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad luck?", and he answers bad luck! -So when organisms succeed, they have been preprogrammed to do so, but when they fail, it's bad luck. So much for teleology.-dhw: Here's a different hypothesis: evolution is a history of constant improvisation and experimentation, as intelligent cells and cell communities respond in a vast variety of ways to ever changing challenges from the world in which they live...
DAVID: There is not time enough for your improvisation theory, and your theistic slant should read: God put intelligent information in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed. Just a tiny variation of how cells act intelligently.-How do you know the amount of time required for a community of intelligent beings to devise a new machine? As for your revision of my theistic slant, why not stick to God put intelligence in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed? Then you needn't flap around trying to explain God's purposeful preprogramming mingled with lots of bad luck, the first tiny cells being bunged up with billions of programmes, and God butting in every so often to make up for the gaps in his preprogramming. 
 
TONY: A computer can not think independently. Humans(and other animals to a lesser extent) can. Given that the animal kingdom, at the level of complex organisms, displays the traits I was discussing (dissent, disobedience, independence, and idiocy), if we consider cells to have any form of intelligence even remotely close to that, then we should expect the same behavior. I would go as far as saying that all intelligent life(as we know it), regardless of the level of consciousness has these traits.-I can only ask again why you think dissent and idiocy are essential attributes of intelligence. It seems to me that perception, processing and communication of information, the ability to take decisions, to cooperate with other organisms, to devise new strategies etc. are far more important. When you say "independent" ... independent of what? Cells belong to communities, and for the smooth functioning of those communities (and hence of themselves), it is essential that they cooperate interdependently without "dissent". There still has to be a certain hierarchy within the community, with some sort of central control, but that applies to all organisms, including ourselves. You have acknowledged that there are different levels of intelligence, and that will apply throughout each cellular community. Perhaps part of cellular intelligence is the awareness that "multicellular response is all for one". We could learn a thing or two from that. You don't have to disobey an intelligent order to prove your own intelligence. -dhw: I hesitate to get drawn into a discussion on the nature of disease, but I'd have thought cancerous cells might represent the sort of "dissent" you're talking about. Would you argue that your God preprogrammed such "dissent"? After all, according to you and David, cells are automatons obeying his instructions.
TONY: Not really. When I look at the devolution of mankind, I think of cancer much the same way as I would think of a dry-rotting tire: it's a natural consequence of decay and long-term detrimental mutations being expressed. Would you say that the designers of your car screwed up your tires if you let the car sit in the driveway untouched for a year or two? I don't consider our neglect to be his fault or responsibility.-I'm not talking about responsibility or screwing up. I'm challenging the concept of God preprogramming the first living cells (or intervening) with every strategy that works, while we disregard those that don't. The scenario David categorically rejects is that your God may have invented an intelligent mechanism which went its own way ... creating a history of success and failure, full of surprise and variety (which I'd have thought would be much more entertaining for a creator anyway). It's still not clear to me why you object to this hypothesis.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 19, 2013, 01:29 (3743 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; So when organisms succeed, they have been preprogrammed to do so, but when they fail, it's bad luck. So much for teleology.-Don't throw out teleology so quickly. No one said it had to be a straight efficient path to humans.-> 
> dhw: How do you know the amount of time required for a community of intelligent beings to devise a new machine? As for your revision of my theistic slant, why not stick to God put intelligence in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed? -God did but in the only version I favor: intelligent information to be used by the cells through their genome. The codes operate by using intelligent information-> 
> dhw: I'm not talking about responsibility or screwing up. I'm challenging the concept of God preprogramming the first living cells (or intervening) with every strategy that works, while we disregard those that don't. The scenario David categorically rejects is that your God may have invented an intelligent mechanism which went its own way ... creating a history of success and failure, full of surprise and variety (which I'd have thought would be much more entertaining for a creator anyway).-More entertaining, which gives God a personality taht may well notg be warrented. We know that success and failure led to humans, so the process worked, even if the exact details are still muyserious

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by dhw, Thursday, December 19, 2013, 15:53 (3743 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: So when organisms succeed, they have been preprogrammed to do so, but when they fail, it's bad luck. So much for teleology.
DAVID: Don't throw out teleology so quickly. No one said it had to be a straight efficient path to humans.-Maybe it didn't have to be a path to humans at all. But from my subjective standpoint, I would have expected your almighty God to rely on skill rather than luck if he had a particular purpose in mind.
 
Dhw: As for your revision of my theistic slant, why not stick to "God put intelligence in the cells to allow them to adapt as conditions changed"? Then you needn't flap around trying to explain God's purposeful preprogramming mingled with lots of bad luck, the first tiny cells being bunged up with billions of programmes, and God butting in to show the fire ants how to make themselves into a raft.
DAVID: God did but in the only version I favor: intelligent information to be used by the cells through their genome. The codes operate by using intelligent information.-Obfuscation. Cells using intelligent information...codes using intelligent information...In computers this is called Artificial Intelligence, so in living organisms some of us would call it natural intelligence.-Dhw (to Tony): The scenario David categorically rejects is that your God may have invented an intelligent mechanism which went its own way ... creating a history of success and failure, full of surprise and variety (which I'd have thought would be much more entertaining for a creator anyway). 
DAVID: More entertaining, which gives God a personality that may well not be warranted. We know that success and failure led to humans, so the process worked, even if the exact details are mysterious.-Carts before horses. You assume the process was meant to lead to humans. It also led to every single species that is still in existence. Your version of God has him messing things up on the way to fulfilling his purpose (success and failure). My version at least gets rid of the blinkers and the lousy sense of direction. However, if I did believe in God, I would not object to the idea of the occasional dabble. It's the colossal scale and detailed plans behind your hypothetical preprogramming of the very first living cells that I find so unbelievable when set against evolutionary history.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Friday, December 20, 2013, 01:11 (3742 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: But from my subjective standpoint, I would have expected your almighty God to rely on skill rather than luck if he had a particular purpose in mind.-I don't know God's exact plan when it seems he started evolution and it turned out like a confusing bush of organisms.
>> 
> dhw; Obfuscation. Cells using intelligent information...codes using intelligent information...In computers this is called Artificial Intelligence, so in living organisms some of us would call it natural intelligence.-The information used has to have a source. The first cells had information to work with. How did they get it?
> 
> dhw: You assume the process was meant to lead to humans. It also led to every single species that is still in existence. ..... if I did believe in God, I would not object to the idea of the occasional dabble. It's the colossal scale and detailed plans behind your hypothetical preprogramming of the very first living cells that I find so unbelievable when set against evolutionary history.-The thought comes from the evidence of the evolutionary process we see.

Natures wonders: Color vision

by David Turell @, Friday, September 16, 2016, 00:19 (2741 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Further understanding of human color vision is described: - https://www.sciencenews.org/article/color-vision-strategy-defies-textbook-picture - "Color vision may actually work like a colorized version of a black-and-white movie, a new study suggests. - "Cone cells, which sense red, green or blue light, detect white more often than colors, researchers report September 14 in Science Advances. The textbook-rewriting discovery could change scientists' thinking about how color vision works. - "For decades, researchers have known that three types of cone cells in the retina are responsible for color vision. Those cone cells were thought to send “red,” “green” and “blue” signals to the brain. The brain supposedly combines the colors, much the way a color printer does, to create a rainbow-hued picture of the world (including black and white). But the new findings indicate that “the retina is doing more of the work, and it's doing it in a more simpleminded way. - *** - "Red and green cone cells each come in two types: One type signals “white”; another signals color, vision researcher Ramkumar Sabesan and colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, discovered. The large number of cells that detect white (and black — the absence of white) create a high-resolution black-and-white picture of a person's surroundings, picking out edges and fine details. Red- and green-signaling cells fill in low-resolution color information. The process works much like filling in a coloring book or adding color to a black-and-white film, - *** - "Of the red cones the researchers stimulated, 119 made the men see white, while only 48 flashed red. Similarly, only 21 of the green cones tested actually signaled green, while 77 registered white. Each individual cone probably signals only white or color, the researchers say. “It's a rather inefficient arrangement,” says Donald MacLeod, a vision scientist at the University of California, San Diego. All the cone cells are capable of detecting color, but few actually seem to do so. - "Cells surrounded by cones that detect a different color were more likely to send white signals, the researchers found. That finding is unexpected and runs counter to a popular idea that cones ringed by cells detecting other colors would be better at color detection, MacLeod says. - "These findings could be good news for people with color blindness. The results suggest that gene therapy that adds red or green cones could work even in adults, Neitz says. Although his group gave a monkey full color vision (SN: 10/10/09, p.14), many researchers thought human brains would never be able to incorporate additional color information even though the eye could detect it. The new findings indicate the brain needs to learn only that there is one more color needed to fill in to a basically black-and-white picture, a task it should accomplish easily, Neitz says." - Comment: Our plastic brain should handle this easily. I wonder how color vision developed It is quite a trick.. It is certainly a very helpful attribute which most animals have to varying degrees, based on the fact they have the same or similar color cones in their retinas. Solipsism is an issue here. Do I see the same shade of green as you do, while at the same time agreeing the object in question is green?

Natures wonders: how vision works

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 28, 2019, 13:44 (1818 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, March 28, 2019, 14:12

The type of vision we have evolved long before we appeared on the scene:

http://nautil.us/issue/70/variables/a-magician-explains-why-we-see-whats-not-there

"We see things because objects reflect light that is projected onto our retina, and once our photoreceptors register the light, they send a neural signal down the optic nerve. As we have learned earlier on, perception does not take place in the eyes, and lots of complex neural computations are required before we can experience the world. Neural signals are initiated in the retina and then pass via different neural centers to the visual cortex and higher cortical areas, which eventually build a mental representation of the outside world. Neural processing is not instantaneous because neural signals are passed along neurons at a finite speed. It takes about a tenth of a second for the light registered by the retina to become a visual perception in the brain. This means that our perception lags about a tenth of a second behind what is happening in the world. I will give you a few moments for this thought to settle, and just in case you are still struggling to come to terms with it, let me help you with an analogy: During a thunderstorm, vast amounts of electrical energy are discharged, which results in a flash and a loud bang. As you watch the storm from a distance, you see the lighting before you hear the thunder. This is, of course, because sound travels much slower than light, and so we hear the thunder several seconds after the electrical discharge has occurred. It is the same for perception. The neural delay means that we perceive things at least a tenth of a second after they have occurred.

"You might think that a tenth-of-a-second delay makes very little difference to your morning commute, but believe me, this is a substantial delay. Let me put it in context: if you are walking at a modest speed of about one meter per second, a tenth-of-a-second delay will result in you perceiving the world as lagging 10 centimeters behind you. This is quite hard to believe because you simply do not experience the world as lagging, and such a perceptual error should certainly result in many early-morning collisions. Likewise, this perceptual delay should make it impossible for you to catch a ball, especially because this perceptual delay does not account for the substantially longer amount of time your brain requires to plan and initiate a motor response capable of catching the ball.

"It is only once you start thinking about some of the huge day-to-day challenges our visual system constantly faces that the true wonders of the brain start to emerge. Our brain uses a really clever and almost science-fictional trick that prevents us from living in the past: we look into the future. Our visual system is continuously predicting the future, and the world that you are now perceiving is the world that your visual system has predicted to be the present in the past. This idea takes a bit of time to get used to, and the first time I heard it, I thought it must be crazy. However, unless we predict the future, we will always experience the past."

Comment: And this amazing system that helps us perceive the world could not have arisen by chance. It also shows why Libet's brain delay studies do not apply.

Natures wonders: Cellular intelligence derailed?

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 15:35 (3747 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David Surprising Discovery: Multi-cellular response is all for one
> 
> >>The Northwestern researchers demonstrated something very unexpected in their studies of the worm C. elegans: Authority is taken away from individual cells and given to two specialized neurons to sense temperature stress and organize an integrated molecular response for the entire organism.
> 
> 
> 
> Tony: Is this a shot in the foot for DHW's theory?-That is why I published it.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, December 13, 2013, 09:32 (3749 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: The rest of the post follows the same line of argument, as does David's latest. So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with a mechanism enabling them to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would also cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammned) in working out their own solutions to new problems.-
 Fractals
AI -There is a point behind these two links that relates indirectly to your ant. The first is that, in the case of fractals, very tiny mathematical differences can lead to major changes at scale. The second is that 'machine learning' is not all that complicated(relatively), particularly when you have a biological fast access memory(brains), a method for passing/receiving data(communication and the senses), and a method for preserving data across generations(genetic coding). -There was no need for tampering after the fact.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Friday, December 13, 2013, 15:12 (3749 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> 
> Fractals
> AI 
> 
> Tony: There is a point behind these two links that relates indirectly to your ant. The first is that, in the case of fractals, very tiny mathematical differences can lead to major changes at scale. The second is that 'machine learning' is not all that complicated(relatively), particularly when you have a biological fast access memory(brains), a method for passing/receiving data(communication and the senses), and a method for preserving data across generations(genetic coding). 
> 
> There was no need for tampering after the fact.-Stated another way, if the genome is complex enough as a computer setup with a comprehensive enough program, it can all work from the beginning until now without inervention.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 14:08 (3748 days ago) @ David Turell

DHW: The rest of the post follows the same line of argument, as does David's latest. So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with a mechanism enabling them to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would also cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in working out their own solutions to new problems.-Tony: Fractals
AI -There is a point behind these two links that relates indirectly to your ant. The first is that, in the case of fractals, very tiny mathematical differences can lead to major changes at scale. The second is that 'machine learning' is not all that complicated(relatively), particularly when you have a biological fast access memory(brains), a method for passing/receiving data(communication and the senses), and a method for preserving data across generations(genetic coding). 
There was no need for tampering after the fact.-So which of the four hypotheses do you subscribe to, Tony? 
I'm afraid I couldn't read the fractals article (too dazzling for the eye and confusing for the mind), but the AI one was clear enough, and I'm delighted to hear that "machine learning" is not all that complicated. You and David are happy to describe computerized learning as Artificial Intelligence, but when the procedures are carried out by a living organism with a live memory, ability to perceive, process and communicate data, make decisions, pass data across generations, suddenly these attributes no longer signify intelligence! -Meanwhile, David has come up with two wonderful "ifs":
1) "Stated another way, if the genome is complex enough as a computer setup with a comprehensive enough program, it can all work from the beginning until now without intervention."
2) (under "Plant Defense"): If I could accept that God is as omniscient as religions describe, then I wouldn't wonder about the issue of dabbling. Tony's answer of five hours ago covers the problem.-So IF your God could preprogramme the first cells comprehensively enough to produce all the changes necessary to create every single adaptation, innovation, species, lifestyle, strategy, then he wouldn't have needed to dabble. That's it. Our knowledge of fractals and of AI shows he could have done it IF he could have done it! -IFs are fun. Here's another for you: IF your God could put together a "not all that complicated (relatively)" simple intelligent cell with the potential to link up with other relatively simple intelligent cells to form more complex intelligent cell communities, and IF those more complex intelligent cell communities learned from their experiences that just a few minor tweaks here and there could lead to major changes (such as adaptations and new organs and new lifestyles and new strategies), evolution could all work from the beginning until now without preprogramming and without dabbling. Tony's answer covers the problem.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 15:15 (3748 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: IFs are fun. Here's another for you: IF your God could put together a "not all that complicated (relatively)" simple intelligent cell with the potential to link up with other relatively simple intelligent cells to form more complex intelligent cell communities, and IF those more complex intelligent cell communities learned from their experiences that just a few minor tweaks here and there could lead to major changes (such as adaptations and new organs and new lifestyles and new strategies), evolution could all work from the beginning until now without preprogramming and without dabbling. Tony's answer covers the problem.-As long as you accept that 'intelligent cells' really are litle computers with clever genomes filled with God-supplied information that can answer an stimulus with an intelligent responses based on the information they have, then you have a solid theory. Inventing a liver or kidney NEVER is a minor tweak. I wish you really understood how terribly complicated they are.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by dhw, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 08:32 (3747 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: (To Tony): You and David are happy to describe computerized learning as Artificial Intelligence, but when the procedures are carried out by a living organism with a live memory, ability to perceive, process and communicate data, make decisions, pass data across generations, suddenly these attributes no longer signify intelligence! -I am disappointed that neither of you has responded to this.
 
DAVID: As long as you accept that 'intelligent cells' really are litle computers with clever genomes filled with God-supplied information that can answer an stimulus with an intelligent responses based on the information they have, then you have a solid theory. Inventing a liver or kidney NEVER is a minor tweak. I wish you really understood how terribly complicated they are.-I do not accept that intelligent cells are little computers. I am not prepared to rubbish the research of so many scientists who claim that cells are sentient, intelligent beings. I do not dispute that the invention of complex organs like the liver is a major problem (above all for the chance hypothesis), but this is why it is essential to distinguish between types of intelligence. Even you have accepted that dogs and corvids have intelligence, though it is far below that of humans. Where does it spring from? One proposal is that it emerges from the interactions between billions of CELLS. If this is so, there is no reason in theory why all kinds of intelligence should not emerge from interaction between all kinds of cells. The ant is particularly important for me as an example of how emergence works, and as an analogy of how it might work with cells. The first underground cities and the invention of farming and military strategies etc. illustrate how complex ideas may emerge from interaction between comparatively simple individuals. The interaction between billions of human brain cells produces machines of astonishing complexity. The greater the complexity of interaction between these vast numbers of cells, the greater the intelligence.
 
There are, then, three theistic hypotheses here: God preprogrammed the liver, intervened in order to invent the liver, or devised an infinitely flexible system of interacting intelligences ultimately capable of inventing the liver, the Boeing 747, "King Lear". According to the theory of "emergence", they all stem from interaction between cells. Because of your anthropocentric view of the universe, you are forced to argue that although corvid, canine and human intelligence emerges from the interaction between cells, it must also be linked to something else, but you don't know what. If there is a "don't know what", how do you know it's not present in different forms and degrees in ants and in cells? If there is no "don't know what", then you are stuck with intelligence as a property that emerges from biochemical interactions, ranging from bacteria to humans. Since you can never draw a clear dividing line between what seems intelligent and what is intelligent, your insistence on cellular, bacterial and formic automatism is nothing but assumption.-*****-As usual, I am several hours behind in these exchanges. A warm welcome back to Matt, who under "Buddhism and Karma" has captured the essence of the argument:-MATT: I'm saying that the intelligent behaviour of ants isn't an illusion of intelligence, but that it is actually intelligence. And that if you accept the argument that this intelligence is ultimately the result of gene expression contained within the DNA of the individuals of a colony, then you necessarily accept an identical argument for the human brain. That's because neurons are no less automatons than the individuals of an ant colony.-Thank you.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 11:43 (3747 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: (To Tony): You and David are happy to describe computerized learning as Artificial Intelligence, but when the procedures are carried out by a living organism with a live memory, ability to perceive, process and communicate data, make decisions, pass data across generations, suddenly these attributes no longer signify intelligence! 
> 
>DHW: I am disappointed that neither of you has responded to this.
> -I did not coin the phrase 'Artificial Intelligence' and have repeatedly stated a need to distinguish between different levels of intelligence/consciousness. Also, see the link where major responses by hundreds of cells are controlled by two neurons. No intelligence, simple guided automatons. -What the neurons are doing, in computer terms, is synonymous with calling a function( a pre-programmed bit of code that only runs when called by a different program).

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Crocodile tools

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 15:50 (3747 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not accept that intelligent cells are little computers. ..... The greater the complexity of interaction between these vast numbers of cells, the greater the intelligence.-Life is an emergent quality arsing from computerized cells. The emergence is caused by the intricate codes, now discovered to be at two different levels in DNA, protein manufacture (simple) and gene expression (very complex). All of this can only come from a planning intelligence, not chance as you agree. The information in the cell is the source of the intelligent responses. Cells are litle computers.
> 
> dhw: Because of your anthropocentric view of the universe, you are forced to argue that although corvid, canine and human intelligence emerges from the interaction between cells, it must also be linked to something else, but you don't know what. If there is a "don't know what", how do you know it's not present in different forms and degrees in ants and in cells? If there is no "don't know what", then you are stuck with intelligence as a property that emerges from biochemical interactions, ranging from bacteria to humans. Since you can never draw a clear dividing line between what seems intelligent and what is intelligent, your insistence on cellular, bacterial and formic automatism is nothing but assumption.-I have described a clear line which you will not accept. the "don't know what" is the emergence of life from the information in the cell, which cannnot have arisen by chance. There is a cause
> 
> *****
> 
> dhw;As usual, I am several hours behind in these exchanges. A warm welcome back to Matt, who under "Buddhism and Karma" has captured the essence of the argument:
> 
> MATT: I'm saying that the intelligent behaviour of ants isn't an illusion of intelligence, but that it is actually intelligence. And that if you accept the argument that this intelligence is ultimately the result of gene expression contained within the DNA of the individuals of a colony, then you necessarily accept an identical argument for the human brain. That's because neurons are no less automatons than the individuals of an ant colony.
> 
> dhw: Thank you.-I given my answer earlier. Neurons are also computers: intellience and consciousness are emergent, a word which covers we don't know how!

Natures wonders: Lemon sharks

by David Turell @, Friday, December 06, 2013, 20:52 (3755 days ago) @ David Turell

Like salmon returning to the same stream bed, these sharks return to their birthplace, year later: -http://www.livescience.com/41710-lemon-sharks-return-to-birthplace.html?cmpid=556085

Natures wonders: Razzle dazzle camouflage

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2013, 18:02 (3758 days ago) @ dhw

Nature can do anything:-"'Motion dazzle' camouflage uses bold geometric patterns in an attempt not to blend in, but to confuse observers. Theoretically, these patterns make it difficult to judge speed and trajectory. Zebras' stripes may be an example of this camouflage, though that's never been proven — their bold black-and-white stripes also repel flies, which may be their main function. Motion dazzle camouflage isn't about blending in, as blend-in camouflage stops working as soon as an animal moves. A similar type of camouflage is disruptive or edge camouflage, which similarly uses bold patterns to confuse the eye even when an animal is in motion."-http://www.livescience.com/41659-razzle-dazzle-camouflage-fools-eye.html?cmpid=556084

Natures wonders: wasps recognize faces

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2013, 21:24 (3757 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: Zebra camouflage

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 15:08 (3744 days ago) @ David Turell

Of course to confuse:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/25260311

Natures wonders: Triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, December 20, 2013, 15:36 (3742 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants tend to fungus gardens and supply leaves. Fungus enzymes break down the cellulose, bacteria fix nitrogen, and ants harvest and eat fungus. Isn't life very inventive?:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37587/title/Biofuel-Mimicry/

Natures wonders: Developing flowering plants

by David Turell @, Friday, December 20, 2013, 15:42 (3742 days ago) @ David Turell

A simple first angiosperm gobbled up genes and created a flower shop:-http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/12/humble-shrub-sheds-light-history-flowering-plants

Natures wonders: Zombie ant fungus

by David Turell @, Monday, December 23, 2013, 15:54 (3739 days ago) @ David Turell

One of my very favorites for a wild life cycle. And it is my revenge for fire ants:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38057/title/Image-of-the-Day--Zombie-Ant/-Great picture. There are many varieties of this process. Give me a just-so story if its development.

Natures wonders: Drinking turtle tears

by David Turell @, Monday, December 23, 2013, 18:03 (3739 days ago) @ David Turell

Butterflies drink turtle tears for the mineral content:-http://www.livescience.com/39558-butterflies-drink-turtle-tears.html

Natures wonders: Eleven wonders

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 25, 2013, 14:58 (3737 days ago) @ David Turell

Some of these have been presented here before, but it is fun to see up close how strange life can be:-http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/zoologger-2013

Natures wonders: better than ant rafts

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 25, 2013, 15:14 (3737 days ago) @ David Turell

Drumming termites. Perhaps they can start a rock band. This is instinct at its best. We still must wonder ow it all began and finally was coded into their DNA:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38377/title/Little-Drummer-Bugs/

Natures wonders: plants communicate

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 02, 2014, 16:15 (3729 days ago) @ David Turell

Through the air and through roots:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38727/title/Plant-Talk/

Natures wonders: spider architecture

by David Turell @, Monday, January 06, 2014, 17:09 (3725 days ago) @ David Turell

More complex instinct:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38785/title/Image-of-the-Day--Silky-Structure/-Hiding an protecting an egg

Natures wonders: spider web tensile strength

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 09, 2014, 02:17 (3722 days ago) @ David Turell

Weight for weight stronger than steel!:-"Spider silk, then, is stronger than steel on a per weight basis while being very environmentally friendly. This may not have the same pithy ring to it as "spider silk is stronger than steel", but it tells a much more dramatic story about why the mimicry of natural materials is a rapidly growing area of materials science and engineering.-"We are yet to be able to fully understand how spider silk is made. An attempt at commercialisation through "spider goats", where a genetically modified goat produced milk containing an extra protein that could be extracted and spun into spider silk thread, resulted in bankruptcy. But hope remains that by studying how spider silk delivers its strength through a sequences of genes present in spider DNA, engineers will one day be able to build airplanes and other high-performance devices using planet-sparing materials rich in information and low in energy."--http://theconversation.com/spider-silk-is-a-wonder-of-nature-but-its-not-stronger-than-steel-14879

Natures wonders: flying in formation

by David Turell @, Monday, January 20, 2014, 01:17 (3711 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, January 20, 2014, 01:25

The way the birds fly they help each other:-http://www.nature.com/news/precision-formation-flight-astounds-scientists-1.14537-How does this develop as an instinct? I can't explain it by the usual just-so stories of Darwinian evolution.-"Migratory birds coordinate their wing flaps with much more finesse than previously thought, so as to reap the best energy savings from flying in formation, suggests a new study. -
"In 2011, as part of a reintroduction programme, captive-bred ibises following an ultralight aircraft to their wintering grounds arranged themselves in the shape of a V. Data loggers on their backs captured every position and wing flap, yielding the most compelling experimental evidence yet that birds exploit the aerodynamics of the familiar formation to conserve energy.-Theoretical models had previously shown that the V formation, seen in other migratory birds such as geese, could enable trailing birds to save energy. But the models also indicated that the birds' coordination would have to be exceptionally precise to make a difference, and many scientists had doubted that the animals could achieve such a feat during flight, says ecophysiologist Steven Portugal at the Royal Veterinary College in Hatfield, UK.-"They are just so aware of where each other are and what the other bird is doing," Portugal says. "And that's what I find really impressive."

Natures wonders: ant bridges

by David Turell @, Friday, January 10, 2014, 06:09 (3721 days ago) @ David Turell

Another ant colony maneuver:-http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/01/fire-ants-lock-arms-keep-bridges-falling

Natures wonders: yellow flower spider

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 23, 2014, 18:00 (3708 days ago) @ David Turell

Catches the bee:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/38973/title/Image-of-the-Day--Camouflaged-Killer/

Natures wonders: crystal eyes

by David Turell @, Friday, January 24, 2014, 20:39 (3706 days ago) @ David Turell

The brittlestar is one big eye. How does it form these crystals or are they formed naturally? It runs its arms with a nervous system but no central 'brain':-"On the top of the brittlestar's arms, are calcite domes about one-twentieth of a millimetre across. These focus light, avoiding the blurring that perfectly spherical lenses produce. The intricate calcite crystals are aligned so as not to split light into multiple images.-"The tiny crystal balls "were too similar to lenses to have been formed by chance", says Joanna Aizenberg, of Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey. She happened upon the "incredible structures" while studying the brittlestar Ophiocoma wendtii1.-"It's astonishing that this organic creature can manipulate inorganic matter with such precision - and yet it's got no brain," says Roy Sambles, who works on optics and photonics at the University of Exeter in Britain.-"The crystals' growth must be self-organized - emerging from the right chemical environment rather than being engineered by detailed top-down control. "It's starting with a soup of chemicals and pulling out this wonderful microstructure," says Sambles, who fantasizes about emulating the process "in a bucket in a corner of the lab"."-http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010823/full/news010823-11.html

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp eyes

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 25, 2014, 00:29 (3706 days ago) @ David Turell

Twelve types of color sensors:-:The colorful mantis shrimp is known for powerful claws that can stun prey with 200 lbs. (91 kilograms) of force. Now, new research finds that these aggressive crustaceans are weird in another way: They see color like no other animal on the planet.
 
"In fact, the 400-million-year-old visual system of the mantis shrimp works more like a satellite sensor than any other animal eye, said study researcher Justin Marshall, a neurobiologist at the University of Queensland in Australia. Instead of processing ratios of stimulation from just a few color receptors, the mantis shrimp has 12 — and it seems to use them to recognize color with minimal effort.
 
"There is no other animal out there that has anything remotely like this," Marshall told LiveScience. "-
http://www.livescience.com/42797-mantis-shrimp-sees-color.html?cmpid=556397

Natures wonders: ant rafts design found

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 12, 2014, 20:05 (3567 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 06, 2014, 15:19 (3513 days ago) @ David Turell

How pH changes help form spider silk, which is stronger than steel:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140805150836.htm-Requires intricate planning.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Wednesday, August 06, 2014, 22:59 (3512 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How pH changes help form spider silk, which is stronger than steel:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140805150836.htm
 
Requires intricate planning.-DAVID (under "Cell Memories"): At a guess, pre-programming seems to fit more with the concept of God as a first mover.-So let me get this straight. Your best guess is that God built into the very first living cells an intricately planned mechanism which billions of years later, having passed through zillions of generations of different organisms, would enable spiders to spin their silk. But you also think it possible that God took hold of some non-silk-spinning organisms and juggled with their genome so that they could spin silk. Can you think of any other way in which this "intricate planning" could have taken place?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 07, 2014, 01:40 (3512 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID (under "Cell Memories"): At a guess, pre-programming seems to fit more with the concept of God as a first mover.
> 
> dhw: So let me get this straight. Your best guess is that God built into the very first living cells an intricately planned mechanism which billions of years later, having passed through zillions of generations of different organisms, would enable spiders to spin their silk. But you also think it possible that God took hold of some non-silk-spinning organisms and juggled with their genome so that they could spin silk. Can you think of any other way in which this "intricate planning" could have taken place? -Actually no. I just can't imagine a group of "intelligent" cells conjuring up the necesary pH changes to spin silk from protein molecules on the spot, which is what spiders do. It, obviously to me, takes some very careful planning in putting the mechanism in action.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Thursday, August 07, 2014, 22:25 (3511 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under "Cell Memories"): At a guess, pre-programming seems to fit more with the concept of God as a first mover.-dhw: So let me get this straight. Your best guess is that God built into the very first living cells an intricately planned mechanism which billions of years later, having passed through zillions of generations of different organisms, would enable spiders to spin their silk. But you also think it possible that God took hold of some non-silk-spinning organisms and juggled with their genome so that they could spin silk. Can you think of any other way in which this "intricate planning" could have taken place? -DAVID: Actually no. I just can't imagine a group of "intelligent" cells conjuring up the necesary pH changes to spin silk from protein molecules on the spot, which is what spiders do. It, obviously to me, takes some very careful planning in putting the mechanism in action-Fair enough, but it seems your criterion for belief is what you can imagine. So can you in all honesty imagine your “pure energy” God preprogramming the very first cells with plans for eyes, kidneys, livers, lungs, spider silk, ant rafts and all the rest of Nature's Wonders - every plan to be passed down through the billions of years and zillions of organisms, and to be carried out automatically when the time was right? Alternatively, can you imagine your God fiddling around with zillions of individual organisms to endow them with these different mechanisms?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Friday, August 08, 2014, 02:19 (3511 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Fair enough, but it seems your criterion for belief is what you can imagine. So can you in all honesty imagine your “pure energy” God preprogramming the very first cells with plans for eyes, kidneys, livers, lungs, spider silk, ant rafts and all the rest of Nature's Wonders - every plan to be passed down through the billions of years and zillions of organisms, and to be carried out automatically when the time was right? Alternatively, can you imagine your God fiddling around with zillions of individual organisms to endow them with these different mechanisms?-As I have stated over and over, I don't know which of the two concepts of God is true. I can label my belief as theistic evolution, but that is just a label. I don't know the inner workings of a God-riven evolutionary process. As I have shown in the Nstures wonders topic life evolved some amazing life styles, so one conclusion is that evolving life is very inventive, and seemingly much more so than chance should allow. It is very difficult to imagine the tiny epigenetic steps, for example, to have a fungus take over an ant brain. Or a salmon figure out how to come back years later to the same tiny stream bed high in the Pacific Cascade mountain range or how Monarch butterflies migrate back and forth thousands of miles, through metamorphizing four generations of adults and returm each winter to the same forest glen. Darwin's imagination is much mightier than mine. His followers insist though a prcoess of random mutation and Natural selection all this could be created.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Friday, August 08, 2014, 19:36 (3511 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Fair enough, but it seems your criterion for belief is what you can imagine. So can you in all honesty imagine your “pure energy” God preprogramming the very first cells with plans for eyes, kidneys, livers, lungs, spider silk, ant rafts and all the rest of Nature's Wonders - every plan to be passed down through the billions of years and zillions of organisms, and to be carried out automatically when the time was right? Alternatively, can you imagine your God fiddling around with zillions of individual organisms to endow them with these different mechanisms?
-DAVID: As I have stated over and over, I don't know which of the two concepts of God is true. -You seem determined to restrict the choice to these two. But since you rejected my cell hypothesis on the grounds that you couldn't imagine it, my question was whether you could actually imagine either of these alternatives.
 
DAVID: As I have shown in the Nstures wonders topic life evolved some amazing life styles, so one conclusion is that evolving life is very inventive, and seemingly much more so than chance should allow.-“Evolving life” is not inventive. There is no “life” without living organisms, and no living organisms that are not composed of cells. So what is inventive? Once again, if we agree that chance could not produce these inventions, we are left with your preprogramming of the cells or your Creationism (see under “Cell Memories”), both of which require an imagination beyond my range and, I suspect, beyond yours too. So just for the hell of it, let's do the imagination test. Can you or can you not imagine your God creating a mechanism capable of reproducing itself, changing its form, and communicating and combining with its fellows to produce an almost infinite variety of forms, while he himself sits back and watches all the weird and wonderful and unpredictable results of his ingenuity?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 09, 2014, 02:02 (3510 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:There is no “life” without living organisms, and no living organisms that are not composed of cells. So what is inventive?..... Can you or can you not imagine your God creating a mechanism capable of reproducing itself, changing its form, and communicating and combining with its fellows to produce an almost infinite variety of forms, while he himself sits back and watches all the weird and wonderful and unpredictable results of his ingenuity?-Yes, exactly the way I imagine the pre-programming process. You are well aware of my thoughts here. I have predicted there could be a hidden genetic code, not yet discovered, which controls a drive to complexity, and may define the complexity.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Sunday, August 10, 2014, 19:43 (3509 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Can you or can you not imagine your God creating a mechanism capable of reproducing itself, changing its form, and communicating and combining with its fellows to produce an almost infinite variety of forms, while he himself sits back and watches all the weird and wonderful and unpredictable results of his ingenuity? 

DAVID: Yes, exactly the way I imagine the pre-programming process. You are well aware of my thoughts here. I have predicted there could be a hidden genetic code, not yet discovered, which controls a drive to complexity, and may define the complexity.-The question is whether this hidden genetic code contains instructions for all the innovations and Nature's Wonders (which you call evidence of “intricate planning”) preprogrammed - and hence surely predictable - by your God into the first living cells, or it contains the sentience, cognition, communicative skills, inventiveness and intelligence that have enabled cell communities to devise their own unpredictable innovations, as autonomous agents and not automata. The outcome of course is the same for both hypotheses. It's bold of you to predict that science will uncover God's hidden programme for making spider silk. I may as well predict that science will uncover evidence that spiders invented spider silk.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 10, 2014, 23:48 (3508 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:The question is whether this hidden genetic code contains instructions for all the innovations and Nature's Wonders (which you call evidence of “intricate planning”) preprogrammed - and hence surely predictable - by your God into the first living cells, or it contains the sentience, cognition, communicative skills, inventiveness and intelligence that have enabled cell communities to devise their own unpredictable innovations, as autonomous agents and not automata.-I would remind you that your "extremely brilliant cell theory", which can plan all the complexity and coordination seen in advanced life in the Cambrian, started as musing whether panpsychism could imply these 'wonder cells' and therefore they could sit around the table and discuss the miraculous advances. Panpsychism is an extention of thought that God is in everything. In a way similar to my univerasl intelligence and species consciousness thoughts.-I'll grant you, if God is actually within everything and everyone, then your cells could work, using all the wisdom God can impart. Will you put God in there?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Monday, August 11, 2014, 23:16 (3507 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The question is whether this hidden genetic code contains instructions for all the innovations and Nature's Wonders (which you call evidence of “intricate planning”) preprogrammed - and hence surely predictable - by your God into the first living cells, or it contains the sentience, cognition, communicative skills, inventiveness and intelligence that have enabled cell communities to devise their own unpredictable innovations, as autonomous agents and not automata.-DAVID: I would remind you that your "extremely brilliant cell theory", which can plan all the complexity and coordination seen in advanced life in the Cambrian, started as musing whether panpsychism could imply these 'wonder cells' and therefore they could sit around the table and discuss the miraculous advances. Panpsychism is an extention of thought that God is in everything. In a way similar to my univerasl intelligence and species consciousness thoughts.-You needn't remind me, since I have devoted several posts to precisely this point. Any attempt to anthropomorphize cells by sitting them round a table is, of course, as unworthy as any attempt to depict God as a bearded old man. Shame on you. The similarity to your panentheism is, however, very important. If you can believe your “universal intelligence” is in all things, you can hardly reject out of hand the hypothesis that all things are intelligent, as is clear from your next remark:
 
DAVID: I'll grant you, if God is actually within everything and everyone, then your cells could work, using all the wisdom God can impart. Will you put God in there?-My hypothesis is an alternative, not a belief: God may or may not exist, God may or may not be in there, and God may or may not have invented the autonomously intelligent cell, if it exists as such. But your comment admits the possibility of cells doing their own unpreprogrammed, undabbled-with inventing, provided we say that their form of intelligence is part of God's intelligence, and by God you mean a single universal mind. Well, now that you've made this concession, try it the other way round. Cells and even particles have their own individual, autonomous forms of intelligence, and they combine to create more and more complex forms of intelligence, so that by a process of emergence through billions and billions of years, the particles of the universe and the cells of living organisms have evolved to their present state of complexity. Some people believe these billions of combined intelligences are all one, and they call it “God”.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 18:38 (3507 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The similarity to your panentheism is, however, very important. If you can believe your “universal intelligence” is in all things, you can hardly reject out of hand the hypothesis that all things are intelligent, as is clear from your next remark:
> 
> DAVID: I'll grant you, if God is actually within everything and everyone, then your cells could work, using all the wisdom God can impart. Will you put God in there?
> 
> dhw: My hypothesis is an alternative, not a belief: God may or may not exist, God may or may not be in there, and God may or may not have invented the autonomously intelligent cell, if it exists as such. But your comment admits the possibility of cells doing their own unpreprogrammed, undabbled-with inventing, provided we say that their form of intelligence is part of God's intelligence, and by God you mean a single universal mind.-Now you see the light. A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. That makes sense.-> dhw: Cells and even particles have their own individual, autonomous forms of intelligence, and they combine to create more and more complex forms of intelligence, so that by a process of emergence through billions and billions of years, the particles of the universe and the cells of living organisms have evolved to their present state of complexity. Some people believe these billions of combined intelligences are all one, and they call it “God”.-Now you are off the deep end again. Complexity requires planning and coordination. Tell me how that works in your scheme, not simply repeating an amorphous 'combining to create' pipedream. As you cook a lovely sea bass for dinner, does the fish tell you how to do it?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 23:13 (3505 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My hypothesis is an alternative, not a belief: God may or may not exist, God may or may not be in there, and God may or may not have invented the autonomously intelligent cell, if it exists as such. But your comment admits the possibility of cells doing their own unpreprogrammed, undabbled-with inventing, provided we say that their form of intelligence is part of God's intelligence, and by God you mean a single universal mind.
DAVID: Now you see the light. A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. That makes sense.-Then you can no longer claim that cells must be automata, since each one contains its own share of your God's intelligence.
 
dhw: Cells and even particles have their own individual, autonomous forms of intelligence, and they combine to create more and more complex forms of intelligence, so that by a process of emergence through billions and billions of years, the particles of the universe and the cells of living organisms have evolved to their present state of complexity. Some people believe these billions of combined intelligences are all one, and they call it “God”.
DAVID: Now you are off the deep end again. Complexity requires planning and coordination. Tell me how that works in your scheme, not simply repeating an amorphous 'combining to create' pipedream. As you cook a lovely sea bass for dinner, does the fish tell you how to do it?-If you can believe that a little bit of your universal intelligence is in every cell, you can believe that lots of little bits of it can plan and coordinate. There is nothing amorphous about “combining to create”. Every single one of your Nature's Wonders illustrates the point. Cells HAVE to combine if organs are to work. What is “amorphous” is our not knowing the mechanism or how it works, but it is hardly less amorphous to call the mechanism “God”, which you are now prepared to do.-The cells of my brain are quite separate from those of the lovely sea bass. They combine their intelligence to tell me how to cook it, and they even communicate with other cell communities in my body to take it across to the oven and then to the dinner table and then to my digestive system. And because they are “my” cell communities and nobody else's, their unique combination gives me “my” identity.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 14, 2014, 02:14 (3505 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Then you can no longer claim that cells must be automata, since each one contains its own share of your God's intelligence.-Now, now, let's not stetch too much. Shapiro's cells have simple automatic reactions with controlled choices. One has to add God's intelligence above and beyond the cell to make the complex advances of the Cambrian.
> 
> dhw:If you can believe that a little bit of your universal intelligence is in every cell, you can believe that lots of little bits of it can plan and coordinate.-There has to be an overall universal consciousness doing the planning and coordination, not litle bits superficially connected with their automatic biochemical responses. You have it backwards to avoid God.-> dhw: Cells HAVE to combine if organs are to work. What is “amorphous” is our not knowing the mechanism or how it works, but it is hardly less amorphous to call the mechanism “God”, which you are now prepared to do. -Exactly. Don't include me in your 'our not knowing the mechanism' clause.
> 
> dhw: their unique combination gives me “my” identity.-You have a unique identity, and I'll bet you sea bass is delicious.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 15, 2014, 05:01 (3504 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:If you can believe that a little bit of your universal intelligence is in every cell, you can believe that lots of little bits of it can plan and coordinate.
> 
>David: There has to be an overall universal consciousness doing the planning and coordination, not litle bits superficially connected with their automatic biochemical responses. You have it backwards to avoid God.
> -DHW, your cellular intelligence lacks the scope to be able to plan creation. It might serve to plan small changes within its individual unit (body) but it can not account for the organization within the universe as a whole. You can't separate one from the other when trying to discuss "the big picture".

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Friday, August 15, 2014, 14:25 (3504 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: DHW, your cellular intelligence lacks the scope to be able to plan creation. It might serve to plan small changes within its individual unit (body) but it can not account for the organization within the universe as a whole. You can't separate one from the other when trying to discuss "the big picture".-Thank you for joining in. I was hoping you would. Throughout this whole discussion I've been trying to offer an explanation of "Nature's Wonders" and innovation in evolution. “The big picture”, or “the organization within the universe as a whole”, is what we have discussed under “A Panpsychist Hypothesis” (beginning on June 14).-As you've probably missed the dozens of posts on the various threads, let me summarize. My starting point is my belief in common descent, i.e. that all organisms except the very first have descended from earlier living organisms. If there's an unbroken line, the innovations that have produced the new organs can only have taken place within existing organisms. Nobody knows how. Neither David nor I can believe that Darwin's random mutations are the answer. David offers two explanations: his God either dabbled or preprogrammed all the wonders and changes right from the beginning. I‘m proposing another hypothesis: the cellular communities of which all organisms consist were themselves responsible for the wonders and innovations that were made either necessary or possible by major changes in the environment (e.g. during the Cambrian). Researchers have shown that cells are sentient, communicative, intelligent beings, although their intelligence, like their methods of communication, must be very different from our own. What we do not know is just how far their sentient, communicative intelligence can take them. David dismisses the idea that cell communities could combine their intelligences to create something as complex as spider silk, let alone a kidney, and sticks to divine preprogramming or dabbling. I prefer to keep an open mind.-And so to your point. My hypothesis (it is not a belief) leaves open the question of whether God exists as organizer of the universe, because it makes no attempt to explain how cells/cell communities might have acquired their inventive intelligence in the first place (if they actually have it). A theist can say only God could have designed such a mechanism, and an atheist can say it happened by chance. This discussion is about the evolutionary process, and the wider implications for the big picture have been discussed elsewhere. Let us by all means go back to the panpsychist theme, but I'd be very interested to know whether your own version of God might allow the possibility of his inventing a mechanism that gave cells an autonomous ability to work out their own wonders and innovations.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Friday, August 15, 2014, 09:20 (3504 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Now you see the light. A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. That makes sense.
dhw: Then you can no longer claim that cells must be automata, since each one contains its own share of your God's intelligence.
DAVID: Now, now, let's not stetch too much. Shapiro's cells have simple automatic reactions with controlled choices. One has to add God's intelligence above and beyond the cell to make the complex advances of the Cambrian.-Firstly, Shapiro and others explicitly attribute “sentience, subjectivity, cognition, communication and intelligence” to cells. It is you who insist that they are automatons. Do by all means question the degree of their intelligence, but don't tell me that these are the attributes of preprogrammed robots. Secondly, “a little bit of God in every cell” has suddenly changed to “above and beyond the cell”. Having conceded that your universal intelligence may indeed be within all things, you have scurried back to the idea of a single mind above and beyond (instead of inside) cells controlling their behaviour by preprogramming them or dabbling with them. -dhw: If you can believe that a little bit of your universal intelligence is in every cell, you can believe that lots of little bits of it can plan and coordinate.

DAVID: There has to be an overall universal consciousness doing the planning and coordination, not litle bits superficially connected with their automatic biochemical responses. You have it backwards to avoid God.-“Has to be”? You have already strongly defended the idea that certain cell communities can think, invent, and take autonomous decisions without having your God doing the planning and coordination for them, or is it now your contention that he also preprogrammed every human invention into the first living cells, or dabbles whenever we come up with something new, or guides every intelligent action performed by so many of our fellow animals? Of course not. But the smaller the organism, and the less like us, the more certain you are that it must be an automaton. So let's try phrasing things slightly differently. You wrote: “A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. That makes sense.” You frequently use the term “universal intelligence” for God. Then try it here: “A little bit of universal intelligence in every cell allows it to control evolution. That makes sense.” It does, doesn't it? And universal intelligence is intelligence. Once again, you are happy to accept the principle that cells may have intelligence of their own inside them, controlling evolution, so long as we call that intelligence God.-NB A reminder: I am not asking you to believe this alternative scenario, but only to keep an open mind. We do not know what cells and cell communities are capable of under conditions we have not experienced.-PS Yep, the sea bass was delicious. I'm grateful to my cell communities for helping me choose, cook and enjoy it.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Friday, August 15, 2014, 23:48 (3503 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You have already strongly defended the idea that certain cell communities can think, invent, and take autonomous decisions without having your God doing the planning and coordination for them,..... So let's try phrasing things slightly differently. You wrote: “A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. ....“A little bit of universal intelligence in every cell allows it to control evolution. That makes sense.” ... Once again, you are happy to accept the principle that cells may have intelligence of their own inside them, controlling evolution, so long as we call that intelligence God.- The idea that: "A little bit of universal intelligence in every cell allows it to control evolution. That makes sense.”, does not make sense. Each cell controlled by the universal consciousness which can then be used to advance evolution. The emphasis is NOT on the cell but on the overall planning agent. Individual soldiers on the battlefield do not plan the battle. They participate in the battle as directed by thier leaders. -Once again, each single cell is functional at a very automatic level. Sense a stimulus, pick a reply. The information in the genome is intelligently planned to have the cell function fully and cooperatively with sister cells. 
> 
> dhw; NB A reminder: I am not asking you to believe this alternative scenario, but only to keep an open mind. We do not know what cells and cell communities are capable of under conditions we have not experienced.-Careful cellular studies would disagree. We have a very clear understanding of how cells function, operate and coooperate at molecular levels. I have provided video descriptions in the past.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Sunday, August 17, 2014, 10:54 (3502 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (12 August): A little bit of God in every cell allows Him to control evolution. That makes sense.

DAVID (15 August): The idea that: "A little bit of universal intelligence in every cell allows it to control evolution. That makes sense.”, does not make sense.-But you call God a universal intelligence. If the one makes sense, so must the other.
 
DAVID: Each cell controlled by the universal consciousness which can then be used to advance evolution. The emphasis is NOT on the cell but on the overall planning agent. Individual soldiers on the battlefield do not plan the battle. They participate in the battle as directed by thier leaders.-Well, YOUR emphasis is on the overall planning agent, if there is one. But let me try to follow your logic. Your God is in every cell controlling evolution but he is outside every cell telling it what to do. And your preferred explanation of evolution is that God preprogrammed every step of the way. If we put the two together, this presumably means that the little bit of God in every cell is the programme he implanted right from the start. If so, the idea that God programmed the very first cells to pass on intricate plans for spider silk, fire ant rafting, eyes, kidneys plus zillions of other “Nature's Wonders” and innovations, all to be implemented billions of years later after billions of other programmes had been implemented, seems to me to require a great deal more faith than the idea that he invented a mechanism that would do its own inventing as and when conditions demanded or allowed. I wonder if he also preprogrammed those first cells to pass plans for the motor car down to our human brain cells (which presumably are also automata but are somehow preprogrammed to enable us to think for ourselves since you believe we have free will). Your alternative, of course, is your God dabbling - i.e. inserting new programmes as he goes along - but that's a problem too, because you are an evolutionist and not a Creationist. St Paul tells us that faith can move mountains. I guess there are plenty of mountains for it to move.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 17, 2014, 16:07 (3502 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Each cell controlled by the universal consciousness which can then be used to advance evolution. The emphasis is NOT on the cell but on the overall planning agent. Individual soldiers on the battlefield do not plan the battle. They participate in the battle as directed by thier leaders.
> 
> dhw: Well, YOUR emphasis is on the overall planning agent, if there is one. But let me try to follow your logic. Your God is in every cell controlling evolution but he is outside every cell telling it what to do. And your preferred explanation of evolution is that God preprogrammed every step of the way. If we put the two together, this presumably means that the little bit of God in every cell is the programme he implanted right from the start.-I have constantly said that, since I cannot know how God did it, I preferred pre-programming as a concept. You keep asking for exact mechanisms for God, but if I have no idea how it is done, I can't fully answer. All I do know is, cells operate on information, which in my view must be supplied by intelligence.-> dhw: If so, the idea that God programmed the very first cells to pass on intricate plans for spider silk, fire ant rafting, eyes, kidneys plus zillions of other “Nature's Wonders” and innovations, all to be implemented billions of years later after billions of other programmes had been implemented, seems to me to require a great deal more faith than the idea that he invented a mechanism that would do its own inventing as and when conditions demanded or allowed.-Your latter suggestion makes more sense. He used a self-inventing mechanism is a great idea. Your help in proposing a most reasonable explanation for a God-guided evolution process is much appreciated.-> dhw: Your alternative, of course, is your God dabbling - i.e. inserting new programmes as he goes along - but that's a problem too, because you are an evolutionist and not a Creationist. -Yes, I believe in theistic evolution, but that really falls under the umbrella of a form of Creationism. And yes, dabbling has always bothered me. I like your self-inventing built into the mechanism.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Monday, August 18, 2014, 20:57 (3500 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...the idea that God programmed the very first cells to pass on intricate plans for spider silk, fire ant rafting, eyes, kidneys plus zillions of other “Nature's Wonders” and innovations, all to be implemented billions of years later after billions of other programmes had been implemented, seems to me to require a great deal more faith than the idea that he invented a mechanism that would do its own inventing as and when conditions demanded or allowed-DAVID: Your latter suggestion makes more sense. He used a self-inventing mechanism is a great idea. Your help in proposing a most reasonable explanation for a God-guided evolution process is much appreciated.-dhw: Your alternative, of course, is your God dabbling - i.e. inserting new programmes as he goes along - but that's a problem too, because you are an evolutionist and not a Creationist. -DAVID: Yes, I believe in theistic evolution, but that really falls under the umbrella of a form of Creationism. And yes, dabbling has always bothered me. I like your self-inventing built into the mechanism.-Phew! Your approval of the idea, however, has to bring us back to the fact that all organisms are composed of cells. We have no idea what the mechanism is or how it works, but it has to be within the cells, and if they were not preprogrammed for each innovation right from the beginning of life, each invention can only be the result of their ongoing cooperation with one another. You are, of course, free to say that such an inventive mechanism could only have been designed by your God, since it must be immeasurably too complex to have assembled itself by chance. An atheist would still insist it was a lucky break, but at least he or she would no longer have to rely on a zillion more lucky breaks in the form of random mutations. My concern, though, in these posts has been to find a solution to the problem of innovation in evolution, as exemplified by the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe this is the best so far.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 01:12 (3500 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes, I believe in theistic evolution, but that really falls under the umbrella of a form of Creationism. And yes, dabbling has always bothered me. I like your self-inventing built into the mechanism.
> 
> dhw: Your approval of the idea, however, has to bring us back to the fact that all organisms are composed of cells. We have no idea what the mechanism is or how it works, but it has to be within the cells, and if they were not preprogrammed for each innovation right from the beginning of life, each invention can only be the result of their ongoing cooperation with one another. -No, the cells don't initiate a cooperation. They are directed to cooperate following a set of rules in a self-inventing mechanism in the genome to respond to changes in the organisms' environment-> dhw: You are, of course, free to say that such an inventive mechanism could only have been designed by your God, since it must be immeasurably too complex to have assembled itself by chance. An atheist would still insist it was a lucky break....My concern, though, in these posts has been to find a solution to the problem of innovation in evolution, as exemplified by the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe this is the best so far.-I think it is.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 14:18 (3500 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes, I believe in theistic evolution, but that really falls under the umbrella of a form of Creationism. And yes, dabbling has always bothered me. I like your self-inventing built into the mechanism.-dhw: Your approval of the idea, however, has to bring us back to the fact that all organisms are composed of cells. We have no idea what the mechanism is or how it works, but it has to be within the cells, and if they were not preprogrammed for each innovation right from the beginning of life, each invention can only be the result of their ongoing cooperation with one another.
 
DAVID: No, the cells don't initiate a cooperation. They are directed to cooperate following a set of rules in a self-inventing mechanism in the genome to respond to changes in the organisms' environment.-As regards your initial "no", you always talk as if somehow the genome were separate from the cell. I have said before that I am perfectly happy to accept the idea that the “brains” of the cell are somewhere inside the genome, but just as we say humans are intelligent, and not humans' brains are intelligent, I don't see why you need to make this distinction. Nor do I see why you have to introduce a “set of rules”, which seems to hark back to your preprogramming. Of course there are limitations to what all organisms can do, but if your God (or chance, or panpsychist intelligence) created a mechanism that did its own inventing, then it did its own inventing. (“Self-inventing” is ambiguous, as it could mean the mechanism invented itself,which is certainly not what you believe.) Again I would draw the parallel with human intelligence. If your God created the mechanism for it, did he also insert rules to make it invent the motor car, the airplane, the computer? If I accept your location of the cell's intelligence as being the genome, I would phrase your comment as follows: Cells are directed to cooperate by an inventive mechanism in the genome that responds to changes in the organism's environment. 


Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 17:58 (3500 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: As regards your initial "no", you always talk as if somehow the genome were separate from the cell. I have said before that I am perfectly happy to accept the idea that the “brains” of the cell are somewhere inside the genome, but just as we say humans are intelligent, and not humans' brains are intelligent, I don't see why you need to make this distinction. Nor do I see why you have to introduce a “set of rules”, which seems to hark back to your preprogramming. -I should have said self-reinventing. In comparing human brains to cells, in a way of looking at cell intelligence, we really do not know how brains become conscious or develop intelligence. All we know is those attributes reside in the brain somehow and emerge somehow. Cells are under automatic controls. That is quite clear to me from my reading. And I'm not reintroducing preprogramming. The idea of an inventive mechanism available to the organism is an excellent suggestion. Simple cell responses don't explain the Cambrian gap.-> dhw: Of course there are limitations to what all organisms can do, but if your God (or chance, or panpsychist intelligence) created a mechanism that did its own inventing, then it did its own inventing. Again I would draw the parallel with human intelligence. -I'm not sure a parallel is warrented.-> dhw: If I accept your location of the cell's intelligence as being the genome, I would phrase your comment as follows: Cells are directed to cooperate by an inventive mechanism in the genome that responds to changes in the organism's environment. 
> -An excellent statement, which fits my requirements. I think such a mechanism is hidden there capable of the giant jumps in organismal complexity. If we don't find it, then God dabbling comes back to haunt me.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 16:25 (3499 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In comparing human brains to cells, in a way of looking at cell intelligence, we really do not know how brains become conscious or develop intelligence. All we know is those attributes reside in the brain somehow and emerge somehow. Cells are under automatic controls. That is quite clear to me from my reading. And I'm not reintroducing preprogramming. The idea of an inventive mechanism available to the organism is an excellent suggestion. Simple cell responses don't explain the Cambrian gap.-The point I'm trying to make is that human brains ARE cells, but we don't know how these particular cells become intelligent, just as we don't know how other cell communities become “intelligent”, i.e. capable of inventing spider silk and kidneys, as human brain cells have invented motor cars. (I put the word in inverted commas so as not to equate cellular intelligence with human intelligence. They have to be very different - just as you say your God's intelligence must be different from ours. Neither should be anthropomorphized.) Of course simple cell responses don't explain the Cambrian. But an inventive mechanism inside the genome of the cell, or rather the genomes of the cell communities of which all organisms consist, does explain it. In response to environmental change, the inventive mechanism within cells/cell communities brings about cooperation between the cells to produce something new, either to cope with the change or to exploit it.
 
dhw: Of course there are limitations to what all organisms can do, but if your God (or chance, or panpsychist intelligence) created a mechanism that did its own inventing, then it did its own inventing. Again I would draw the parallel with human intelligence. 
DAVID: I'm not sure a parallel is warrented.-This was in response to your claim that the inventive mechanism had to follow a set of rules. My point is that the inventive mechanism that creates new organs and “Nature's Wonders” would be no more subject to “rules” (other than the constraints of Nature) than the inventive mechanism that creates motor cars and computers. Hence the enormous variety of innovations and wonders.
 
dhw: If I accept your location of the cell's intelligence as being the genome, I would phrase your comment as follows: Cells are directed to cooperate by an inventive mechanism in the genome that responds to changes in the organism's environment.
 
DAVID: An excellent statement, which fits my requirements. I think such a mechanism is hidden there capable of the giant jumps in organismal complexity. If we don't find it, then God dabbling comes back to haunt me.-So too would you be haunted by the extraordinary concept of the first few cells being programmed with every single wonder and innovation throughout the history of evolution.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 18:34 (3499 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:The point I'm trying to make is that human brains ARE cells, but we don't know how these particular cells become intelligent, just as we don't know how other cell communities become “intelligent”, -We know that cells operate on information in the genome. You and I may disagree on the source of the information.-> dhw: Of course simple cell responses don't explain the Cambrian. But an inventive mechanism inside the genome of the cell, or rather the genomes of the cell communities of which all organisms consist, does explain it.-I have no disagreement with this.-> 
> dhw: This was in response to your claim that the inventive mechanism had to follow a set of rules. My point is that the inventive mechanism that creates new organs and “Nature's Wonders” would be no more subject to “rules”..... Hence the enormous variety of innovations and wonders.-My point should be clear enough. The cells are not capable of such natures wonders unless there is an inventive mechanism they can use. By themselves they don't have the capacity. They are too automatic, they follow rules. A natural threat brings out the need to stir up the inventive mechanism in the genome which I believe is yet to be discovered.->> dhw: So too would you be haunted by the extraordinary concept of the first few cells being programmed with every single wonder and innovation throughout the history of evolution.-That does bother me. The idea of an inventive mechanism being present makes sense.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Thursday, August 21, 2014, 13:07 (3498 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My point is that the inventive mechanism that creates new organs and “Nature's Wonders” would be no more subject to “rules” (other than the constraints of Nature) than the inventive mechanism that creates motor cars and computers. Hence the enormous variety of innovations and wonders.-DAVID: My point should be clear enough. The cells are not capable of such natures wonders unless there is an inventive mechanism they can use. By themselves they don't have the capacity. They are too automatic, they follow rules. A natural threat brings out the need to stir up the inventive mechanism in the genome which I believe is yet to be discovered.-I simply don't understand why you insist on separating the genome from the cell. This is like saying that human beings are automata not capable of inventing anything unless they have a brain. The whole point is that, if this hypothesis is correct, cells/cell communities are able to invent because they do have the equivalent of a brain (somewhere in the genome, if you like), which we are calling an inventive mechanism.
 
dhw: So too would you be haunted by the extraordinary concept of the first few cells being programmed with every single wonder and innovation throughout the history of evolution.
DAVID: That does bother me. The idea of an inventive mechanism being present makes sense.-I am relieved that you have now, at least for the time being, abandoned the hypotheses of preprogramming and dabbling in favour of what I have called the “intelligent cell”, although you still seem to dislike the term because you insist on separating the “brain” (inventive mechanism) from the “body” (the rest of the cell/cell community). As with us humans, the one wouldn't be much use without the other.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 21, 2014, 21:51 (3497 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I simply don't understand why you insist on separating the genome from the cell. .... The whole point is that, if this hypothesis is correct, cells/cell communities are able to invent because they do have the equivalent of a brain (somewhere in the genome, if you like), which we are calling an inventive mechanism.-All I am saying is that individual cells cannnot act as you describe. But cell communities, as in whole animals can act to change phenotype, if an inventive mechanism is in the genome of that animal, as we have proposed. One would assume that the change is epigentic, not mutational in the Darwinian sense. This is what Shapiro seems to be driving at, although he has not dscribed such a mechanism as yet in his research.
> 
> dhw: I am relieved that you have now, at least for the time being, abandoned the hypotheses of preprogramming and dabbling in favour of what I have called the “intelligent cell”, although you still seem to dislike the term because you insist on separating the “brain” (inventive mechanism) from the “body” (the rest of the cell/cell community). -I'm not separating it. I'm defining it more closely than your nebulous theory. If there is an inventive mechanism, of course it is in the genome, and is part of the total organism. And somehow the organism decides to tap into its abilities for change.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Friday, August 22, 2014, 15:55 (3497 days ago) @ David Turell

Some research in how cells communicate and modify the output of other cells. This is not how our brains communicate, but cells can tap into their genome and modify or change:-http://phys.org/news/2014-08-cell.html

Natures wonders: plant reproduction

by David Turell @, Friday, August 22, 2014, 16:00 (3497 days ago) @ David Turell

A very complex double process using calcium:-http://phys.org/news/2014-08-calcium-reproduction.html

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Friday, August 22, 2014, 17:59 (3497 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Some research in how cells communicate and modify the output of other cells. This is not how our brains communicate, but cells can tap into their genome and modify or change:-http://phys.org/news/2014-08-cell.html-I struggled through this because it's way above my head, but I'm glad I did because the last sentence yet again suggests that cells may be capable of far more than we know of at the moment:-QUOTE: If cells of different type and origin can effectively exchange this form of genetic information, then boundaries must be less tight than we used to think.-Thank you for this. The evidence for the "intelligent cell" hypothesis seems to be mounting!

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 23, 2014, 16:00 (3496 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: but I'm glad I did because the last sentence yet again suggests that cells may be capable of far more than we know of at the moment:
> 
> QUOTE: If cells of different type and origin can effectively exchange this form of genetic information, then boundaries must be less tight than we used to think.
> 
> Thank you for this. The evidence for the "intelligent cell" hypothesis seems to be mounting!-It is a throw-away conclusion which you want to stretch beyond the evidence. Of course cells communicate or the body wouldn't know how to work. All I wanted you to see is molecular communication which is done using information in the genome. These are biochemical reactions with no degree of consciousness in and of themselves, but is impossible to conclude that intelligent planning is not involved.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Friday, August 22, 2014, 17:50 (3497 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I simply don't understand why you insist on separating the genome from the cell. .... The whole point is that, if this hypothesis is correct, cells/cell communities are able to invent because they do have the equivalent of a brain (somewhere in the genome, if you like), which we are calling an inventive mechanism-DAVID: All I am saying is that individual cells cannnot act as you describe. But cell communities, as in whole animals can act to change phenotype, if an inventive mechanism is in the genome of that animal, as we have proposed.-I have stressed all the way along that cells must cooperate in order to produce innovations. It would certainly be absurd to argue that a single cell decides to make itself into a kidney!
 
DAVID: One would assume that the change is epigentic, not mutational in the Darwinian sense. This is what Shapiro seems to be driving at, although he has not dscribed such a mechanism as yet in his research.-The idea is simply an extension of the claims made by Shapiro, Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler that cells are sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making, intelligent beings.-dhw: I am relieved that you have now, at least for the time being, abandoned the hypotheses of preprogramming and dabbling in favour of what I have called the “intelligent cell”, although you still seem to dislike the term because you insist on separating the “brain” (inventive mechanism) from the “body” (the rest of the cell/cell community). -DAVID: I'm not separating it. I'm defining it more closely than your nebulous theory. If there is an inventive mechanism, of course it is in the genome, and is part of the total organism. And somehow the organism decides to tap into its abilities for change.-I'm delighted that you are now trying to find a more detailed definition, but I'm not sure that it's possible to go beyond the concept of “the intelligent cell”, at least until the mechanism is found (if ever). The total organism is a collection of cell communities, and so you might as well say it is the cell communities that decide to tap into their ability to change. “Somehow” is as nebulous as you can get, and it still boils down to cells.
 
Bearing in mind that bacteria are single-celled and according to the above researchers show every sign of sentience, intelligence etc., the process seems to me to be a logical progression. Some intelligent cells combine with other intelligent cells to create multicellularity (although other single-celled organisms continue to go their own way), and the intelligence which we have called the inventive mechanism within cell communities brings about an almost infinite variety of innovations as and when the environment demands or allows. I think it is essential to include “allows” here, but let's proceed one step at a time! Are you still opposed to the term “the intelligent cell” (not my coinage, of course)? Would you perhaps prefer “the inventive cell”?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 23, 2014, 15:53 (3496 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I have stressed all the way along that cells must cooperate in order to produce innovations. It would certainly be absurd to argue that a single cell decides to make itself into a kidney!-It is just as absurd to imagine a kidney appearing simply because a whole organism desires to have one. Something so complex has to be developed following a plan. That is why the inventive mechanism idea is so appealing, if it is assumed hat highly intelligent information is available inthe genome.
> 
> dhw: The idea is simply an extension of the claims made by Shapiro, Margulis and Albrecht-Buehler that cells are sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making, intelligent beings.-An extension beyond credulity. Those attributes are extremely minimal.
> 
> dhw: I'm delighted that you are now trying to find a more detailed definition, but I'm not sure that it's possible to go beyond the concept of “the intelligent cell”, at least until the mechanism is found (if ever). The total organism is a collection of cell communities, and so you might as well say it is the cell communities that decide to tap into their ability to change. “Somehow” is as nebulous as you can get, and it still boils down to cells.-The cells are following instructions in the genome, instructions that plan for large changes, is the way I view it.
> 
> dhw: Bearing in mind that bacteria are single-celled and according to the above researchers show every sign of sentience, intelligence etc., the process seems to me to be a logical progression. ....the intelligence which we have called the inventive mechanism within cell communities brings about an almost infinite variety of innovations as and when the environment demands or allows. I think it is essential to include “allows” here,-Once again, the intelligence is the information in the genome, which directs the cell responses, which are almost always automatic. My concept of an inventive mechanism takes that into account, because planning information is available in the genome. I predict it will be found. -> dhw: Are you still opposed to the term “the intelligent cell” (not my coinage, of course)? Would you perhaps prefer “the inventive cell”?-Neither. For the reasoning given.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, August 23, 2014, 22:49 (3495 days ago) @ David Turell

When I listen to you two going back and forth, it always makes me smile.... then it makes me scratch my head at the things that aren't being discussed.-With all of this "intelligent cell" talk and "innovation from cell communities", has the scope of what you are saying really ever been considered? You talk about developing a kidney, an eye, or a limb as if it were something trivial to design and implement. I would remind you that you are essentially talking about single celled organisms developing technology that humans don't even understand, much less have the capacity to duplicate. So either you are saying that single-celled organisms are more intelligent than humans (while this might be true for some humans, I doubt it is true for all..), or your theory holds no water. Not only are organs and tissues mindbogglingly complex, but the vast majority of them are considered to be "functionally perfect", and have been so for millions of years.-Just how much intelligence are you willing to ascribe to a single-celled organism, or even a collection of them?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 23, 2014, 23:39 (3495 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: When I listen to you two going back and forth, it always makes me smile.... then it makes me scratch my head at the things that aren't being discussed.
> 
> With all of this "intelligent cell" talk and "innovation from cell communities", has the scope of what you are saying really ever been considered?-This is the dhw approach, not mine. Look at all of my discussions refuting him.-> Tony: You talk about developing a kidney, an eye, or a limb as if it were something trivial to design and implement. I would remind you that you are essentially talking about single celled organisms developing technology that humans don't even understand, much less have the capacity to duplicate.-I've tried to tell him how complex the liver and kidney are. Cells with some degree of intelligent information to operate by, cannot come up with a kidney plan.-> Tony: Not only are organs and tissues mindbogglingly complex, but the vast majority of them are considered to be "functionally perfect", and have been so for millions of years.-Exactly.
> 
> Tony: Just how much intelligence are you willing to ascribe to a single-celled organism, or even a collection of them?-Only a simple amount. That is why I think there is an inventive mechanism (placed there by God)in the genome to create by plan such complexity, and I think it is yet to be discovered. The other alternative is God stepping in at the Cambrian and designing everything on the spot ( actually about 10 million years).

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Sunday, August 24, 2014, 17:16 (3495 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by dhw, Sunday, August 24, 2014, 18:27

TONY: When I listen to you two going back and forth, it always makes me smile.... then it makes me scratch my head at the things that aren't being discussed.
With all of this "intelligent cell" talk and "innovation from cell communities", has the scope of what you are saying really ever been considered?
DAVID: This is the dhw approach, not mine. Look at all of my discussions refuting him.
TONY: You talk about developing a kidney, an eye, or a limb as if it were something trivial to design and implement. I would remind you that you are essentially talking about single celled organisms developing technology that humans don't even understand, much less have the capacity to duplicate.So either you are saying that single-celled organisms are more intelligent than humans...or your theory holds no water
DAVID: I've tried to tell him how complex the liver and kidney are. Cells with some degree of intelligent information to operate by, cannot come up with a kidney plan.-Until a week ago, David was adamant that the only possible explanations for all the amazingly complex innovations and Nature's Wonders were programmes planted by God in the first living cells, to be implemented through billions of generations and organisms, or God dabbling (= creationism). I have suggested an alternative: that the inventive power lies within living cells/cell communities. Suddenly David has embraced this idea, but insists on somehow separating the inventive mechanism from the cells. My argument is that the inventive mechanism (perhaps invented by your God, but that's another issue) is within the cells/cell communities just as the brain is within the body (Albrecht-Buehler equates the cell's “brain” with the centrosome). David's is that the mechanism is within the genome (which is part of the cell/cell communities). I see no difference.-The basis of this discussion, though, is that David and I believe evolution happened - i.e. that all living forms descended from earlier living forms. The enormous complexity of all organs and Nature's Wonders is not, in our view, explicable by Darwin's random mutations. If your God did not preprogramme every single one from the word go and did not create them separately, the mechanism for invention has to be present in the cells. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago under “Cell Memories"(before David's conversion from preprogramming and dabbling: “the theist can then argue that only God could have designed such an inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism, and the atheist can argue that it came about by chance.” Perhaps, David, you would explain the difference, in terms of how evolution works, between my proposed inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism situated in the cells/cell communities (that may have been created by your God) and the mechanism you are proposing.-Your argument, Tony, that single-celled organisms must then be more intelligent than humans misses the point that we ourselves, with all our intelligence, are a mass of cell communities, each one of which (if you believe evolution happened) is the result of billions of years of development, with each cell community the result of earlier developments in cell communities. Of course an individual cell is not as “intelligent” as a community of cells, and the more combinations you have, the greater the variety of intelligences. Perhaps ours is the culmination of this process. The whole point of my hypothesis is that the intelligent, inventive, cooperative mechanism within cells/cell communities can account not only for the complexity but also for the variety, the Cambrian, and the higglepiggledy comings and goings in the history of evolution. Theistic evolution, as I see it, therefore means God created a mechanism which enables cells/cell communities to do their own inventing, adjusting to or exploiting changes in the environment, without God interfering or preplanning. (Much more entertaining for him I'd have thought). Perhaps you would let us know your alternative explanation.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 24, 2014, 19:01 (3495 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Until a week ago, David was adamant that the only possible explanations for all the amazingly complex innovations and Nature's Wonders were programmes planted by God in the first living cells, to be implemented through billions of generations and organisms, or God dabbling (= creationism). ..... Suddenly David has embraced this idea, but insists on somehow separating the inventive mechanism from the cells. My argument is that the inventive mechanism (perhaps invented by your God, but that's another issue) is within the cells/cell communities just as the brain is within the body (Albrecht-Buehler equates the cell's “brain” with the centrosome). David's is that the mechanism is within the genome (which is part of the cell/cell communities). I see no difference.-Of course, the inventive mechanism is implanted within the cells, and I do accept that as an alternative to dabbling, but it is equivalent to preplanning, and must have existed in the first living cells. As I said to Tony, the only possibilities are some form of preplanning or an inventive mechanism that follows intelligent plans, or God dabbles.
> 
> dhw: The basis of this discussion, though, is that David and I believe evolution happened - i.e. that all living forms descended from earlier living forms. The enormous complexity of all organs and Nature's Wonders is not, in our view, explicable by Darwin's random mutations. ....Perhaps, David, you would explain the difference, in terms of how evolution works, between my proposed inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism situated in the cells/cell communities (that may have been created by your God) and the mechanism you are proposing.-I'll accept it as long as you recognize that cells, themselves, alone or in groups have very little power, are generally very automatic, and we have no idea whether an inventive mechanism takes charge when it has to to answer challenges in nature, or the cells respond to the challenge by asking the inventive mechanism to take charge. Cell comunities without such a mechanism are not capable of doing much. To create a kidney requires planning.
> 
> dhw: Of course an individual cell is not as “intelligent” as a community of cells, and the more combinations you have, the greater the variety of intelligences.-You can pile cells upon cells, look at completed organisms, and you cannot find the intelligence you want, except as provided in inventive planning from the beginning.-> dhw: Theistic evolution, as I see it, therefore means God created a mechanism which enables cells/cell communities to do their own inventing, adjusting to or exploiting changes in the environment, without God interfering or preplanning. -The cells don't do their own inventing. And the inventive mchanism implies pre-planning.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Monday, August 25, 2014, 14:09 (3494 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My argument is that the inventive mechanism (perhaps invented by your God, but that's another issue) is within the cells/cell communities just as the brain is within the body (Albrecht-Buehler equates the cell's “brain” with the centrosome). David's is that the mechanism is within the genome (which is part of the cell/cell communities). I see no difference.
DAVID: Of course, the inventive mechanism is implanted within the cells, and I do accept that as an alternative to dabbling, but it is equivalent to preplanning, and must have existed in the first living cells. As I said to Tony, the only possibilities are some form of preplanning or an inventive mechanism that follows intelligent plans, or God dabbles.-Of course the inventive mechanism must have existed in the first living cells. Otherwise there would never have been evolution. The “equivalent to preplanning” is an equivocation. WHAT was “planned”? Until a week ago, your version of preplanning was that every innovation and Nature's Wonder was the result of dabbling, or was preprogrammed in the first living cells. By “an inventive mechanism that follows intelligent plans”, do you mean it implements its own plans (= invention) or it follows plans laid down by your God (= preprogramming, not invention, and back to square one)? The point of the inventive mechanism, if we adopt a theistic approach, would be that your God put it into the first living cells so that their descendants would by themselves, over billions of years and through zillions of combinations, produce an almost infinite, unplanned variety of organisms without his interference and in accordance with unplanned changes in environmental conditions. This hypothesis (which I have called “the intelligent cell”, but call it “the inventive cell” if it makes you happier) fits in with and explains complexity, the Cambrian, and the variety, comings and goings of evolution. -dhw: Perhaps, David, you would explain the difference, in terms of how evolution works, between my proposed inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism situated in the cells/cell communities (that may have been created by your God) and the mechanism you are proposing.
DAVID: I'll accept it as long as you recognize that cells, themselves, alone or in groups have very little power, are generally very automatic, and we have no idea whether an inventive mechanism takes charge when it has to to answer challenges in nature, or the cells respond to the challenge by asking the inventive mechanism to take charge. Cell comunities without such a mechanism are not capable of doing much. To create a kidney requires planning.-Of course cells can't invent anything unless they have an inventive mechanism! The hypothesis is based on the possibility that they have! Your other point is fair comment, though. Maybe it's the equivalent of our not knowing the extent to which our human consciousness is controlled by or in control of our chemicals. It's all interaction anyway, so you can't separate the inventive mechanism (brain) from the rest of the cell (body).
 
dhw: Of course an individual cell is not as “intelligent” as a community of cells, and the more combinations you have, the greater the variety of intelligences.
DAVID: You can pile cells upon cells, look at completed organisms, and you cannot find the intelligence you want, except as provided in inventive planning from the beginning.-Same equivocation as above. The inventive planning would lie in the creation of a mechanism that enables organisms to adapt and innovate by themselves. Once more, no, cells cannot adapt or innovate without such a mechanism, and my hypothesis is that they have it. And once more yes, it must have been there from the beginning, or there would have been no evolution.-dhw: Theistic evolution, as I see it, therefore means God created a mechanism which enables cells/cell communities to do their own inventing, adjusting to or exploiting changes in the environment, without God interfering or preplanning. -DAVID: The cells don't do their own inventing. And the inventive mchanism implies pre-planning.-Yet again you are trying to separate the cells from the inventive mechanism, although you have admitted that the inventive mechanism is “implanted within the cells”. It's like saying humans don't invent anything. It's their brains that invent. Concerning your preplanning equivocation, see above.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Monday, August 25, 2014, 16:05 (3494 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:Of course the inventive mechanism must have existed in the first living cells. Otherwise there would never have been evolution. The “equivalent to preplanning” is an equivocation. WHAT was “planned”?-I can't expect you to remember all of the thoughts I have had as we discuss this. Remember that I think there is a built-in purposeful drive to create humans. That means an inventive mechanism must contain certain directional instructions. No equivocation. ->dhw: Until a week ago, your version of preplanning was that every innovation and Nature's Wonder was the result of dabbling, or was preprogrammed in the first living cells. By “an inventive mechanism that follows intelligent plans”, do you mean it implements its own plans (= invention) or it follows plans laid down by your God (= preprogramming, not invention, and back to square one)?-I would presume that the inventive mechanism is a mixture of all your above suggestions, that is, there is some freedom of design, with a general directionality as noted. Natures wonders diversity implies a vast background of intelligent designs either created by implicit instruction or a series of intelligent information guidelines leading to the inventiveness life shows. It has to be one, the other, or both.-> dhw: This hypothesis (which I have called “the intelligent cell”, but call it “the inventive cell” if it makes you happier) fits in with and explains complexity, the Cambrian, and the variety, comings and goings of evolution. -Described by my thoughts above for the inventive mechanism (IM), yes.-> dhw: It's all interaction anyway, so you can't separate the inventive mechanism (brain) from the rest of the cell (body).-Agreed.-> 
> dhw: The inventive planning would lie in the creation of a mechanism that enables organisms to adapt and innovate by themselves. Once more, no, cells cannot adapt or innovate without such a mechanism, and my hypothesis is that they have it. And once more yes, it must have been there from the beginning, or there would have been no evolution.-Agreed
> 
> dhw: Yet again you are trying to separate the cells from the inventive mechanism, although you have admitted that the inventive mechanism is “implanted within the cells”. It's like saying humans don't invent anything. It's their brains that invent. -Agreed, cells without an IM can't change much of anything. Neither can humans invent much without huge brains. And where did the IM and human brains comes from, an intent of God. Cells did not invent their own IM. It came with life, itself a miraculous event.

Natures wonders: DNA programming

by David Turell @, Monday, August 25, 2014, 19:29 (3494 days ago) @ David Turell

DNA contains programs for organs. The thymus is a simple organ just to make T cells for the immune system. This research describes this reality:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825100049.htm

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 22:13 (3492 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course the inventive mechanism must have existed in the first living cells. Otherwise there would never have been evolution. The “equivalent to preplanning” is an equivocation. WHAT was “planned”?
DAVID: I can't expect you to remember all of the thoughts I have had as we discuss this. Remember that I think there is a built-in purposeful drive to create humans. That means an inventive mechanism must contain certain directional instructions. No equivocation.-That is part of your faith, but it doesn't explain what was planned. Nor does the rest of your post. Let me put it to you straight. Which of these seems most likely to you: 1) Your God planted instructions in the very first cells to make spiders and for spiders to make silk billions of years later? 2) Your God dabbled to make spiders and spider silk? 3) The inventive mechanism that your God put there in the beginning came up with the spider and the spider's silk on its own initiative (no preprogramming, no dabbling) from within other earlier organisms? 

dhw: Yet again you are trying to separate the cells from the inventive mechanism, although you have admitted that the inventive mechanism is “implanted within the cells”. It's like saying humans don't invent anything. It's their brains that invent.. 
DAVID: Agreed, cells without an IM can't change much of anything. Neither can humans invent much without huge brains. And where did the IM and human brains comes from, an intent of God. Cells did not invent their own IM. It came with life, itself a miraculous event.-There are three phases: 1) Life 2) Reproduction 3) Evolution. As I have stressed over and over again, my hypothesis only covers 3). I am trying to find a logical explanation for the innovations that have led from bacteria to humans. A few days ago, you acknowledged that you had serious doubts about all the innovations and wonders being preplanned from the beginning, and also about your God dabbling. That leaves us with an inventive mechanism within the cells, of which all organisms are made. Once you start faffing around with “a general directionality”, “implicit instruction”, “intelligent information guidelines”, you are removing the inventiveness and reverting to preprogramming. Perhaps your answer to my question about the spider and its silk will clear up some of the confusion.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 22:32 (3492 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; Which of these seems most likely to you: 1) Your God planted instructions in the very first cells to make spiders and for spiders to make silk billions of years later? 2) Your God dabbled to make spiders and spider silk? 3) The inventive mechanism that your God put there in the beginning came up with the spider and the spider's silk on its own initiative (no preprogramming, no dabbling) from within other earlier organisms?-I've admitted I don't know and no one knows. All three are possible, butI'm inclined to favor 3. 
 
> dhw: I am trying to find a logical explanation for the innovations that have led from bacteria to humans. A few days ago, you acknowledged that you had serious doubts about all the innovations and wonders being preplanned from the beginning, and also about your God dabbling. That leaves us with an inventive mechanism within the cells, of which all organisms are made.-To me the logical explanation is guidance by God. I just don't know which mechanism, we have been discussing, he used, and I am sure He infused life with intelligent information to work with. And to repeat once again, the cells alone cannot make any changes in phenoptype. The entire organism has to follow informational plans, which may well be in an inventive mechanism, yet to be discovered.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 11:38 (3491 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw; Which of these seems most likely to you: 1) Your God planted instructions in the very first cells to make spiders and for spiders to make silk billions of years later? 2) Your God dabbled to make spiders and spider silk? 3) The inventive mechanism that your God put there in the beginning came up with the spider and the spider's silk on its own initiative (no preprogramming, no dabbling) from within other earlier organisms?
DAVID: I've admitted I don't know and no one knows. All three are possible, butI'm inclined to favor 3. -I agree that no one knows. Thank you for answering the question directly.-dhw: I am trying to find a logical explanation for the innovations that have led from bacteria to humans. A few days ago, you acknowledged that you had serious doubts about all the innovations and wonders being preplanned from the beginning, and also about your God dabbling. That leaves us with an inventive mechanism within the cells, of which all organisms are made.
DAVID: To me the logical explanation is guidance by God. I just don't know which mechanism, we have been discussing, he used, and I am sure He infused life with intelligent information to work with. -If you favour the hypothesis that God endowed the first living cells with a mechanism capable of inventing new organs and modes of behaviour, then the creation of that mechanism is all that is required to explain evolution. Your vague references to “general directionality”, “implicit instruction”, “intelligent information guidelines” (previous post), “guidance by God”, “infused life with intelligent information” (above) boil down to preprogramming and run counter to inventiveness. Either the inventive mechanism is inventive or it is not.
 
DAVID: And to repeat once again, the cells alone cannot make any changes in phenoptype. The entire organism has to follow informational plans, which may well be in an inventive mechanism, yet to be discovered.-And to repeat once again, the entire organism consists of cells, and if changes are to be successful, all the cell communities within the organism must cooperate. And if the undiscovered mechanism that is contained within the cells/cell communities is inventive, the plans are not “in” it but are made by it.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 15:37 (3491 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If you favour the hypothesis that God endowed the first living cells with a mechanism capable of inventing new organs and modes of behaviour, then the creation of that mechanism is all that is required to explain evolution..... Either the inventive mechanism is inventive or it is not.-It can be inventive and directed at the same time. Whole organism epigenetics can maker adaptations in response to challenges, but does not explain the sudden appearance of whole new organisms in the fossil record-> 
> dhw: And to repeat once again, the entire organism consists of cells, and if changes are to be successful, all the cell communities within the organism must cooperate. And if the undiscovered mechanism that is contained within the cells/cell communities is inventive, the plans are not “in” it but are made by it.-All cell communities are under control of their DNA, which they can modify, as shown by epigentic research to make variants. Full blown new species require information and planning.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 25, 2014, 21:32 (3493 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: The basis of this discussion, though, is that David and I believe evolution happened - i.e. that all living forms descended from earlier living forms. The enormous complexity of all organs and Nature's Wonders is not, in our view, explicable by Darwin's random mutations. If your God did not preprogramme every single one from the word go and did not create them separately, the mechanism for invention has to be present in the cells. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago under “Cell Memories"(before David's conversion from preprogramming and dabbling: “the theist can then argue that only God could have designed such an inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism, and the atheist can argue that it came about by chance.” Perhaps, David, you would explain the difference, in terms of how evolution works, between my proposed inventively, cooperatively intelligent mechanism situated in the cells/cell communities (that may have been created by your God) and the mechanism you are proposing.
> 
> Your argument, Tony, that single-celled organisms must then be more intelligent than humans misses the point that we ourselves, with all our intelligence, are a mass of cell communities, each one of which (if you believe evolution happened) is the result of billions of years of development, with each cell community the result of earlier developments in cell communities. Of course an individual cell is not as “intelligent” as a community of cells, and the more combinations you have, the greater the variety of intelligences. -I have not missed your point at all. I am well aware that we are a a mass of individual cells, as I am aware that each organ is actually a community of different types of cells each performing a specific function. In some ways, our bodies are models of the earth(being comprised of all of the elements in appropriate proportions) as well as humanity (where each different type of cell represents a different race or culture of humanity). ->DHW: Perhaps ours is the culmination of this process. The whole point of my hypothesis is that the intelligent, inventive, cooperative mechanism within cells/cell communities can account not only for the complexity but also for the variety, the Cambrian, and the higglepiggledy comings and goings in the history of evolution. Theistic evolution, as I see it, therefore means God created a mechanism which enables cells/cell communities to do their own inventing, adjusting to or exploiting changes in the environment, without God interfering or preplanning. (Much more entertaining for him I'd have thought). Perhaps you would let us know your alternative explanation.-And my point is that, if the "culmination of this process", our intelligence, is not capable of reproducing, copying, or even understanding the full extent of even the simplest element of the system, a single cell, then there is no way that the simplest element can be capable of creating the most complex elements from scratch.-I'm easy with my explanation. God did it. I just want to understand why and how so that I can better appreciate the qualities of my creator. Did God create them as adaptive creatures, I certainly think so, but I think that he did so with constraints to prevent them from straying too far beyond their pre-defined range. Hence the reason we don't have a plethora of new creatures popping up every time we turn around. A dog is still a dog is still a dog, no matter what kind of dog it is. Wolves did not become whales and whales did not become wolves, and we did not come from furry poop-flingers. -Further, being a Christian, I don't think he did it for pure entertainment. Colossians 1:16 (NLT) "for through him(Christ) God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world(Laws of Physics, perhaps). Everything was created through him(Christ) and for him(Christ)." It wasn't as entertainment, it was a beautiful gift of love to his Son.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 22:30 (3492 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: Theistic evolution, as I see it, therefore means God created a mechanism which enables cells/cell communities to do their own inventing, adjusting to or exploiting changes in the environment, without God interfering or preplanning. (Much more entertaining for him I'd have thought). Perhaps you would let us know your alternative explanation.-TONY: And my point is that, if the "culmination of this process", our intelligence, is not capable of reproducing, copying, or even understanding the full extent of even the simplest element of the system, a single cell, then there is no way that the simplest element can be capable of creating the most complex elements from scratch.
I'm easy with my explanation. God did it. I just want to understand why and how so that I can better appreciate the qualities of my creator.-My hypothesis is only concerned with how. New organs can only be formed through new combinations of cells. We don't know how it happens. So let me ask you, as I have asked David, whether you think your God preplanned every single innovation and “wonder” right from the beginning, or created each one separately as he went along. The alternative I have offered (theistic version) is that your God created a mechanism within the cells which enabled them to combine and create new organs and modes of behaviour (the “wonders”) as the changing environment demanded or allowed. You are absolutely right that we cannot reproduce or understand this mechanism, but that is beside the point. If your God exists, he is clearly capable of making it. Would you then grant the possibility that your God created this inventive mechanism, which would explain innovation, the Cambrian, and the vast variety of species that have come and gone?-TONY: Did God create them as adaptive creatures, I certainly think so, but I think that he did so with constraints to prevent them from straying too far beyond their pre-defined range. Hence the reason we don't have a plethora of new creatures popping up every time we turn around. A dog is still a dog is still a dog, no matter what kind of dog it is. Wolves did not become whales and whales did not become wolves, and we did not come from furry poop-flingers.-Once an organism is successful, there is no need for it to change. However, in the course of evolution obviously some have changed, which is why it's important to include what the environment allows as well as what it demands. My point here is that an inventive mechanism can experiment. Single-celled organisms have always been successful, but at some time in the past, some of them must have combined to create multicellularity. Whenever conditions changed (e.g. in the Cambrian), the opportunity as well as the necessity arose for some cell communities within existing organs to innovate: invention through an internal mechanism responding to outside circumstances. Once more, we know that cell communities have formed all the organs, and for those of us who believe evolution happened, that means billions of generations of cell communities have built on the acquired knowledge of earlier generations to come up with increasingly complex combinations. Hence the variety.-TONY: Further, being a Christian, I don't think he did it for pure entertainment. Colossians 1:16 (NLT) "for through him(Christ) God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world(Laws of Physics, perhaps). Everything was created through him(Christ) and for him(Christ)." It wasn't as entertainment, it was a beautiful gift of love to his Son.-If God exists, we can only speculate on his motives, and I have high respect for your faith in your own speculations.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 27, 2014, 02:29 (3492 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: My hypothesis is only concerned with how. ... So let me ask you, as I have asked David, whether you think your God preplanned every single innovation and “wonder” right from the beginning, or created each one separately as he went along. .... You are absolutely right that we cannot reproduce or understand this mechanism, but that is beside the point. If your God exists, he is clearly capable of making it. Would you then grant the possibility that your God created this inventive mechanism, which would explain innovation, the Cambrian, and the vast variety of species that have come and gone?
> -The answer to your question was in my previous post:-> TONY: Did God create them as adaptive creatures, I certainly think so, but I think that he did so with constraints to prevent them from straying too far beyond their pre-defined range. Hence the reason we don't have a plethora of new creatures popping up every time we turn around....-Remember that a lot of what we call different species are actually varieties of the same "type" or "kind" of creatures. A dog is a dog is a dog, even though there are hundreds of "species" of dog.-> 
> Once an organism is successful, there is no need for it to change. However, in the course of evolution obviously some have changed, which is why it's important to include what the environment allows as well as what it demands. -Yes, there have been some changes, but the extent of those changes is largely speculation considering that the vast majority of "species" remain largely UNCHANGED since the Cambrian. ->DHW: My point here is that an inventive mechanism can experiment. Single-celled organisms have always been successful, but at some time in the past, some of them must have combined to create multi-cellularity. -Do you have evidence of experimentation? (i.e. Failed experiments? You know, the same ones missing from the fossil record that mainstream evolutionist say should exist.) -->DHW: Whenever conditions changed (e.g. in the Cambrian), the opportunity as well as the necessity arose for some cell communities within existing organs to innovate: invention through an internal mechanism responding to outside circumstances. -Innovation is different in kind than invention. One builds upon what already exists, the other creates something new from wholecloth.-Once more, we know that cell communities have formed all the organs, and for those of us who believe evolution happened, that means billions of generations of cell communities have built on the acquired knowledge of earlier generations to come up with increasingly complex combinations. Hence the variety.-If you assume a designer, then the jump to multi-celularity does not require some tricksy magic that we have never witnessed in repeated experiments. That is not to say the possibility is not worth examining and experimenting to determine if it happened, but rather, multi-cellular organisms from single celled organisms has never been observed. So you are assuming that it happened without evidence. Your own brand of faith.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by dhw, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 12:06 (3491 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: So let me ask you, as I have asked David, whether you think your God preplanned every single innovation and “wonder” right from the beginning, or created each one separately as he went along. .... Would you then grant the possibility that your God created this inventive mechanism, which would explain innovation, the Cambrian, and the vast variety of species that have come and gone?-TONY: The answer to your question was in my previous post:
Did God create them as adaptive creatures, I certainly think so, but I think that he did so with constraints to prevent them from straying too far beyond their pre-defined range.....-Just making sure: are you saying that God created each innovation and “wonder” separately as he went along?
 
TONY: Remember that a lot of what we call different species are actually varieties of the same "type" or "kind" of creatures. A dog is a dog is a dog, even though there are hundreds of "species" of dog.-Again, to make sure: does this mean God created “the dog”, but dogs created their own variations? Might this have been done through an inventive mechanism within doggy cell communities? Let me note in passing that every individual dog - like every individual human - has its own individual sets of cell communities resulting in different characteristics. Since every innovation, according to evolution, must have taken place in existing organisms, this may explain why some cell communities (organisms) remained as they were, while others experimented.-Dhw: Once an organism is successful, there is no need for it to change. However, in the course of evolution obviously some have changed, which is why it's important to include what the environment allows as well as what it demands. 
TONY: Yes, there have been some changes, but the extent of those changes is largely speculation considering that the vast majority of "species" remain largely UNCHANGED since the Cambrian.-I agree that we can only speculate, as we cannot observe the arrival of eyes, kidneys etc. However, adaptation is an observable fact, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that since cell communities can change themselves to cope with environmental threats, there is an internal mechanism for change. The question then becomes how inventive that mechanism might be. Perhaps there has been no major environmental change since the Cambrian that would allow for creative experiments, and so evolution has undergone a long period of comparative stasis as regards new “species” (in the broadest sense). -DHW: My point here is that an inventive mechanism can experiment. Single-celled organisms have always been successful, but at some time in the past, some of them must have combined to create multi-cellularity. 
TONY: Do you have evidence of experimentation? (i.e. Failed experiments? You know, the same ones missing from the fossil record that mainstream evolutionist say should exist.)-I don't know how a fossil could be identified as a failed experiment. Mainstream evolutionists look for missing links, but “punctuated equilibrium” allows for the jumps Darwin thought impossible, and my hypothesis can explain the jumps. -Dhw: Once more, we know that cell communities have formed all the organs, and for those of us who believe evolution happened, that means billions of generations of cell communities have built on the acquired knowledge of earlier generations to come up with increasingly complex combinations. Hence the variety.
TONY: If you assume a designer, then the jump to multi-celularity does not require some tricksy magic that we have never witnessed in repeated experiments. That is not to say the possibility is not worth examining and experimenting to determine if it happened, but rather, multi-cellular organisms from single celled organisms has never been observed. So you are assuming that it happened without evidence. Your own brand of faith.-Bacteria have been observed to combine, communicate, and act like a single organism. I am not assuming anything, however. It's a hypothesis, and I've offered you a theistic “designer” version: namely, that your God created the inventive mechanism within cells that enabled single cells to combine and form multicellular organisms. Why does this require “tricksy magic”, whereas God creating multi-cellular organisms separately from single celled organisms does not?

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, August 28, 2014, 21:20 (3490 days ago) @ dhw

Just making sure: are you saying that God created each innovation and “wonder” separately as he went along?
> 
> Again, to make sure: does this mean God created “the dog”, but dogs created their own variations? Might this have been done through an inventive mechanism within doggy cell communities? Let me note in passing that every individual dog - like every individual human - has its own individual sets of cell communities resulting in different characteristics. Since every innovation, according to evolution, must have taken place in existing organisms, this may explain why some cell communities (organisms) remained as they were, while others experimented.-
No. Let me try to illustrate. Let's assume that you come up with the design for hair. It can vary in length, thickness, color, density, sheen/oiliness, etc. From a programmers point of view, let each of these values fall between 0 - 1 (except color). -Dog A might have: (A dog with short, thick, slightly bristled dull brown hair)
Length = .1
thickness per strand = .26
color = Brown
density = .5
sheen = .025-Dog B might have:(A with long, soft, thick, glossy, white hair)
Length = .75
thickness = .15
color = white
density = .75
sheen = .5-Just from the slight changes here, one would be better "adapted" for surviving in cold winter climates(dog b) and the other for warmer Savannah style climates(dog A). Extrapolate this across each variable of a dog, bone length, muzzle length, etc, and you will be able to explain ever single "species" of dog with the same exact set of variables and the same set of constraints. There is no "invention" happening, only slight variation of constrained variables. The program can neither create nor destroy the variables. It can switch them off, set them to 0, switch them on, and alter them, but it can not create new ones.-What this also means is that the process of creating the "great bush of life" is not as monumental as it would appear at first glance, though it is still mind-boggling. It reduces the needed programs dramatically by reusing elements that have already been programmed. In computer program, the analog to this are called classes and functions(methods). The class is a blueprint, and the method are the individual instructions for manipulating that blueprint to achieve different results. A strong measure of the programmers success is the ability for that class to be used repeatedly, in wildly different scenarios, with few if any errors. When we look at the code that God has written, that is precisely what it has done. -
 
>DHW I agree that we can only speculate, as we cannot observe the arrival of eyes, kidneys etc. However, adaptation is an observable fact, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that since cell communities can change themselves to cope with environmental threats, there is an internal mechanism for change. The question then becomes how inventive that mechanism might be. -
Limited adaptation. That is the keyword that seems to be missing from most statements when we discuss this. See the analogy above.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Friday, August 29, 2014, 04:54 (3490 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: What this also means is that the process of creating the "great bush of life" is not as monumental as it would appear at first glance, though it is still mind-boggling. It reduces the needed programs dramatically by reusing elements that have already been programmed. ..... A strong measure of the programmers success is the ability for that class to be used repeatedly, in wildly different scenarios, with few if any errors. When we look at the code that God has written, that is precisely what it has done. -If I may enter the conversation, your wonderful analogy just covers a tiny measure of variation among dogs, all of whom are one species, and are a subspecies with wolves with whom they breed with no problem.-What is significant is your further comments about a further class of programs which allows the code to be used over and over again. What is being found in genomes all over the animal kingdom is a repeated use to the same genomic mechanisms in a large variety of species and families. I think this implies that there is strong evidence for theistic evolution as the proper theory. Why should the genome be that way unless planned to cover the inventive needs of life as it advances from single cells to us? To avoid that thought, dhw has invented intelligent cells, but cannot tell us where the intelligence came from. He has forsaken chance as a mechanism. He wants to create whole new phenotypes by having them cooperate, and won't tell us where the plans come from that they must cooperatively follow. That dosn't answer the huge fossil gaps I have pointed out. Either use trial and error (Darwin), of which we see no evidence or create a plan, or follow a plan. There are no other possibilities. The idea of cells cooperating into planning a new body form de nova, fully functional in all organs is beyond belief. They have to be given a plan. That is why I raised the issue of a God-given inventive mechanism.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 29, 2014, 06:36 (3490 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Tony: What this also means is that the process of creating the "great bush of life" is not as monumental as it would appear at first glance, though it is still mind-boggling. It reduces the needed programs dramatically by reusing elements that have already been programmed. ..... A strong measure of the programmers success is the ability for that class to be used repeatedly, in wildly different scenarios, with few if any errors. When we look at the code that God has written, that is precisely what it has done. 
> 
> David:If I may enter the conversation, your wonderful analogy just covers a tiny measure of variation among dogs, all of whom are one species, and are a subspecies with wolves with whom they breed with no problem.
> -> What is significant is your further comments about a further class of programs which allows the code to be used over and over again. What is being found in genomes all over the animal kingdom is a repeated use to the same genomic mechanisms in a large variety of species and families. I think this implies that there is strong evidence for theistic evolution as the proper theory. Why should the genome be that way unless planned to cover the inventive needs of life as it advances from single cells to us? ...They have to be given a plan. That is why I raised the issue of a God-given inventive mechanism.-I give you Polymorphism. To me, this concept is what bridges the gaps between all of these discussions. It is where adaptation, variation, epigenetics, and to a limited extent, evolution meet. Let me pose a question. What if all life didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but instead was created from the same source code? Note, this differs from Darwinian evolution in that individual programs still have to be written individually, but they are all built upon the same framework until you get down to a level of abstraction that can handle all of the variants without further modification.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Friday, August 29, 2014, 14:39 (3490 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: I give you Polymorphism. To me, this concept is what bridges the gaps between all of these discussions. It is where adaptation, variation, epigenetics, and to a limited extent, evolution meet. Let me pose a question. What if all life didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but instead was created from the same source code? Note, this differs from Darwinian evolution in that individual programs still have to be written individually, but they are all built upon the same framework until you get down to a level of abstraction that can handle all of the variants without further modification.-Wow, this fits what I have been looking for, a code at the beginning of life that leads to a bush of life, not a tree. That could be the 'inventive mechanism'. I wish I knew more about programming, but it is obvious to me the genome is the most sophisticated program ever written, and we will take many more years picking it apart to understand it. At that point atheism will have little to support it.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 29, 2014, 22:44 (3489 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Tony: I give you Polymorphism. To me, this concept is what bridges the gaps between all of these discussions. It is where adaptation, variation, epigenetics, and to a limited extent, evolution meet. Let me pose a question. What if all life didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but instead was created from the same source code? Note, this differs from Darwinian evolution in that individual programs still have to be written individually, but they are all built upon the same framework until you get down to a level of abstraction that can handle all of the variants without further modification.
> 
> David: Wow, this fits what I have been looking for, a code at the beginning of life that leads to a bush of life, not a tree. That could be the 'inventive mechanism'. I wish I knew more about programming, but it is obvious to me the genome is the most sophisticated program ever written, and we will take many more years picking it apart to understand it. At that point atheism will have little to support it.-Just be aware that this still requires "dabbling", as DHW is fond of saying. Each sub-class that inherits from a predecessor has to define it's own implementation. In terms of the genome, each creatures genetic blueprint would have to define how it would implement the structures. It does not happen completely automatically. What it DOES do is explain all the commonalities and similarities in the code between all living creatures, as well as giving context to the different implementations.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 30, 2014, 01:01 (3489 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: Just be aware that this still requires "dabbling", as DHW is fond of saying. Each sub-class that inherits from a predecessor has to define it's own implementation. In terms of the genome, each creatures genetic blueprint would have to define how it would implement the structures. It does not happen completely automatically. What it DOES do is explain all the commonalities and similarities in the code between all living creatures, as well as giving context to the different implementations.-
Dabbling means God is adjusting the controls from without. You seem to imply it is within the organism's genome.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, August 30, 2014, 04:56 (3489 days ago) @ David Turell

It would have to be from within. My point was that polymorphism doesn't mean that a subclass creates its own implementation of a method. That implementation still has to be 'written', as it were, by the programmer before it is implemented.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 30, 2014, 05:12 (3489 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: It would have to be from within. My point was that polymorphism doesn't mean that a subclass creates its own implementation of a method. That implementation still has to be 'written', as it were, by the programmer before it is implemented.-Your version then of the 'inventive mechanism' would be written into the genome at the beginning of life? That would equate to pre-planning with built-in dabbling.

Natures wonders: making spider silk

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, August 30, 2014, 08:15 (3489 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: It would have to be from within. My point was that polymorphism doesn't mean that a subclass creates its own implementation of a method. That implementation still has to be 'written', as it were, by the programmer before it is implemented.
> 
> Your version then of the 'inventive mechanism' would be written into the genome at the beginning of life? That would equate to pre-planning with built-in dabbling.-Yes, precisely. And that actually lines up with the biblical account.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: hiding in plain sight

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 15:15 (3500 days ago) @ David Turell

Ocean creatures use transparancy and mirrors as ways to elude predators:-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/science/a-world-of-creatures-that-hide-in-the-open.html?emc=edit_th_20140819&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0

Natures wonders: ant bridge design

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 25, 2015, 02:23 (3037 days ago) @ David Turell

Using army ants it was found that the design of bridges with worker's bodies is very cost effective:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124143516.htm-"Ants of E. hamatum automatically form living bridges without any oversight from a "lead" ant, the researchers report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. The action of each individual coalesces into a group unit that can adapt to the terrain and also operates by a clear cost-benefit ratio. The ants will create a path over an open space up to the point when too many workers are being diverted from collecting food and prey.-"'These ants are performing a collective computation. At the level of the entire colony, they're saying they can afford this many ants locked up in this bridge, but no more than that," said co-first author Matthew Lutz, a graduate student in Princeton's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.-"'There's no single ant overseeing the decision, they're making that calculation as a colony," Lutz said. "Thinking about this cost-benefit framework might be a new insight that can be applied to other animal structures that people haven't thought of before."-***-"Previous studies have shown that single creatures use "rules of thumb" to weigh cost-and-benefit, said Couzin, who also is Lutz's graduate adviser. This new work shows that in large groups these same individual guidelines can eventually coordinate group-wide, he said -- the ants acted as a unit although each ant only knew its immediate circumstances.-"'They don't know how many other ants are in the bridge, or what the overall traffic situation is. They only know about their local connections to others, and the sense of ants moving over their bodies," Couzin said. "Yet, they have evolved simple rules that allow them to keep reconfiguring until, collectively, they have made a structure of an appropriate size for the prevailing conditions.-***-"Previously, scientists thought that ant bridges were static structures -- their appearance over large gaps that ants clearly could not cross in midair was somewhat of a mystery, Reid said. The researchers found, however, that the ants, when confronted with an open space, start from the narrowest point of the expanse and work toward the widest point, expanding the bridge as they go to shorten the distance their compatriots must travel to get around the expanse.-"'The amazing thing is that a very elegant solution to a colony-level problem arises from the individual interactions of a swarm of simple worker ants, each with only local information," Reid said."-Comment: Group instinctive intelligence. Same old issue: how was it developed?

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 19, 2016, 14:38 (2982 days ago) @ David Turell

Pheromones play a role in guiding ants as they build their nests:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160118184948.htm-"Ants collectively build nests whose size can reach several thousand times that of individual ants and whose architecture is sometimes highly complex. However, their ability to coordinate several thousand individuals when building their nests remains a mystery. To understand the mechanisms involved in this process, researchers from CNRS, Université Toulouse III -- Paul Sabatier and Université de Nantes[1] combined behavioral analysis, 3D imaging and computational modeling techniques. Their work shows that ants self-organize by interacting with the structures they build thanks to the addition of a pheromone to their building material. This chemical signal controls their building activity locally and determines the shape of the nest. Its breakdown over time and due to environmental conditions also enables the ants to adapt the shape of their nests. -***-"The nest of black garden ants, Lasius niger, consists of an underground part made up of a network of galleries, and a mound of earth composed of a large number of bubble-shaped chambers closely interconnected with each other. -***-"In the part located above ground, the insects pile up their building materials forming pillars that encircle the chambers. The ants preferentially deposit their soil pellets in areas where other clusters of pellets have already been created. They add a pheromone to their material, which stimulates the other ants to build on the same spot, leading to the formation of regularly spaced pillars. When the columns reach a height equal to the average body-length of an ant, the workers build caps on top of the pillars. They use their body size as a template to determine when they should stop building vertically and begin to deposit pellets laterally. The ants thus use two types of indirect interactions in order to build complex architectures.-"In addition, the pheromone breaks down over time at a rate that depends on climate conditions, which enables construction to adapt to the environment. For instance, in a dry environment the amount of pheromone rapidly decreases and so fewer pillars are built. The chambers are therefore larger, which enables the ants to cluster there in order to preserve what little humidity there is. On the other hand, in a humid environment, the pheromone persists for a longer time, which leads to a greater number of pillars and to smaller chambers.-"The researchers then developed a 3D mathematical model of nest construction, obtained by analyzing the individual behavior of the ants. The model shows that the two types of indirect interactions used by the ants to coordinate their activity faithfully reproduce the construction dynamics and the structures built during the experiments. It also highlights the key role played by the building pheromone in the growth dynamics and shapes of the nests."-Comment: The use of pheromones indicates automaticity. The ants are programmed to the same thing over and over. We are back to the usual debate. Did the original ant planners do this on their own or where they guided?

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 13:52 (2981 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Pheromones play a role in guiding ants as they build their nests:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160118184948.htm 
David's comment: The use of pheromones indicates automaticity. The ants are programmed to the same thing over and over. We are back to the usual debate. Did the original ant planners do this on their own or were they guided?-The use of pheromones indicates communication. Like every other organism, ants use whatever means of communication are available to them. Different kinds of ants build different kinds of nests, and even if their nests follow a certain pattern, they still vary individually: “This chemical signal controls their building activity locally and determines the shape of the nest. Its breakdown over time and due to environmental conditions also enables the ants to adapt the shape of their nests.” (My bold) I would argue that the pheromone is not part of a computer programme, but an instrument integral to their autonomous, cooperative, ant-designed nest-building: “They add a pheromone to their material, which stimulates the other ants to build on the same spot, leading to the formation of regularly spaced pillars.” -I know you hate to think of ants having any sort of mind, and you love the idea of God preprogramming or personally guiding each species of ant to build a special nest so that it can balance nature, but I would suggest that ants worked it out all by themselves. And whenever they come up against problems, they work out the solutions all by themselves, rather than relying on God's intervention or a computer programme he devised 3.8 billion years ago to cover every eventuality. The same, of course, applies to the weaverbird (under “Animal minds”):-dhw: We have always agreed on the design issue. Where we disagree is on your insistence that only God and humans can design things, though “could have helped” suggests a slight softening in your approach! “No, no, not on the left,” said God to the weaverbird. “Put it on the right, or you'll upset the balance of nature."-DAVID: Planned designs require a mind. There is purpose. Weaver birds must have tried this and that over eons of time to achieve their current nest. Hunt and peck is not likely.-Yes, these designs require a mind, and yes there is a purpose. But why do you assume that ants and weaverbirds do NOT have minds, and are incapable of fulfilling their own purposes without your God's intervention? “Large organisms chauvinism”, as Shapiro would say.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 15:04 (2981 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I would argue that the pheromone is not part of a computer programme, but an instrument integral to their autonomous, cooperative, ant-designed nest-building: “They add a pheromone to their material, which stimulates the other ants to build on the same spot, leading to the formation of regularly spaced pillars.” -But you have a chicken/egg problem. Pheromones first before nests, or did they have simple nests first and then developed pheromones? Full blown ants with pheromones first smells of purposeful design to start with. Pheromones are attractants that all animals have, and they indicate purpose in design to me.
> 
> dhw: but I would suggest that ants worked it out all by themselves. And whenever they come up against problems, they work out the solutions all by themselves,-Did then invent their own pheromones? No. They were a given by advanced planning.-> 
> dhw: We have always agreed on the design issue. Where we disagree is on your insistence that only God and humans can design things, -> DAVID: Planned designs require a mind. There is purpose. Weaver birds must have tried this and that over eons of time to achieve their current nest. Hunt and peck is not likely.
> 
> dhw: Yes, these designs require a mind, and yes there is a purpose. But why do you assume that ants and weaverbirds do NOT have minds, and are incapable of fulfilling their own purposes without your God's intervention? “Large organisms chauvinism”, as Shapiro would say.-I think it takes a complex mind to do advanced planning. Shapiro is referring to simple epigenetic effects in comparison which do occur at those simple effects by a series of molecular reactions.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 18:17 (2980 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I would argue that the pheromone is not part of a computer programme, but an instrument integral to their autonomous, cooperative, ant-designed nest-building: “They add a pheromone to their material, which stimulates the other ants to build on the same spot, leading to the formation of regularly spaced pillars.” 
DAVID: But you have a chicken/egg problem. Pheromones first before nests, or did they have simple nests first and then developed pheromones? Full blown ants with pheromones first smells of purposeful design to start with. Pheromones are attractants that all animals have, and they indicate purpose in design to me.-The chicken/egg problem applies to virtually every aspect of life you can think of, prior to human history. Nobody knows where the first of anything came from (which includes your God and his sourceless consciousness), and that is why there is so much theorizing. -dhw: ...but I would suggest that ants worked it out all by themselves. And whenever they come up against problems, they work out the solutions all by themselves...
DAVID: Did then invent their own pheromones? No. They were a given by advanced planning.-As above. Nobody knows the origin of life or of species (Darwin's title was highly misleading) or of the billions of lifestyles and natural wonders. “God did it” raises as many questions as it answers, as is evident from our many discussions and disagreements on these matters.-dhw: We have always agreed on the design issue. Where we disagree is on your insistence that only God and humans can design things, 
DAVID: Planned designs require a mind. There is purpose. Weaver birds must have tried this and that over eons of time to achieve their current nest. Hunt and peck is not likely.
dhw: Yes, these designs require a mind, and yes there is a purpose. But why do you assume that ants and weaverbirds do NOT have minds, and are incapable of fulfilling their own purposes without your God's intervention? “Large organisms chauvinism”, as Shapiro would say.
DAVID: I think it takes a complex mind to do advanced planning. Shapiro is referring to simple epigenetic effects in comparison which do occur at those simple effects by a series of molecular reactions.-The quote was as follows:
Natasha Mitchell: I mean many would argue that even a basic nervous system is a prerequisite for cognition, and it's been a controversial suggestion, hasn't it, that bacteria are somehow cognitive. Why the controversy?
James Shapiro: Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.-Link that to Shapiro's statement: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making abilities.” I'm not asking you to agree with him, but I really don't see how you can avoid acknowledging that he believes cells and organisms have minds of their own.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 19:56 (2979 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I think it takes a complex mind to do advanced planning. Shapiro is referring to simple epigenetic effects in comparison which do occur at those simple effects by a series of molecular reactions.
> 
> dhw: The quote was as follows:
> Natasha Mitchell: I mean many would argue that even a basic nervous system is a prerequisite for cognition, and it's been a controversial suggestion, hasn't it, that bacteria are somehow cognitive. Why the controversy?
> James Shapiro: Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.
> 
> Link that to Shapiro's statement: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making abilities.” I'm not asking you to agree with him, but I really don't see how you can avoid acknowledging that he believes cells and organisms have minds of their own.-Same answer: They can be DNA programmed so it looks like they have minds of their own. Those abilities of theirs do exist, but how it works can be in two ways, yours and mine.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Friday, January 22, 2016, 18:19 (2979 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Shapiro is referring to simple epigenetic effects in comparison which do occur at those simple effects by a series of molecular reactions.-dhw: The quote was as follows:
Natasha Mitchell: I mean many would argue that even a basic nervous system is a prerequisite for cognition, and it's been a controversial suggestion, hasn't it, that bacteria are somehow cognitive. Why the controversy?
James Shapiro: Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.-Link that to Shapiro's statement: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making abilities.” I'm not asking you to agree with him, but I really don't see how you can avoid acknowledging that he believes cells and organisms have minds of their own.-DAVID: Same answer: They can be DNA programmed so it looks like they have minds of their own. Those abilities of theirs do exist, but how it works can be in two ways, yours and mine.-I was pointing out that Shapiro seems to be on my side rather than yours. However, this is a fair acknowledgement which should end once and for all the dogmatic statements that these organisms are automatons. They only might be.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Monday, January 25, 2016, 01:44 (2976 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Same answer: They can be DNA programmed so it looks like they have minds of their own. Those abilities of theirs do exist, but how it works can be in two ways, yours and mine.
> 
> dhw: I was pointing out that Shapiro seems to be on my side rather than yours. However, this is a fair acknowledgement which should end once and for all the dogmatic statements that these organisms are automatons. They only might be.-I'm as dogmatic as ever. Yours or mine, I'll pick mine.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Monday, January 25, 2016, 21:59 (2975 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same answer: They can be DNA programmed so it looks like they have minds of their own. Those abilities of theirs do exist, but how it works can be in two ways, yours and mine.-dhw: I was pointing out that Shapiro seems to be on my side rather than yours. However, this is a fair acknowledgement which should end once and for all the dogmatic statements that these organisms are automatons. They only might be.-DAVID: I'm as dogmatic as ever. Yours or mine, I'll pick mine.-Ah well, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 01:25 (2975 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Ah well, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.-And it is very difficult to pry an agnostic off his fence even when he is exposed to new tricks of nature found by science.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 18:23 (2975 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Ah well, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.-DAVID: And it is very difficult to pry an agnostic off his fence even when he is exposed to new tricks of nature found by science.-Perhaps the old agnostick-in-the-mud should let sleeping dogmatists lie.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 00:31 (2974 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: And it is very difficult to pry an agnostic off his fence even when he is exposed to new tricks of nature found by science.
> 
> dhw: Perhaps the old agnostick-in-the-mud should let sleeping dogmatists lie.-Not when we dogmatists tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and swear to God it is true.

Natures wonders: ant nest building

by dhw, Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 18:18 (2974 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Ah well, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.-DAVID: And it is very difficult to pry an agnostic off his fence even when he is exposed to new tricks of nature found by science.-dhw: Perhaps the old agnostick-in-the-mud should let sleeping dogmatists lie.-DAVID: Not when we dogmatists tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and swear to God it is true.-Not the meaning of “lie” that was intended! However, let us remember the lessons we have learned from epistemology: you theistic dogmatists tell what you think is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and you swear to the God you subjectively believe in that you believe your subjective beliefs are true. Atheists also tell what they subjectively think is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they subjectively believe there is no God to swear to. Truly it's a dogmatist eat dogmatist world out there.

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 00:01 (2891 days ago) @ David Turell

It seems the same ones occupy the same positions when the raft is formed:-"The team of scientists, including Jessica Purcell, an assistant professor of entomology at The University of California, Riverside, focused on Formica selysi, an ant species found in floodplains in central and southern Europe.-"A team of scientists has found that a species of ant that clusters together to form rafts to survive floods exhibits memory and repeatedly occupies the same position during raft formation, according to a just published paper. -"The research shows that, like humans, ants work together to enhance their response to emergency situations with different members of the group carrying out different tasks.-"By working together, social insects, such as ants, achieve tasks that are beyond the reach of single individuals. A striking example is "self-assembly," a process in which ants link their bodies to form structures such as chains, ladders, walls or rafts.-***-"In a lab, they subjected groups of Formica selysi workers to two consecutive floods and monitored the position of individuals in rafts. Workers showed specialization in their positions when rafting, with the same individuals consistently occupying the top, middle, base or side position in the raft.-"In addition, they found the presence of brood, or immature members of the ant society, modified workers' position and raft shape. Surprisingly, they found workers' experience in the first rafting trial with brood influenced their behavior and raft shape in the subsequent trial without brood.-"They believe this is the first time memory has been demonstrated in so-called self-assemblages."-Comment: If they all know where to place themselves, it smells like instinct to me. It makes no sense they practiced their positions in advance of getting hit with a flood. By living in a flood prone area, I'm sure the instinct developed by necesity.

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by dhw, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 13:36 (2891 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for another wonderful post in this always illuminating series.-QUOTE: "By working together, social insects, such as ants, achieve tasks that are beyond the reach of single individuals. A striking example is "self-assembly," a process in which ants link their bodies to form structures such as chains, ladders, walls or rafts."-I would suggest that this is not only a sign of remarkable intelligence, but may also echo the way intelligent cell communities cooperate to create new structures. 
***
QUOTE: "In addition, they found the presence of brood, or immature members of the ant society, modified workers' position and raft shape. Surprisingly, they found workers' experience in the first rafting trial with brood influenced their behavior and raft shape in the subsequent trial without brood.
"They believe this is the first time memory has been demonstrated in so-called self-assemblages."-Clearly, then, the learners learn and at the same time the mature workers make adjustments - rather like the interchange between receptive teachers and receptive students. These assemblages are not fixed, even though the basic structure remains the same. 
***-David's comment: If they all know where to place themselves, it smells like instinct to me. It makes no sense they practiced their positions in advance of getting hit with a flood. By living in a flood prone area, I'm sure the instinct developed by necessity.-The practice would certainly have originated and developed by necessity, but there must have been a first time, just as there must have been a first chain, ladder, wall etc., and unless you wish to tell us that your God gave lessons to the originators of each structure and also pops in to tell them how to make adjustments (in order to provide the energy to produce and/or feed humans), I would suggest that the whole technology is much akin to the manner in which humans make and modify such structures - by using their intelligence.

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 16:33 (2891 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: QUOTE: "In addition, they found the presence of brood, or immature members of the ant society, modified workers' position and raft shape. Surprisingly, they found workers' experience in the first rafting trial with brood influenced their behavior and raft shape in the subsequent trial without brood.
> "They believe this is the first time memory has been demonstrated in so-called self-assemblages."
> 
> Clearly, then, the learners learn and at the same time the mature workers make adjustments - rather like the interchange between receptive teachers and receptive students. These assemblages are not fixed, even though the basic structure remains the same. -Of course they had to adjust for passengers, but they still kept their same basic positions, which means they have some adaptation ability to reorganize.-> ***
> 
> David's comment: If they all know where to place themselves, it smells like instinct to me. It makes no sense they practiced their positions in advance of getting hit with a flood. By living in a flood prone area, I'm sure the instinct developed by necessity.
> 
> dhw: The practice would certainly have originated and developed by necessity, but there must have been a first time, just as there must have been a first chain, ladder, wall etc., and unless you wish to tell us that your God gave lessons to the originators of each structure.....I would suggest that the whole technology is much akin to the manner in which humans make and modify such structures - by using their intelligence.-I'm sure there was a first time and instinct developed with a degree of adaptability for the size of a crowd of brood passengers, since saving the brood is a necessity. I suspect the development of instinct is a God-given property.

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by dhw, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 12:54 (2890 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Clearly, then, the learners learn and at the same time the mature workers make adjustments - rather like the interchange between receptive teachers and receptive students. These assemblages are not fixed, even though the basic structure remains the same. 
DAVID: Of course they had to adjust for passengers, but they still kept their same basic positions, which means they have some adaptation ability to reorganize.

I would regard their ability to adapt and reorganize their assemblage as a clear sign of intelligence.-David's comment: If they all know where to place themselves, it smells like instinct to me. It makes no sense they practiced their positions in advance of getting hit with a flood. By living in a flood prone area, I'm sure the instinct developed by necessity.
dhw: The practice would certainly have originated and developed by necessity, but there must have been a first time, just as there must have been a first chain, ladder, wall etc., and unless you wish to tell us that your God gave lessons to the originators of each structure.....I would suggest that the whole technology is much akin to the manner in which humans make and modify such structures - by using their intelligence.
DAVID: I'm sure there was a first time and instinct developed with a degree of adaptability for the size of a crowd of brood passengers, since saving the brood is a necessity. I suspect the development of instinct is a God-given property.-I am also sure there was a first time, and I suspect that the first time was an act of intelligence, just like subsequent adaptations and reorganizations. The wonderful post on slime mold (many thanks again) suggests a very early stage of such intelligence.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/slime-molds-are-smarter-than-you-think...
QUOTE: "Even more amazing, when they sexually reproduce they break into individual amoeba-like cells and organize themselves into beautiful stalks and knobby spore-containing tops; the spores live but stalk cells altruistically sacrifice themselves."-Not human type intelligence, but rudimentary awareness to the point of taking decisions. Similarly, under “Animal consciousness”:
 
David's comment: No question animals have to be aware of their environment and are consciously aware, but they do not have the introspection of humans, the ability to conceptualize. It is a vast difference.-I am glad there is no question now, and so when you talk about ants and even about bacteria, perhaps you could drop talk of “instinct” and “automaticity” and recognize that all organisms have a degree of conscious awareness. How else could they take decisions? And decision-taking awareness suggests to me a form of intelligence. (For further comment re bacteria, please see “Cambrian Explosion”.)

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 19:25 (2890 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sure there was a first time and instinct developed with a degree of adaptability for the size of a crowd of brood passengers, since saving the brood is a necessity. I suspect the development of instinct is a God-given property.
> 
> dhw: I am also sure there was a first time, and I suspect that the first time was an act of intelligence, just like subsequent adaptations and reorganizations. The wonderful post on slime mold (many thanks again) suggests a very early stage of such intelligence.-I don't know if any intelligence is involved with slime mold. They solve the maze by checking every passage and then automatically pick the shortest route which can be done by feed back loop chemistry.-> dhw: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/slime-molds-are-smarter-than-you-think... QUOTE: "Even more amazing, when they sexually reproduce they break into individual amoeba-like cells and organize themselves into beautiful stalks and knobby spore-containing tops; the spores live but stalk cells altruistically sacrifice themselves."
> 
> dhw: Not human type intelligence, but rudimentary awareness to the point of taking decisions.-Again, it can all be automatic as in bacteria. -> David's comment: No question animals have to be aware of their environment and are consciously aware, but they do not have the introspection of humans, the ability to conceptualize. It is a vast difference.
> 
> dhw: I am glad there is no question now, and so when you talk about ants and even about bacteria, perhaps you could drop talk of “instinct” and “automaticity” and recognize that all organisms have a degree of conscious awareness.-Still a question re bacteria. It can all be automatic and I'll stick with that.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Thursday, April 21, 2016, 13:54 (2889 days ago) @ David Turell

I am telescoping three threads, as they all deal with the same subject.-DAVID (re ant rafts): I'm sure there was a first time and instinct developed with a degree of adaptability for the size of a crowd of brood passengers, since saving the brood is a necessity. I suspect the development of instinct is a God-given property.
dhw: I am also sure there was a first time, and I suspect that the first time was an act of intelligence, just like subsequent adaptations and reorganizations. The wonderful post on slime mold (many thanks again) suggests a very early stage of such intelligence. 
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/slime-molds-are-smarter-than-you-think...
DAVID: I don't know if any intelligence is involved with slime mold. They solve the maze by checking every passage and then automatically pick the shortest route which can be done by feed back loop chemistry.-If you insert the word “automatically”, of course you preclude intelligence. I would have thought that checking information required awareness and finding a solution required intelligent decision-making. 
 
QUOTE: "Even more amazing, when they sexually reproduce they break into individual amoeba-like cells and organize themselves into beautiful stalks and knobby spore-containing tops; the spores live but stalk cells altruistically sacrifice themselves."
dhw: Not human type intelligence, but rudimentary awareness to the point of taking decisions.
DAVID: Again, it can all be automatic as in bacteria.-It can all be automatic, as in your interpretation of the behaviour of bacteria, or it can all be intelligence, as in the findings of the eminent scientists you disagree with, though you admit that their conclusions are “equally possible”. That is an admission that you might be wrong, which is good enough for me.
 
Dhw (re bacteria): QUOTE: " […]This communication alters gene expression and allows bacteria to mount coordinated responses to their environments, in a manner that is comparable to behavior and signaling in higher organisms. […]-If you wish to argue that their behaviour (e.g. decision-making) is automatic because the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information are automatic, then you may as well say the same of all “higher organisms”, including humans.-DAVID: …Quorum sensing may simply be an interpretation of the concentration of molecules produced by the bacteria's receptors. As for human automaticity, when did you run your every day bodily functions such urine production, poop production, remembering to breath, pumping your blood, sweating, etc.? You don't control the process of seeing, hearing, smelling, but you can independently think about what you are observing and create concepts about them.-You are repeating my own argument! You only focus on the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information, and you ignore the “behaviour”. Here you have deliberately brought in the additional levels of consciousness that distinguish humans from less “intelligent” organisms, though you know perfectly well that the “intelligence” proposed by McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Bühler et al relates to decision-making and does not extend to concept-making.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 05:12 (2888 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't know if any intelligence is involved with slime mold. They solve the maze by checking every passage and then automatically pick the shortest route which can be done by feed back loop chemistry.
> 
> dhw: If you insert the word “automatically”, of course you preclude intelligence. I would have thought that checking information required awareness and finding a solution required intelligent decision-making. -In nature the slime mold must find food. So it/they move round to find it. It/they are obviously programmed to find the closest food as it requires the least energy to reach. The maze shows this probability. No intellect required.
>> 
> dhw: It can all be automatic, as in your interpretation of the behaviour of bacteria, or it can all be intelligence, as in the findings of the eminent scientists you disagree with, though you admit that their conclusions are “equally possible”. That is an admission that you might be wrong, which is good enough for me.-I have my interpretation, you have yours.
> 
> Dhw (re bacteria): QUOTE: " […]This communication alters gene expression and allows bacteria to mount coordinated responses to their environments, in a manner that is comparable to behavior and signaling in higher organisms. […]
> 
> If you wish to argue that their behaviour (e.g. decision-making) is automatic because the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information are automatic, then you may as well say the same of all “higher organisms”, including humans.-I've pointed out that most of your bodily functions except thinking are automatic.->> 
> dhw: You are repeating my own argument! You only focus on the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information, and you ignore the “behaviour”. Here you have deliberately brought in the additional levels of consciousness that distinguish humans from less “intelligent” organisms, though you know perfectly well that the “intelligence” proposed by McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Bühler et al relates to decision-making and does not extend to concept-making.-And that 'decision making' can simply be chemical responses to chemical stimuli.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Friday, April 22, 2016, 15:12 (2888 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't know if any intelligence is involved with slime mold. They solve the maze by checking every passage and then automatically pick the shortest route which can be done by feed back loop chemistry.
dhw: If you insert the word “automatically”, of course you preclude intelligence. I would have thought that checking information required awareness and finding a solution required intelligent decision-making. 
DAVID: In nature the slime mold must find food. So it/they move round to find it. It/they are obviously programmed to find the closest food as it requires the least energy to reach. The maze shows this probability. No intellect required.-I would say that it is natural (even without God specifically having to preprogramme slime mold) for any organism to try to find the simplest solution to a problem (Ockham would agree), i.e. the shortest route to food. The intelligence is needed to find the solution. Here are some quotes from the video you recommended:
These studies are “redefining what is it to be intelligent.” They “challenge what we think of as intelligence.” “It's not that nature lacks intelligence, but our own concepts do”. Not quite the same as “no intellect required”.-Dhw (re bacteria): QUOTE: " […]This communication alters gene expression and allows bacteria to mount coordinated responses to their environments, in a manner that is comparable to behavior and signaling in higher organisms. […]
If you wish to argue that their behaviour (e.g. decision-making) is automatic because the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information are automatic, then you may as well say the same of all “higher organisms”, including humans.
DAVID: I've pointed out that most of your bodily functions except thinking are automatic.-I had already replied to this as follows:
dhw: You are repeating my own argument! You only focus on the chemical processes involved in acquiring and communicating information, and you ignore the “behaviour”. Here you have deliberately brought in the additional levels of consciousness that distinguish humans from less “intelligent” organisms, though you know perfectly well that the “intelligence” proposed by McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Bühler et al relates to decision-making and does not extend to concept-making.
DAVID: And that 'decision making' can simply be chemical responses to chemical stimuli.-But please do not focus on chemical processes of acquiring or communicating information as if they explained decision-making, and do not focus on human concept-making as if its absence in bacteria denoted absence of intelligence. Your view that bacteria are not intelligent is a purely personal opinion, to which of course you are perfectly entitled, but the scientific (chemical processes) and philosophical (no concept-making) evidence you have cited is irrelevant.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 19:42 (2888 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; Here are some quotes from the video you recommended:
> These studies are “redefining what is it to be intelligent.” They “challenge what we think of as intelligence.” “It's not that nature lacks intelligence, but our own concepts do”. Not quite the same as “no intellect required”. - Resident intellect is not required if the organisms is programmed as I have describe. The quote presumes no God/mind planning the organism. - > 
> dhw: But please do not focus on chemical processes of acquiring or communicating information as if they explained decision-making, and do not focus on human concept-making as if its absence in bacteria denoted absence of intelligence. Your view that bacteria are not intelligent is a purely personal opinion, to which of course you are perfectly entitled, but the scientific (chemical processes) and philosophical (no concept-making) evidence you have cited is irrelevant. - The evidence is not irrelevant. My interpretation simply differs from the one you prefer

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 13:17 (2887 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw; Here are some quotes from the video you recommended: - "These studies are “redefining what is it to be intelligent.” They “challenge what we think of as intelligence.” “It's not that nature lacks intelligence, but our own concepts do”. Not quite the same as “no intellect required”. - DAVID: Resident intellect is not required if the organisms is programmed as I have describe. The quote presumes no God/mind planning the organism. - Of course intelligence is not required if the organisms are preprogrammed. You are simply saying that if the organism is not intelligent, it is not intelligent! The research has nothing whatsoever to do with God: the experts in this particular field merely tell us that the organisms are intelligent. A theist can go on to argue that it was God who created the intelligence in the first place. But of course you have every right to believe that these experts are wrong. - dhw: But please do not focus on chemical processes of acquiring or communicating information as if they explained decision-making, and do not focus on human concept-making as if its absence in bacteria denoted absence of intelligence. Your view that bacteria are not intelligent is a purely personal opinion, to which of course you are perfectly entitled, but the scientific (chemical processes) and philosophical (no concept-making) evidence you have cited is irrelevant. - DAVID: The evidence is not irrelevant. My interpretation simply differs from the one you prefer. - You drew the distinction yourself: “Most of your bodily functions except thinking are automatic”. Solving puzzles and making decisions are not bodily functions. They are the products of thinking. The references to bodily functions are therefore irrelevant to your belief that what looks like thought is in fact divine preprogramming. Similarly, your references to human concept-making are irrelevant to the possibility that bacteria have a less complex form of intelligence.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 16:10 (2887 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Of course intelligence is not required if the organisms are preprogrammed. You are simply saying that if the organism is not intelligent, it is not intelligent! The research has nothing whatsoever to do with God: the experts in this particular field merely tell us that the organisms are intelligent. A theist can go on to argue that it was God who created the intelligence in the first place. But of course you have every right to believe that these experts are wrong.-I'll repeat: if a bacterium receives a stimulus, it is clear it can recognize it through chemical reactions and it can automatically use chemical reactions to respond. All intelligently programmed.-> 
> dhw: You drew the distinction yourself: “Most of your bodily functions except thinking are automatic”. Solving puzzles and making decisions are not bodily functions. They are the products of thinking. The references to bodily functions are therefore irrelevant to your belief that what looks like thought is in fact divine preprogramming. Similarly, your references to human concept-making are irrelevant to the possibility that bacteria have a less complex form of intelligence.-Human bodily functions are as preprogrammed as bacterial bodily functions. A cell is a cell is a cell ( apologies to Gertrude). We are still based on the very first cell. Bacteria do not have a 'less complex form of intelligence' any more than my automatic cells have. They are intelligently preprogrammed.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 13:04 (2886 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course intelligence is not required if the organisms are preprogrammed. You are simply saying that if the organism is not intelligent, it is not intelligent! The research has nothing whatsoever to do with God: the experts in this particular field merely tell us that the organisms are intelligent. A theist can go on to argue that it was God who created the intelligence in the first place. But of course you have every right to believe that these experts are wrong.-DAVID: I'll repeat: if a bacterium receives a stimulus, it is clear it can recognize it through chemical reactions and it can automatically use chemical reactions to respond. All intelligently programmed.-No need to repeat it. I know your opinion, and will simply hold onto your sporadic acknowledgement that the two theories (preprogramming versus autonomous intelligence) are equally possible.-dhw: You drew the distinction yourself: “Most of your bodily functions except thinking are automatic”. Solving puzzles and making decisions are not bodily functions. They are the products of thinking. The references to bodily functions are therefore irrelevant to your belief that what looks like thought is in fact divine preprogramming. Similarly, your references to human concept-making are irrelevant to the possibility that bacteria have a less complex form of intelligence.-DAVID: Human bodily functions are as preprogrammed as bacterial bodily functions. A cell is a cell is a cell ( apologies to Gertrude). We are still based on the very first cell. Bacteria do not have a 'less complex form of intelligence' any more than my automatic cells have. They are intelligently preprogrammed.-As above, you are entitled to your opinion - though you sometimes state it as fact - and so are experts such as McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Buehler, Lipton, and our slime-molders.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 15:11 (2886 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Human bodily functions are as preprogrammed as bacterial bodily functions. A cell is a cell is a cell ( apologies to Gertrude). We are still based on the very first cell. Bacteria do not have a 'less complex form of intelligence' any more than my automatic cells have. They are intelligently preprogrammed.
> 
> dhw: As above, you are entitled to your opinion - though you sometimes state it as fact - and so are experts such as McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Buehler, Lipton, and our slime-molders.-The original cells of life are the basic mold for all the future cells now present. I'm simply working backward from what I see in the human body. Your experts, presented by me, are research biologists, and have a different viewpoint as they study bacterial function. I fully agree with what they find, not their interpretation.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 27, 2016, 15:34 (2883 days ago) @ David Turell

More on slime mold which can habituate/learn to put up with noxious agents that are harmless, but has no memory for that habituation: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm - For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that an organism devoid of a nervous system is capable of learning. A team from the Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale (CNRS/Université Toulouse III -- Paul Sabatier) has succeeded in showing that a single-celled organism, the protist Physarum polycephalum, is capable of a type of learning called habituation. This discovery throws light on the origins of learning ability during evolution, even before the appearance of a nervous system and brain. - *** - A team of biologists thus sought to find proof that a single-celled organism could learn. They chose to study the protist, or slime mold, Physarum polycephalum, a giant cell that inhabits shady, cool areas[1] and has proved to be endowed with some astonishing abilities, such as solving a maze, avoiding traps or optimizing its nutrition[2]. But until now very little was known about its ability to learn. - During a nine-day experiment, the scientists thus challenged different groups of this mold with bitter but harmless substances that they needed to pass through in order to reach a food source. Two groups were confronted either by a "bridge" impregnated with quinine, or with caffeine, while the control group only needed to cross a non-impregnated bridge. Initially reluctant to travel through the bitter substances, the molds gradually realized that they were harmless, and crossed them increasingly rapidly -- behaving after six days in the same way as the control group. The cell thus learned not to fear a harmless substance after being confronted with it on several occasions, a phenomenon that the scientists refer to as habituation. After two days without contact with the bitter substance, the mold returned to its initial behavior of distrust. Furthermore, a protist habituated to caffeine displayed distrustful behavior towards quinine, and vice versa. Habituation was therefore clearly specific to a given substance. - Habituation is a form of rudimentary learning, which has been characterized in Aplysia (an invertebrate also called sea hare)[3]. This form of learning exists in all animals, but had never previously been observed in a non-neural organism. This discovery in a slime mold, a distant cousin of plants, fungi and animals that appeared on Earth some 500 million years before humans, improves existing understanding of the origins of learning, which markedly preceded those of nervous systems. - Comment: Fascinating. The authors have no opinion as to how this works. Without nerves it all has to be chemical reactions, as there is no fixed memory from the experience.

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Thursday, April 28, 2016, 11:48 (2882 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More on slime mold which can habituate/learn to put up with noxious agents that are harmless, but has no memory for that habituation:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm - QUOTE: For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that an organism devoid of a nervous system is capable of learning. A team from the Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale (CNRS/Université Toulouse III -- Paul Sabatier) has succeeded in showing that a single-celled organism, the protist Physarum polycephalum, is capable of a type of learning called habituation. This discovery throws light on the origins of learning ability during evolution, even before the appearance of a nervous system and brain. - *** - QUOTE: Initially reluctant to travel through the bitter substances, the molds gradually realized that they were harmless, and crossed them increasingly rapidly -- behaving after six days in the same way as the control group. The cell thus learned not to fear a harmless substance after being confronted with it on several occasions, a phenomenon that the scientists refer to as habituation. After two days without contact with the bitter substance, the mold returned to its initial behavior of distrust. Furthermore, a protist habituated to caffeine displayed distrustful behavior towards quinine, and vice versa. Habituation was therefore clearly specific to a given substance. - David's comment: Fascinating. The authors have no opinion as to how this works. Without nerves it all has to be chemical reactions, as there is no fixed memory from the experience. - I always feel a little guilty when you produce these wonderful articles and I then disagree with your conclusions! If an organism changes its behaviour over a period of six days, but then reverts after a two day gap, it has what I would call short-term memory. It is impossible to learn anything if you have no memory at all. If an organism can remember not only what it learned a couple of days ago, but also what it liked and didn't like - even if it's only for a week - I would suggest that 	learning and memory (albeit short-term) appear to be possible without a nervous system. It was already known that slime mold had abilities “such as solving a maze, avoiding traps or optimizing its nutrition”, and if you now add learning and memory - no matter how rudimentary - I would say you have the beginnings of autonomous intelligence (not to be confused with human self-awareness, of course). What other attributes does an organism need before you acknowledge that it is intelligent? Or are you going to tell us that God has preprogrammed or personally “guides” every individual slime mold to cope with every individual problem that life and/or humans throw at it?

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by David Turell @, Friday, April 29, 2016, 01:55 (2881 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I always feel a little guilty when you produce these wonderful articles and I then disagree with your conclusions! If an organism changes its behaviour over a period of six days, but then reverts after a two day gap, it has what I would call short-term memory. It is impossible to learn anything if you have no memory at all. .....and if you now add learning and memory - no matter how rudimentary - I would say you have the beginnings of autonomous intelligence (not to be confused with human self-awareness, of course). What other attributes does an organism need before you acknowledge that it is intelligent? Or are you going to tell us that God has preprogrammed or personally “guides” every individual slime mold to cope with every individual problem that life and/or humans throw at it? - Thanks, and I expect you to disagree! I can imagine a molecular response to the noxious stimulus that lasts two days and fades away. The response may be God provided. As for this response like other cellular responses, we are looking in from the out side and making interpretations that may well not be correct..

Ants, slime mold & bacteria

by dhw, Friday, April 29, 2016, 16:23 (2881 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I always feel a little guilty when you produce these wonderful articles and I then disagree with your conclusions! If an organism changes its behaviour over a period of six days, but then reverts after a two day gap, it has what I would call short-term memory. It is impossible to learn anything if you have no memory at all. .....and if you now add learning and memory - no matter how rudimentary - I would say you have the beginnings of autonomous intelligence (not to be confused with human self-awareness, of course). What other attributes does an organism need before you acknowledge that it is intelligent? Or are you going to tell us that God has preprogrammed or personally “guides” every individual slime mold to cope with every individual problem that life and/or humans throw at it? - DAVID: Thanks, and I expect you to disagree! I can imagine a molecular response to the noxious stimulus that lasts two days and fades away. The response may be God provided. As for this response like other cellular responses, we are looking in from the out side and making interpretations that may well not be correct. - “God provided”? 3.8 billion years ago, God did provide for a 21st-century slime mold to tolerate caffeine but not quinine, and ordained that a few days later it would forget what it did like and what it did dislike. Or in 2016 God did see the slime mold and the caffeine and the quinine, and on the first day did say unto the slime mold, “Thou shalt tolerate the caffeine but not the quinine, and then in six days thou shalt forget what I have taught thee.” I don't believe it, but perhaps you can tell us another way God might have “guided” the slime mold, and why he would have gone to such trouble when all he wants is us humans.

slime mold decisions

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 08, 2016, 17:48 (2841 days ago) @ dhw

this is a new study that gave slime mold two food direction choices and the mld picked the one with the most food:-http://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html-"How do organisms without brains make decisions? Most of life is brainless and the vast majority of organisms on Earth lack neurons altogether. Plants, fungi and bacteria must all cope with the same problem as humans - to make the best choices in a complex and ever-changing world or risk dying - without the help of a simple nervous system in many cases. -***-"This giant cell, which typically lives in shady, cool and moist areas of temperate forests, spreads out to search its environment like an amoeba, extending oozy tendrils along the forest floor in search of its prey of fungi, bacteria and decaying vegetable matter.-"Neither plant, animal nor fungus, P. polycephalum has become an unlikely candidate for studies of cognition, due to its spectacular problem-solving abilities. In recent studies, Physarum has been shown to solve labyrinth mazes, make complicated trade-offs, anticipate periodic events, remember where it has been, construct transport networks that have similar efficiency to those designed by human engineers and even make irrational decisions - a capability that has long been viewed as a by-product of brain circuitry.-***-"The researchers adapted the two-armed bandit test for slime mold by giving the organism the choice to explore two opposite directions. In each direction, the slime mold encountered discrete patches of food, more or less regularly distributed. One direction would contain more of these patches than the other. They then observed how far in each direction the slime mold would explore before switching to the exploitation of one of the two directions only. The results of these experiments demonstrate that slime mold compares the relative qualities of multiple options, most often choosing the direction with the higher overall concentration of food. It was able to sum up the number of food patches encountered in each direction, as well as the quantity of food present at each patch to make correct and adaptive decisions as to the direction it should move next.-"The slime mold's decision-making algorithm can be mathematically described as a tendency to exploit environments in proportion to their reward experienced through past sampling. The algorithm is intermediate in computational complexity between simple, reactionary heuristics and calculation-intensive optimal performance algorithms, yet it has very good relative performance.-"'Working with Physarum constantly challenges our preconceived notions of the minimum biological hardware that is required for sophisticated behavior," says Simon Garnier, an assistant professor of biology at NJIT and the principal investigator of the study."-Comment: I presented this study because it contains the key to our debate over 'intelligence' vs. intelligently planned molecular reactions in unicellular organisms. If the biologic hardware can be found it will tell us how concentrations are read. I suspect it is in molecular feedback loops which are automatically operating and support me. If the 'intelligence' is something else, dhw is supported. 'Intelligence' in quotes to signify a different quality than the human form.

slime mold decisions

by dhw, Thursday, June 09, 2016, 10:43 (2840 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: I presented this study because it contains the key to our debate over 'intelligence' vs. intelligently planned molecular reactions in unicellular organisms. If the biologic hardware can be found it will tell us how concentrations are read. I suspect it is in molecular feedback loops which are automatically operating and support me. If the 'intelligence' is something else, dhw is supported. 'Intelligence' in quotes to signify a different quality than the human form.-Brilliant! Slime mold (mould to us Brits) is fascinating, and your comment really does sum up the essence of our debate over cellular intelligence. Molecular feedback loops are part of all behaviours, and the question is how they are triggered and controlled. I see a strange dichotomy in your reasoning: you accept that organisms with a brain have some degree of “intelligence”, culminating in the superintelligence (by comparison) of humans. You believe in dualism: i.e. that you have an intelligence which is independent of your brain and controls it. You accept that the same may well apply - to an ever decreasing extent - to other organisms, let's say all the way down from chimps/dogs/dolphins/crows to my good friends the ants. But for you the brain is the key: organisms can only have “intelligence” if they have a brain, although it is the “intelligence” that controls the brain. We have defined “intelligence” as a combination of sentience, cognition, information- processing, problem-solving, decision-making etc., all of which are to be observed in the behaviour of unicellular organisms. As Shapiro, Talbott and others have pointed out, if organisms seem to behave intelligently, maybe that is because they ARE intelligent! And so the question to you has to be: if “intelligence” is separate from the brain, why do you consider it impossible for intelligently behaving organisms without a brain to be “intelligent”?-There is one further aspect to all this, quite apart from that of the source. If I and my fellow agnostics argue on the side of brainless unicellular intelligence, does that commit us to belief in dualism? It will be very interesting to see how Talbott copes with this problem in the next two essays. Meanwhile, three hearty cheers for the slime mould, and thank you, David, for the article and the scrupulously fair comment.

slime mold decisions

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 09, 2016, 19:35 (2840 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so the question to you has to be: if “intelligence” is separate from the brain, why do you consider it impossible for intelligently behaving organisms without a brain to be “intelligent”?-I think they are not capable of being intelligent, because the only intelligence we can understand by our own experience, because we have it, is connected to a neuron network. I've said over and over, intelligently planned molecular responses, as shown in existing living organ systems, gives exactly the same appearance, and is just as explanatory. Since such automatic systems exist and work, why look for nebulous autonomous cellular 'intelligence'

slime mold decisions

by dhw, Friday, June 10, 2016, 12:38 (2839 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so the question to you has to be: if “intelligence” is separate from the brain, why do you consider it impossible for intelligently behaving organisms without a brain to be “intelligent”?-DAVID: I think they are not capable of being intelligent, because the only intelligence we can understand by our own experience, because we have it, is connected to a neuron network. I've said over and over, intelligently planned molecular responses, as shown in existing living organ systems, gives exactly the same appearance, and is just as explanatory. Since such automatic systems exist and work, why look for nebulous autonomous cellular 'intelligence'?-I assume you think the planning was done by your God. If so, the “intelligently planned molecular responses” (without an autonomous guiding intelligence within the cell itself) would have had to incorporate solutions to every single new situation confronting unicellular organisms throughout the history of life. Alternatively, your God would have had to intervene personally in order to instruct the bacterium in ways of resisting antibiotics, or to shove the slime mould in the right direction. -When scientists set these organisms new problems, it is to test their ability to find solutions. You accept such tests as signs of intelligence when they are applied to organisms with brains, but because you have had no personal experience of any form of intelligence not linked to a brain, you resort to what Talbott calls “a rather odd urgency” which makes you insist that “while organisms certainly look as if they possessed intelligent agency, we should not be so foolish as to be compelled by the evidence of our own eyes.” -Why look for cellular intelligence? Because if organisms have an autonomous inventive or complexification mechanism, it can ONLY be run by the intelligence of the cell communities! And so if unicellular organisms are shown to be intelligent, this would add powerful support to the AIM hypothesis.

slime mold decisions

by David Turell @, Friday, June 10, 2016, 18:45 (2839 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; I assume you think the planning was done by your God. If so, the “intelligently planned molecular responses” (without an autonomous guiding intelligence within the cell itself) would have had to incorporate solutions to every single new situation confronting unicellular organisms throughout the history of life. Alternatively, your God would have had to intervene personally in order to instruct the bacterium in ways of resisting antibiotics, or to shove the slime mould in the right direction. -You do not remember my description of what very simple organisms are capable of doing: Quorum sensing a group, sensing food, sensing noxious or dangerous substances or dangerous enemies, dumping their garbage. Finding a simple pathway by the strength of a signal chemical explains the slime mold in a maze. We just haven't had the research yet to follow the molecular reactions. God is not needed currently.
> 
> dhw: Why look for cellular intelligence? Because if organisms have an autonomous inventive or complexification mechanism, it can ONLY be run by the intelligence of the cell communities! And so if unicellular organisms are shown to be intelligent, this would add powerful support to the AIM hypothesis.-The mechanisms don't need intelligence to run them. They are not driving an automobile but sitting in a driverless automobile.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 25, 2016, 15:46 (2641 days ago) @ David Turell

Slime molds can solve mazes and now are shown to transfer what they learn to another mold it becomes joined to:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161221090246.htm


"It isn't an animal, a plant, or a fungus. The slime mold (Physarum polycephalum) is a strange, creeping, bloblike organism made up of one giant cell. Though it has no brain, it can learn from experience, as biologists have demonstrated. Now the same team of scientists has gone a step further, proving that a slime mold can transmit what it has learned to a fellow slime mold when the two combine.

***

"They now reveal that a slime mold that has learned to ignore salt can transmit this acquired behavior to another simply by fusing with it.

"To achieve this, the researchers taught more than 2,000 slime molds that salt posed no threat. In order to reach their food, these slime molds had to cross a bridge covered with salt. This experience made them habituated slime molds. Meanwhile, another 2,000 slime molds had to cross a bridge bare of any substance. They made up the group of naive slime molds. After this training period, the scientists grouped slime molds into habituated, naive, and mixed pairs. Paired slime molds fused together where they came into contact. The new, fused slime molds then had to cross salt-covered bridges. To the researchers' surprise, the mixed slime molds moved just as fast as habituated pairs, and much faster than naive ones, suggesting that knowledge of the harmless nature of salt had been shared. This held true for slime molds formed from 3 or 4 individuals. No matter how many fused, only 1 habituated slime mold was needed to transfer the information.

"To check that transfer had indeed taken place, the scientists separated the slime molds 1 hour and 3 hours after fusion and repeated the bridge experiment. Only naive slime molds that had been fused with habituated slime molds for 3 hours ignored the salt; all others were repulsed by it. This was proof of learning. When viewing the slime molds through a microscope, the scientists noticed that, after 3 hours, a vein formed at the point of fusion. This vein is undoubtedly the channel through which information is shared. The next challenges facing the researchers are to elucidate the form this information takes, and to test whether more than one behavior can be transmitted simultaneously. If Slime Mold A learns how to ignore quinine and Slime Mold B to ignore salt, the biologists wonder whether both behaviors can be transmitted and retained through fusion."

Comment: dhw and I will have the same battle when he returns from his Christmas fun. Is this process a series of automatic chemical reactions which a taught mold teaches to a naïve mold or is here some sort of nebulous 'intelligence' at work here, with no evidence apparent in the cellular chemistry.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Tuesday, December 27, 2016, 13:13 (2639 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Slime molds can solve mazes and now are shown to transfer what they learn to another mold it becomes joined to:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161221090246.htm

QUOTE: "It isn't an animal, a plant, or a fungus. The slime mold (Physarum polycephalum) is a strange, creeping, bloblike organism made up of one giant cell. Though it has no brain, it can learn from experience, as biologists have demonstrated. Now the same team of scientists has gone a step further, proving that a slime mold can transmit what it has learned to a fellow slime mold when the two combine.

David’s comment: dhw and I will have the same battle when he returns from his Christmas fun. Is this process a series of automatic chemical reactions which a taught mold teaches to a naïve mold or is here some sort of nebulous 'intelligence' at work here, with no evidence apparent in the cellular chemistry.

Yes indeed, the battle continues, but thank you again for your integrity in presenting yet another example of cellular intelligence and how it can be tested. Cellular chemistry will not reveal intelligence. Only by setting new problems and observing the response can scientists establish whether there is or is not “intelligence”. Even in your own comment you cannot avoid the obvious fact that if one mold is naïve and the other has learned a new trick, the very fact that one can teach and the other can learn indicates the desire and ability to communicate, and an increase in knowledge first by the teacher and then by the pupil – all attributes of what we call intelligence, though not to be equated with human intelligence.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 27, 2016, 18:25 (2639 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: dhw and I will have the same battle when he returns from his Christmas fun. Is this process a series of automatic chemical reactions which a taught mold teaches to a naïve mold or is here some sort of nebulous 'intelligence' at work here, with no evidence apparent in the cellular chemistry.

Yes indeed, the battle continues, but thank you again for your integrity in presenting yet another example of cellular intelligence and how it can be tested. Cellular chemistry will not reveal intelligence. Only by setting new problems and observing the response can scientists establish whether there is or is not “intelligence”. Even in your own comment you cannot avoid the obvious fact that if one mold is naïve and the other has learned a new trick, the very fact that one can teach and the other can learn indicates the desire and ability to communicate, and an increase in knowledge first by the teacher and then by the pupil – all attributes of what we call intelligence, though not to be equated with human intelligence.

The communication is chemical since they are semi-attached. The teacher contains chemical knowledge, not neuronal knowledge. The pupil is taught chemically as the new molecules fill the gaps in the pupil's chemistry.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 12:49 (2638 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: dhw and I will have the same battle when he returns from his Christmas fun. Is this process a series of automatic chemical reactions which a taught mold teaches to a naïve mold or is here some sort of nebulous 'intelligence' at work here, with no evidence apparent in the cellular chemistry.
Yes indeed, the battle continues, but thank you again for your integrity in presenting yet another example of cellular intelligence and how it can be tested.

Cellular chemistry will not reveal intelligence. Only by setting new problems and observing the response can scientists establish whether there is or is not “intelligence”. Even in your own comment you cannot avoid the obvious fact that if one mold is naïve and the other has learned a new trick, the very fact that one can teach and the other can learn indicates the desire and ability to communicate, and an increase in knowledge first by the teacher and then by the pupil – all attributes of what we call intelligence, though not to be equated with human intelligence.

DAVID: The communication is chemical since they are semi-attached. The teacher contains chemical knowledge, not neuronal knowledge. The pupil is taught chemically as the new molecules fill the gaps in the pupil's chemistry.

"Neuronal knowledge" takes us back to the question of whether intelligence is only possible in organisms that have brains. The answer according to some scientists is that it IS possible. How can we tell? Not by examining chemical processes, because even in humans the chemical processes cannot reveal the intelligence that drives them. The only way is by testing, but first we must define what we mean by intelligence, and in doing so we should bear in mind the distinction between natural and artificial intelligence, and the fact that there are different degrees of intelligence, with human self-awareness marking the highest degree that we know of. And so by intelligence I mean the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned. By my definition, slime mold and bacteria are intelligent. Perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all if you give us your own definition.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 19:31 (2637 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: "Neuronal knowledge" takes us back to the question of whether intelligence is only possible in organisms that have brains. The answer according to some scientists is that it IS possible. How can we tell? Not by examining chemical processes, because even in humans the chemical processes cannot reveal the intelligence that drives them. The only way is by testing, but first we must define what we mean by intelligence, and in doing so we should bear in mind the distinction between natural and artificial intelligence, and the fact that there are different degrees of intelligence, with human self-awareness marking the highest degree that we know of. And so by intelligence I mean the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned. By my definition, slime mold and bacteria are intelligent. Perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all if you give us your own definition.

We can end this discussion by returning to my inside/outside comment. From the outside of the organisms you listed, they act as if intelligent by your definition. True observation, but there remains the two possibilities. Either they are actually acting intelligently by your definition or they are acting through intelligent operative information they have been given to make their responses. It is my 100% belief they act through the latter possibility.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Thursday, December 29, 2016, 13:34 (2637 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: "Neuronal knowledge" takes us back to the question of whether intelligence is only possible in organisms that have brains. The answer according to some scientists is that it IS possible. How can we tell? Not by examining chemical processes, because even in humans the chemical processes cannot reveal the intelligence that drives them. The only way is by testing, but first we must define what we mean by intelligence, and in doing so we should bear in mind the distinction between natural and artificial intelligence, and the fact that there are different degrees of intelligence, with human self-awareness marking the highest degree that we know of. And so by intelligence I mean the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned. By my definition, slime mold and bacteria are intelligent. Perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all if you give us your own definition.

DAVID: We can end this discussion by returning to my inside/outside comment. From the outside of the organisms you listed, they act as if intelligent by your definition.

It’s a pity you are not willing to give us your own definition.

DAVID: True observation, but there remains the two possibilities. Either they are actually acting intelligently by your definition or they are acting through intelligent operative information they have been given to make their responses. It is my 100% belief they act through the latter possibility.

Yes, I know your 100% belief. It runs parallel to the belief of determinists that there is no such thing as free will. Looked at from the outside, we act as if we are intelligent, but determinists say that on the inside we act according to causes entirely beyond our own control (information we have been given to make our responses). While I admire the self-confidence of those who have 100% beliefs of any kind, I can’t help feeling they may be missing something.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 29, 2016, 19:06 (2636 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all if you give us your own definition.[/i]

DAVID: We can end this discussion by returning to my inside/outside comment. From the outside of the organisms you listed, they act as if intelligent by your definition.

dhw:It’s a pity you are not willing to give us your own definition.

My definition of organismal 'intelligence', in this case the slime mold, is always the same: the mold runs on intelligent information in its genome it has received. The mold is not innately intelligent just as bacteria are not independently intelligent, but run on received intelligently crafted information.


DAVID: True observation, but there remains the two possibilities. Either they are actually acting intelligently by your definition or they are acting through intelligent operative information they have been given to make their responses. It is my 100% belief they act through the latter possibility.

dhw: Yes, I know your 100% belief. It runs parallel to the belief of determinists that there is no such thing as free will. Looked at from the outside, we act as if we are intelligent, but determinists say that on the inside we act according to causes entirely beyond our own control (information we have been given to make our responses). While I admire the self-confidence of those who have 100% beliefs of any kind, I can’t help feeling they may be missing something.

Can you explain 'that something'. I like my feeling of free will which I think is a correct interpretation of the free choices I make all the time. I know the brain takes shortcuts for us all the time. So what! It is only to help us respond quickly as the article on human complexity shows. And the brain modifies itself to keep up with our intellectual habits. How clever an arrangement! I view that a gift from God.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Friday, December 30, 2016, 13:09 (2636 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Perhaps we can end this discussion once and for all if you give us your own definition.
DAVID: We can end this discussion by returning to my inside/outside comment. From the outside of the organisms you listed, they act as if intelligent by your definition.
dhw:It’s a pity you are not willing to give us your own definition.

DAVID: My definition of organismal 'intelligence', in this case the slime mold, is always the same: the mold runs on intelligent information in its genome it has received. The mold is not innately intelligent just as bacteria are not independently intelligent, but run on received intelligently crafted information.

I have attempted to define intelligence as “the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned.” According to my definition, the mold and bacteria are intelligent. The statement that they are not intelligent does not constitute an alternative definition of intelligence. If you accept my definition, please explain how “intelligent” information processes information, learns, communicates and takes decisions.

DAVID: True observation, but there remains the two possibilities. Either they are actually acting intelligently by your definition or they are acting through intelligent operative information they have been given to make their responses. It is my 100% belief they act through the latter possibility.
dhw: Yes, I know your 100% belief. It runs parallel to the belief of determinists that there is no such thing as free will. Looked at from the outside, we act as if we are intelligent, but determinists say that on the inside we act according to causes entirely beyond our own control (information we have been given to make our responses). While I admire the self-confidence of those who have 100% beliefs of any kind, I can’t help feeling they may be missing something.
DAVID: Can you explain 'that something'. I like my feeling of free will which I think is a correct interpretation of the free choices I make all the time. I know the brain takes shortcuts for us all the time. So what! It is only to help us respond quickly as the article on human complexity shows. And the brain modifies itself to keep up with our intellectual habits. How clever an arrangement! I view that a gift from God.

Of course you like your own opinions. The ‘something’ you are missing with your 100% belief in the automaticity of bacteria – quite apart from the unlikelihood of your God preprogramming the first cells to pass on every solution to every possible problem for the rest of time (along with all the undabbled innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders in life’s history) – is the perfectly rational observation that intelligent behaviour might be a sign of intelligence. You even acknowledge 50/50, and yet insist on 100!

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 31, 2016, 01:13 (2635 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: My definition of organismal 'intelligence', in this case the slime mold, is always the same: the mold runs on intelligent information in its genome it has received. The mold is not innately intelligent just as bacteria are not independently intelligent, but run on received intelligently crafted information.

dhw: I have attempted to define intelligence as “the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned.” According to my definition, the mold and bacteria are intelligent. The statement that they are not intelligent does not constitute an alternative definition of intelligence. If you accept my definition, please explain how “intelligent” information processes information, learns, communicates and takes decisions.

I know you do not like the concept of 'information' as the basis of the genomic controls of life, but there are research scientists who study Shannon information theory and other forms of information theory as directly related to the information the genome carries. The process is entirely automatic in its use of the original information. All of the articles I present in the thread of genetic complexity shows this.


dhw: The ‘something’ you are missing with your 100% belief in the automaticity of bacteria – .... – is the perfectly rational observation that intelligent behaviour might be a sign of intelligence. You even acknowledge 50/50, and yet insist on 100!

You are perfectly correct. From the outside it is either/or, 50/50%. But that does not tell us what is truly happening on the inside. I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Saturday, December 31, 2016, 13:05 (2635 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My definition of organismal 'intelligence', in this case the slime mold, is always the same: the mold runs on intelligent information in its genome it has received. The mold is not innately intelligent just as bacteria are not independently intelligent, but run on received intelligently crafted information.
dhw: I have attempted to define intelligence as “the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, learn, communicate, cooperate, and take decisions based on the information absorbed, processed and learned.” According to my definition, the mold and bacteria are intelligent. The statement that they are not intelligent does not constitute an alternative definition of intelligence. If you accept my definition, please explain how “intelligent” information processes information, learns, communicates and takes decisions.

DAVID: I know you do not like the concept of 'information' as the basis of the genomic controls of life, but there are research scientists who study Shannon information theory and other forms of information theory as directly related to the information the genome carries.

I have no problem with the concept of 'information', but I do not like the conflation of information with whatever it is that controls the use of the information, as epitomized by your next comment and the one that follows, concerning molecular reactions:

DAVID: The process is entirely automatic in its use of the original information. All of the articles I present in the thread of genetic complexity shows this.

Once again, you refuse to define intelligence, and simply repeat your conviction that all cellular processes are automatic (and therefore can only have originated through divine programming or intervention). Of course many of the processes are now automatic, but there are research scientists who study cellular behaviour by setting problems devised in order to test these microorganisms. Some have concluded that cells are intelligent beings according to the definition of intelligence that they and I have proposed. 50/50 is the best I can offer you.

DAVID: You are perfectly correct. From the outside it is either/or, 50/50%. But that does not tell us what is truly happening on the inside. I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 31, 2016, 16:11 (2635 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I have no problem with the concept of 'information', but I do not like the conflation of information with whatever it is that controls the use of the information, as epitomized by your next comment and the one that follows, concerning molecular reactions:

DAVID: The process is entirely automatic in its use of the original information. All of the articles I present in the thread of genetic complexity shows this.

dhw: Once again, you refuse to define intelligence, and simply repeat your conviction that all cellular processes are automatic (and therefore can only have originated through divine programming or intervention). Of course many of the processes are now automatic, but there are research scientists who study cellular behaviour by setting problems devised in order to test these microorganisms. Some have concluded that cells are intelligent beings according to the definition of intelligence that they and I have proposed. 50/50 is the best I can offer you.

I fully understand your definition of intelligence and it fits the function of single-celled animals. I use the same definition as you, and your acceptance of the 50/50 observation I use, in an indirect way admits that I might be right 50/50.


DAVID: You are perfectly correct. From the outside it is either/or, 50/50%. But that does not tell us what is truly happening on the inside. I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

dhw: And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.

'Alternative unproven explanations' are nebulous propositions. They may fit your logical review of factual material, but they do not fit my logical interpretations. We will remain apart.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by dhw, Sunday, January 01, 2017, 11:47 (2634 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I fully understand your definition of intelligence and it fits the function of single-celled animals. I use the same definition as you, and your acceptance of the 50/50 observation I use, in an indirect way admits that I might be right 50/50.

No problem, so long as you acknowledge that I too might be right.

DAVID: I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

dhw: And I have pointed out over and over again that scientists can ONLY study molecular reactions, even in their attempts to understand the source of human intelligence. I don’t have a problem with your prediction that your unproven prejudices will be confirmed. Dawkins has the same approach to science. My objection is to his and your dismissal of alternative unproven explanations that do not fit in with his/your prejudices.

DAVID: 'Alternative unproven explanations' are nebulous propositions. They may fit your logical review of factual material, but they do not fit my logical interpretations. We will remain apart.

There is nothing nebulous about my hypothetical explanation (cellular intelligence), just as there is nothing nebulous about your prejudice (cells are all automatons). My objection is to the fact that you constantly state your own unproven prejudices as if they were facts, and you refuse to acknowledge that unproven alternatives are possible. However, the comments above are somewhat more moderate in tone - particularly the reference to the logic of my hypothesis. Thank you.

slime mold intelligence transfers

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 01, 2017, 21:14 (2633 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I fully understand your definition of intelligence and it fits the function of single-celled animals. I use the same definition as you, and your acceptance of the 50/50 observation I use, in an indirect way admits that I might be right 50/50.

dhw: No problem, so long as you acknowledge that I too might be right.

Can't do that. I sincerely believe you are wrong.


DAVID: I have pointed out over and over that all that is ever found is molecular reactions when looking inside. Those reactions are guided by information in all the layers of the genome, only a portion of which are fully understood so far. My opinion of 100% is my prediction for the endpoint of full understanding of how living cells work.

DAVID: 'Alternative unproven explanations' are nebulous propositions. They may fit your logical review of factual material, but they do not fit my logical interpretations. We will remain apart.

dhw: There is nothing nebulous about my hypothetical explanation (cellular intelligence), just as there is nothing nebulous about your prejudice (cells are all automatons). My objection is to the fact that you constantly state your own unproven prejudices as if they were facts, and you refuse to acknowledge that unproven alternatives are possible. However, the comments above are somewhat more moderate in tone - particularly the reference to the logic of my hypothesis. Thank you.

I'm afraid I do not consider any cells capable of what you propose. I continue to present living biochemistry that is too complex for cells to develop or invent on their own. You are counting on comments by Shapiro on his research that show simple responses to stimuli or alterations of DNA by single-celled organisms to make small adjustments. This cannot translate to having cell communities design the changes in gaps of the whale series as one of the best examples of complex evolution.

slime mold decisions: following light

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 30, 2017, 15:47 (2546 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study with light and darkness:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/slime-molds-see-the-light?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos...

"Flashing light seems to sharpen the decision-making abilities of slime mold, according to new research from Australia.

"Slime molds (Physarum polycephalum) comprise a large collection of amoeba-like single-cell organisms all joined together and functioning as a self-organised colony. The colonies exhibit the ability to act in a coordinated manner towards a single end – navigating a course towards food, for instance.

"In the wild, slime molds prefer dark places, and move away from sunlight, a process that can only happen slowly. A study conducted Bernd Meyer and colleagues from Monash University in Melbourne sought to replicate real world conditions for the molds by exposing them to the sort of intermittent light bursts they would normally encounter during the day.

"Given two pathways to food sources – one dark and stable, the other intermittently illuminated – the slime molds reached their goals more efficiently when using the partially lit route.

"To Meyer, the flashing light represented ‘noise’, or disruption, to the mold’s collective operating system. The result “reveals that noise in self-organised decision making is a fundamental driver for the ability to flexibly adapt behavior in changing environments,” he says.

"In the study, published in the journal PLOS One, he notes that although more research is needed, results so far fit mathematical models designed to describe the decision-making abilities of other self-organised systems, such as ant nests, bacterial colonies, and humans."

Comment: They are strange, but represent a path to multicellularity, which is still unexplained.

slime mold decisions:habituation

by David Turell @, Friday, July 13, 2018, 22:41 (2075 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, July 13, 2018, 22:49

Has been demonstrated in that they can learn to ignore substances they generally avoid:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/slime-molds-remember-but-do-they-learn-20180709/

" Audrey Dussutour, [is] a biologist at France’s National Center for Scientific Research in Toulouse. Her group not only taught slime molds to ignore noxious substances that they would normally avoid, but demonstrated that the organisms could remember this behavior after a year of physiologically disruptive enforced sleep. But do these results prove that slime molds — and perhaps a wide range of other organisms that lack brains — can exhibit a form of primitive cognition?

***

"slime molds can be taught new tricks; depending on the species, they may not like caffeine, salt or strong light, but they can learn that no-go areas marked with these are not as bad as they seem, a process known as habituation.

“'By classical definitions of habituation, this primitive unicellular organism is learning, just as animals with brains do,” said Chris Reid, a behavioral biologist at Macquarie University in Australia. “As slime molds don’t have any neurons, the mechanisms of the learning process must be completely different; however, the outcome and functional significance are the same.”

***

"research by Dussutour and others suggests that slime molds can transfer their acquired memories from cell to cell, said František Baluška, a plant cell biologist at the University of Bonn. “This is extremely exciting for our understanding of much larger organisms such as animals, humans and plants.”

**

"To reach the oatmeal, the slime molds had to grow across gelatin bridges laced with either caffeine or quinine, harmless but bitter chemicals that the organisms are known to avoid.
“In the first experiment, the slime molds took 10 hours to cross the bridge and they really tried not to touch it,” Dussutour said. After two days, the slime molds began to ignore the bitter substance, and after six days each group stopped responding to the deterrent.

"The habituation that the slime molds had learned was specific to the substance: Slime molds that had habituated to caffeine were still reluctant to cross a bridge containing quinine, and vice versa. This showed that the organisms had learned to recognize a particular stimulus and to adjust their response to it, and not to push across bridges indiscriminately.

***

"But Dussutour wanted to push further and see whether that habituating memory could be recalled in the long term. So she and her team put the blobs to sleep for a year by drying them up in a controlled manner. In March, they woke up the blobs — which found themselves surrounded by salt. The non-habituated slime molds died, perhaps from osmotic shock because they could not cope with how rapidly moisture leaked out of their cells. “We lost a lot of slime molds like that,” Dussutour said. “But habituated ones survived.” They also quickly started extending out across their salty surroundings to hunt for food.

"What that means, according to Dussutour, who described this unpublished work at a scientific meeting in April at the University of Bremen in Germany, is that a slime mold can learn — and it can keep that knowledge during dormancy,

***

"More fundamentally, she said, this result also means that there is such a thing as “primitive cognition,” a form of cognition that is not restricted to organisms with a brain.

"Scientists have no idea what mechanism underpins this kind of cognition. Baluška thinks that a number of processes and molecules might be involved, and that they may vary among simple organisms. In the case of slime molds, their cytoskeleton may form smart, complex networks able to process sensory information. “They feed this information up to the nuclei,” he said.

***

“'Most neuroscientists I have talked to about slime mold intelligence are quite happy to accept that the experiments are valid and show similar functional outcomes to the same experiments performed on animals with brains,” Reid said. What they seem to take issue with is the use of terms traditionally reserved for psychology and neuroscience and almost universally associated with brains, such as learning, memory and intelligence. “Slime mold researchers insist that functionally equivalent behavior observed in the slime mold should use the same descriptive terms as for brained animals, while classical neuroscientists insist that the very definition of learning and intelligence requires a neuron-based architecture,” he said."

Comment: It is obvious primitive life can habituate. How the process works is unknown, but not neural in any sense. It is evidence for some form of panosychism which dhw will appreciate.

slime mold decisions:habituation

by dhw, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 12:12 (2075 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: It is obvious primitive life can habituate. How the process works is unknown, but not neural in any sense. It is evidence for some form of panpsychism which dhw will appreciate.

Yes, it is evidence that brainless organisms have their own form of intelligence. Thank you.

slime mold decisions:habituation

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 19:09 (2075 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: It is obvious primitive life can habituate. How the process works is unknown, but not neural in any sense. It is evidence for some form of panpsychism which dhw will appreciate.

dhw: Yes, it is evidence that brainless organisms have their own form of intelligence. Thank you.

Not on your side, but will always cover all the bases.

slime mold decisions: planning for stress

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 22:22 (2053 days ago) @ David Turell

Slime mold sensing stressful environmental problems pack food for later survival:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-slime-mold-near-death-packs-bacteria-feed-next-...

"In the final frenzy of reproduction and death, social amoebas secrete proteins that help preserve a starter kit of food for its offspring.

"Dictyostelium discoideum, a type of slime mold in soil, eats bacteria. Some wild forms of this species essentially farm the microbes, passing them along in spore cases that give the next generation of amoebas the beginnings of a fine local patch of prey. Tests find that the trick to keeping the parental immune system from killing this starter crop of bacteria is a surge of proteins called lectins, researchers say in the July 27 Science.

"Lectins create a different way for the amoebas to treat bacteria: as actual symbionts inside cells, instead of as prey or infections, says study coauthor Adam Kuspa, a molecular cell biologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. In a lab test of this ability, coating other bacteria with lectin derived from a plant allowed bacteria to slip inside cells from mice and survive as symbiotic residents.

"The findings mark another chapter in a story that has been upending decades of what people thought they knew about social amoebas eating bacteria. The basic, almost alien, scenario is still true: D. discoideum amoebas, nicknamed Dicty, start life as single cells. When food dwindles, cells come together into a much bigger, multicellular slug-shaped creature with eight to 10 types of cells and the power to crawl. It then develops into something more like a fungus with a stalk holding up a case of spores, which start the next generation of amoebas.

***

"Then in 2011, researchers discovered that some Dicty strains are “farmers,” routinely packing live bacteria into spore cases, and jump-starting new bacterial livestock with each generation (SN: 2/12/11, p. 11). “That was a shock,” Kuspa says.

"Researchers also discovered that the Dicty animal-like slug phase forms an immune system that kills bacteria, even as evidence grew that some bacteria had uses beyond food, such as providing defense chemistry. But how the slug avoided killing its own helpful bacteria was a mystery.

"Comparing secretions of Dicty strains carrying bacteria versus strains that don’t showed a “dead-obvious” difference, Kuspa says: more lectins called discoidin A and discoidin C in the carrier forms. A series of tests supplying and withholding the proteins showed big effects on the fates of bacteria. The researchers found that the lectins raise the chances that bacteria can slip inside an amoeba cell and live hidden from immune-system sentinels that purge free-living intruders. That gives the bacteria a chance to end up in the spore case.

"Lectins’ powers help make sense of how the startling discovery of bacterial farming fits with the revelation of social amoebas’ bacteria-killing immune systems. “Outstanding" work, says Debra Brock of Washington University in St. Louis, who studies both phenomena. “I love mechanisms.'”

Comment: We knew special groups of amoeba could make spores for survival, but supplying food is amazing. Chance or design?

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 21, 2020, 20:42 (1397 days ago) @ David Turell

Not everyone cooperates in stalk building. Why?:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/out-of-sync-loners-may-secretly-protect-orderly-swarms-2...

"Yet there are always individuals that don’t participate in the collective behavior — the odd bird or insect or mammal that remains just a little out of sync with the rest; the stray cell or bacterium that seems to have missed some call to arms. Researchers usually pay them little heed, dismissing them as insignificant outliers.

"But a handful of scientists have started to suspect otherwise. Their hunch is that these individuals are signs of something deeper, a broader evolutionary strategy at work. Now, new research validating that hypothesis has opened up a very different way of thinking about the study of collective behavior.

***

"Scientists have used slime molds to experimentally investigate the emergence and maintenance of social behavior, identifying mechanisms that ensure cooperation among the amoebas. But they’ve always focused on the aggregated cells. Tarnita and her team wanted to investigate whether the cells that stayed behind — the “loners,” as they called them — also played an important role.

"As they reported in 2015, those loners turned out to be perfectly functional, eating and dividing regularly in the presence of nutrients. Their offspring could aggregate normally when starved — and they always left behind some loners of their own. Their presence seemed to be a consistent aspect of slime mold behavior.

***

"One shock was that the loners constituted up to 30% of the original population, sometimes exceeding the number of cells in the aggregate’s stalk.

But that wasn’t all. The researchers had predicted that a constant fraction of cells would stay behind in each test. That would have meant that each cell was in effect independently flipping a (weighted) coin about whether to participate in the collective behavior. “We totally thought it was going to be a coin flip,” Rossine said. “We were convinced.”

"As the scientists reported in March in PLOS Biology, however, instead of a constant fraction of loners, they found a constant number of them. “There is some sort of a set point that the cells have memorized,”

***

"That natural variation between strains means that loner behavior is a heritable trait that natural selection can act on. Further experiments and simulations showed that this number is also influenced by environmental factors, which affect how the cells’ chemical signals diffuse and interact to facilitate — or impede — aggregation.

***

"The loner cells might therefore serve as a form of insurance in case any of those [adverse] situations transpire. By staying out of the group, “you leave behind these seeds,” Tarnita said — seeds that could regenerate the population and its multicellular dynamics all on their own.

***

" (1) The researchers hope to pin down what’s happening at the molecular level to enable this strategy in the slime molds. But they’re most excited by the prospect of studying loners in other systems. “The theoretical idea of the loner as something that stabilizes the existence of the group is a very powerful one,” Rossine said. (my bold)

***

"There are other contexts in which loner behavior might prove evolutionarily crucial as well. Couzin and others have found, for instance, that some forms of loner behavior can lead to the emergence of leaders in groups. (2)“Are these differences predetermined?” Couzin said. Or are they products of “a decision-making strategy that depends on both the physical and the biotic environment around the animals?”

***

"the work demonstrates that to truly understand how collective and cooperative behaviors evolved, and how they continue to operate, researchers may need to study the seeming misfits that don’t participate."

Comment: dhw should delight in this study. It is not about cooperating multicellular cells. They are built that way in the process of embryological development. This is about individual cells who make decisions. Note the first bold. It could be automatic molecular reactions which are due to (see bold 2) environmental factors. However, slime mold is a step on the way to multicellularity. Does that mean some cells in the huge multicellular group can actually be independent and act intellectually? We don't know what tells DNA to add methyl groups in epigenetics! There is a reason for that: We can read genes in the code, and we can show what the gene does, but we have no idea how that gene does it!!! Also, what signals DNA to make modifications? These disconnects in what we can understand may never be solved. But they are the key to speciation. The hemoglobin article from yesterday says two mutations did it. Not by chance. An easy dabble for God to insert the changes.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:38 (1397 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: (1) The researchers hope to pin down what’s happening at the molecular level to enable this strategy in the slime molds. (David’s bold)

"There are other contexts in which loner behavior might prove evolutionarily crucial as well. Couzin and others have found, for instance, that some forms of loner behavior can lead to the emergence of leaders in groups. (2)“Are these differences predetermined?” Couzin said. Or are they products of “a decision-making strategy that depends on both the physical and the biotic environment around the animals?

"...the work demonstrates that to truly understand how collective and cooperative behaviors evolved, and how they continue to operate, researchers may need to study the seeming misfits that don’t participate."

DAVID: dhw should delight in this study. It is not about cooperating multicellular cells. They are built that way in the process of embryological development.

Once again I must thank you for your fairness in presenting articles favourable to my own arguments. I am indeed delighted. First comment: cooperation has to start somewhere. Once it is established, it will be passed on, and will continue until new problems arise, in which case the in-built intelligence will once more have to make adjustments. See below.

DAVID: This is about individual cells who make decisions.

And the ability to make decisions is one of the characteristics of intelligence.

DAVID: Note the first bold. It could be automatic molecular reactions which are due to (see bold 2) environmental factors.

But bold 2 entails decision-making! And that is my point: it is when new problems arise (environmental factors), that intelligence comes into play. Your “could be automatic” is the alternative to intelligence.

DAVID: However, slime mold is a step on the way to multicellularity. Does that mean some cells in the huge multicellular group can actually be independent and act intellectually? We don't know what tells DNA to add methyl groups in epigenetics! There is a reason for that: We can read genes in the code, and we can show what the gene does, but we have no idea how that gene does it!!! Also, what signals DNA to make modifications? These disconnects in what we can understand may never be solved. But they are the key to speciation.

Precisely. What you are now calling the “multicellular group” is what I call the cell community, which you try to trivialize by calling it the cell committee, and yes indeed, the “disconnects” can all be connected up if some cells can “act intellectually”, make decisions, and all other cells cooperate in implementing those decisions. My thanks again for this highly revealing article. Despite all our disagreements, you remain a great science teacher!

Xxxxx
Under Nature’s Wonders:

Bumble bees can change the timing of flowering to suit their needs:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2244009-bees-force-plants-to-flower-early-by-cutti...

DAVID: Leaves don't taste like pollen. We must ask how did this start to become an instinct. The flowering occurs somewhat long after the leaf munching, so it is not visual observation. Does the bee see leaf damage and then later observes earlier flowering and mentally makes the connection to start chomping? No answer here. Perhaps God helped?

Which means, presumably, perhaps God programmed bumble-bee-leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or God gave bumble bees a course in leaf-biting. A theistic alternative to be considered is that God might have given ALL organisms the intelligence to see, observe and make mental connections.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Friday, May 22, 2020, 15:52 (1397 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: (1) The researchers hope to pin down what’s happening at the molecular level to enable this strategy in the slime molds. (David’s bold)

"There are other contexts in which loner behavior might prove evolutionarily crucial as well. Couzin and others have found, for instance, that some forms of loner behavior can lead to the emergence of leaders in groups. (2)“Are these differences predetermined?” Couzin said. Or are they products of “a decision-making strategy that depends on both the physical and the biotic environment around the animals?

"...the work demonstrates that to truly understand how collective and cooperative behaviors evolved, and how they continue to operate, researchers may need to study the seeming misfits that don’t participate."

DAVID: dhw should delight in this study. It is not about cooperating multicellular cells. They are built that way in the process of embryological development.

dhw: Once again I must thank you for your fairness in presenting articles favourable to my own arguments. I am indeed delighted. First comment: cooperation has to start somewhere. Once it is established, it will be passed on, and will continue until new problems arise, in which case the in-built intelligence will once more have to make adjustments. See below.

DAVID: This is about individual cells who make decisions.

dhw: And the ability to make decisions is one of the characteristics of intelligence.

It is also a characteristic of intelligently designed automatic responses


DAVID: Note the first bold. It could be automatic molecular reactions which are due to (see bold 2) environmental factors.

dhw: But bold 2 entails decision-making! And that is my point: it is when new problems arise (environmental factors), that intelligence comes into play. Your “could be automatic” is the alternative to intelligence.

I know.


DAVID: However, slime mold is a step on the way to multicellularity. Does that mean some cells in the huge multicellular group can actually be independent and act intellectually? We don't know what tells DNA to add methyl groups in epigenetics! There is a reason for that: We can read genes in the code, and we can show what the gene does, but we have no idea how that gene does it!!! Also, what signals DNA to make modifications? These disconnects in what we can understand may never be solved. But they are the key to speciation.

dhw: Precisely. What you are now calling the “multicellular group” is what I call the cell community, which you try to trivialize by calling it the cell committee, and yes indeed, the “disconnects” can all be connected up if some cells can “act intellectually”, make decisions, and all other cells cooperate in implementing those decisions. My thanks again for this highly revealing article. Despite all our disagreements, you remain a great science teacher!

While our conclusions often disagree.


Xxxxx
Under Nature’s Wonders:

Bumble bees can change the timing of flowering to suit their needs:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2244009-bees-force-plants-to-flower-early-by-cutti...

DAVID: Leaves don't taste like pollen. We must ask how did this start to become an instinct. The flowering occurs somewhat long after the leaf munching, so it is not visual observation. Does the bee see leaf damage and then later observes earlier flowering and mentally makes the connection to start chomping? No answer here. Perhaps God helped?

dhw: Which means, presumably, perhaps God programmed bumble-bee-leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or God gave bumble bees a course in leaf-biting. A theistic alternative to be considered is that God might have given ALL organisms the intelligence to see, observe and make mental connections.

The mental connections you want require the bees to put different observations at different times into a clearly thought out new concept: bite leaves and pollen will come. It requires a human level of thought. Bee level is not that

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:14 (1396 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This is about individual cells who make decisions.

dhw: And the ability to make decisions is one of the characteristics of intelligence.

DAVID: It is also a characteristic of intelligently designed automatic responses.

So back to 50/50, which is no reason for rejecting any theory.

Bumble bees can change the timing of flowering to suit their needs:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2244009-bees-force-plants-to-flower-early-by-cutti...

DAVID: Leaves don't taste like pollen. We must ask how did this start to become an instinct. The flowering occurs somewhat long after the leaf munching, so it is not visual observation. Does the bee see leaf damage and then later observes earlier flowering and mentally makes the connection to start chomping? No answer here. Perhaps God helped?

dhw: Which means, presumably, perhaps God programmed bumble-bee-leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or God gave bumble bees a course in leaf-biting. A theistic alternative to be considered is that God might have given ALL organisms the intelligence to see, observe and make mental connections.

DAVID: The mental connections you want require the bees to put different observations at different times into a clearly thought out new concept: bite leaves and pollen will come. It requires a human level of thought. Bee level is not that.

Nobody is claiming that bees have a human level of thought, but they observe, remember, communicate and cooperate. Once a discovery has been made, it will be passed on. Out of interest, which of your two methods of “help” do you think more likely: God programmed leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or he stepped in to teach a few lucky bees how to do it?

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 23, 2020, 20:29 (1395 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This is about individual cells who make decisions.

dhw: And the ability to make decisions is one of the characteristics of intelligence.

DAVID: It is also a characteristic of intelligently designed automatic responses.

So back to 50/50, which is no reason for rejecting any theory.

Bumble bees can change the timing of flowering to suit their needs:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2244009-bees-force-plants-to-flower-early-by-cutti...

DAVID: Leaves don't taste like pollen. We must ask how did this start to become an instinct. The flowering occurs somewhat long after the leaf munching, so it is not visual observation. Does the bee see leaf damage and then later observes earlier flowering and mentally makes the connection to start chomping? No answer here. Perhaps God helped?

dhw: Which means, presumably, perhaps God programmed bumble-bee-leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or God gave bumble bees a course in leaf-biting. A theistic alternative to be considered is that God might have given ALL organisms the intelligence to see, observe and make mental connections.

DAVID: The mental connections you want require the bees to put different observations at different times into a clearly thought out new concept: bite leaves and pollen will come. It requires a human level of thought. Bee level is not that.

dhw: Nobody is claiming that bees have a human level of thought, but they observe, remember, communicate and cooperate. Once a discovery has been made, it will be passed on. Out of interest, which of your two methods of “help” do you think more likely: God programmed leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or he stepped in to teach a few lucky bees how to do it?

Do you really think that bees which do all the simple mental gymnastics you describe can get to the contemplative level in the bold? You skipped over the point.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Sunday, May 24, 2020, 08:49 (1395 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The mental connections you want require the bees to put different observations at different times into a clearly thought out new concept: bite leaves and pollen will come. It requires a human level of thought. Bee level is not that. (David's bold)

dhw: Nobody is claiming that bees have a human level of thought, but they observe, remember, communicate and cooperate. Once a discovery has been made, it will be passed on. Out of interest, which of your two methods of “help” do you think more likely: God programmed leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or he stepped in to teach a few lucky bees how to do it?

DAVID: Do you really think that bees which do all the simple mental gymnastics you describe can get to the contemplative level in the bold? You skipped over the point.

What on earth is “contemplative” about this process?
QUOTE: worker bumblebees can make plants flower earlier than normal by using their mouthparts to pierce small holes in leaves.
"In a series of laboratory and outdoor experiments, the researchers found that bumblebees were more likely to pierce holes in the leaves of tomato plants and black mustard plants when deprived of food. The leaf damage caused the tomato plants to flower 30 days earlier than usual and the black mustard plants to flower 16 days earlier.”

Nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but biting a leaf, noticing and then remembering that 16-30 days later the plant flowers, does not require contemplation! It requires observing what happened, remembering what happened, and passing on the information to other bees, who will then perform the same trick. There is no “clearly thought out concept” or contemplation! Now please tell us whether you think your God preprogrammed the trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 24, 2020, 15:52 (1395 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The mental connections you want require the bees to put different observations at different times into a clearly thought out new concept: bite leaves and pollen will come. It requires a human level of thought. Bee level is not that. (David's bold)

dhw: Nobody is claiming that bees have a human level of thought, but they observe, remember, communicate and cooperate. Once a discovery has been made, it will be passed on. Out of interest, which of your two methods of “help” do you think more likely: God programmed leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or he stepped in to teach a few lucky bees how to do it?

DAVID: Do you really think that bees which do all the simple mental gymnastics you describe can get to the contemplative level in the bold? You skipped over the point.

dhw: What on earth is “contemplative” about this process?
QUOTE: worker bumblebees can make plants flower earlier than normal by using their mouthparts to pierce small holes in leaves.
"In a series of laboratory and outdoor experiments, the researchers found that bumblebees were more likely to pierce holes in the leaves of tomato plants and black mustard plants when deprived of food. The leaf damage caused the tomato plants to flower 30 days earlier than usual and the black mustard plants to flower 16 days earlier.”

dhw: Nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but biting a leaf, noticing and then remembering that 16-30 days later the plant flowers, does not require contemplation! It requires observing what happened, remembering what happened, and passing on the information to other bees, who will then perform the same trick. There is no “clearly thought out concept” or contemplation! Now please tell us whether you think your God preprogrammed the trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting.

What you have carefully left out is the reasoning involved: bees: "we bit leaves almost a month ago and now there are flowers that weren't there before. Did one cause the other?" What you are ignoring, as a superior human, is the integrative thinking involved. 'What is it like to be a bee?' Nagelizing it shows what you miss. Only repeated biting under the same circumstances would prove it to the bees and probably to us after first time around. God may well have helped.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Monday, May 25, 2020, 09:02 (1394 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Do you really think that bees which do all the simple mental gymnastics you describe can get to the contemplative level in the bold? You skipped over the point.

dhw: What on earth is “contemplative” about this process?

QUOTE: worker bumblebees can make plants flower earlier than normal by using their mouthparts to pierce small holes in leaves.
"In a series of laboratory and outdoor experiments, the researchers found that bumblebees were more likely to pierce holes in the leaves of tomato plants and black mustard plants when deprived of food. The leaf damage caused the tomato plants to flower 30 days earlier than usual and the black mustard plants to flower 16 days earlier.

dhw: Nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but biting a leaf, noticing and then remembering that 16-30 days later the plant flowers, does not require contemplation! It requires observing what happened, remembering what happened, and passing on the information to other bees, who will then perform the same trick. There is no “clearly thought out concept” or contemplation! Now please tell us whether you think your God preprogrammed the trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting.

DAVID: What you have carefully left out is the reasoning involved: bees: "we bit leaves almost a month ago and now there are flowers that weren't there before. Did one cause the other?" What you are ignoring, as a superior human, is the integrative thinking involved. 'What is it like to be a bee?' Nagelizing it shows what you miss. Only repeated biting under the same circumstances would prove it to the bees and probably to us after first time around. God may well have helped.

What you have carefully left out is my statement that nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but I would imagine a different dialogue. "Hey girls, I bit that leaf a fortnight ago and now it's flowered! Must remember that for next time, eh?"
I asked you whether you thought your God preprogrammed this trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting. These are the only forms of “help” (or guidelines) you have ever managed to come up with. If you think both of these to be unlikely, the only alternative is that bees observe, remember, and pass on information – not through human-type calculations or “contemplation”, but through their own form of intelligence.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Monday, May 25, 2020, 14:59 (1394 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Do you really think that bees which do all the simple mental gymnastics you describe can get to the contemplative level in the bold? You skipped over the point.

dhw: What on earth is “contemplative” about this process?

QUOTE: worker bumblebees can make plants flower earlier than normal by using their mouthparts to pierce small holes in leaves.
"In a series of laboratory and outdoor experiments, the researchers found that bumblebees were more likely to pierce holes in the leaves of tomato plants and black mustard plants when deprived of food. The leaf damage caused the tomato plants to flower 30 days earlier than usual and the black mustard plants to flower 16 days earlier.

dhw: Nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but biting a leaf, noticing and then remembering that 16-30 days later the plant flowers, does not require contemplation! It requires observing what happened, remembering what happened, and passing on the information to other bees, who will then perform the same trick. There is no “clearly thought out concept” or contemplation! Now please tell us whether you think your God preprogrammed the trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting.

DAVID: What you have carefully left out is the reasoning involved: bees: "we bit leaves almost a month ago and now there are flowers that weren't there before. Did one cause the other?" What you are ignoring, as a superior human, is the integrative thinking involved. 'What is it like to be a bee?' Nagelizing it shows what you miss. Only repeated biting under the same circumstances would prove it to the bees and probably to us after first time around. God may well have helped.

dhw: What you have carefully left out is my statement that nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but I would imagine a different dialogue. "Hey girls, I bit that leaf a fortnight ago and now it's flowered! Must remember that for next time, eh?"

dhw: I asked you whether you thought your God preprogrammed this trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting. These are the only forms of “help” (or guidelines) you have ever managed to come up with. If you think both of these to be unlikely, the only alternative is that bees observe, remember, and pass on information – not through human-type calculations or “contemplation”, but through their own form of intelligence.

You've ignored my point that even humans would not trust one event. It might be an accident of timing, but your bee story lacks that insight and is lacking entirely if thought through.
I've admitted long ago, I don't know how God helps. Directed mutations of the genome is obvious. I presented a study recently with two mutations changing/advancing evolution.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:01 (1393 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you have carefully left out is the reasoning involved: bees: "we bit leaves almost a month ago and now there are flowers that weren't there before. Did one cause the other?" What you are ignoring, as a superior human, is the integrative thinking involved. 'What is it like to be a bee?' Nagelizing it shows what you miss. Only repeated biting under the same circumstances would prove it to the bees and probably to us after first time around. God may well have helped.

dhw: What you have carefully left out is my statement that nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but I would imagine a different dialogue. "Hey girls, I bit that leaf a fortnight ago and now it's flowered! Must remember that for next time, eh?"

dhw: I asked you whether you thought your God preprogrammed this trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting. These are the only forms of “help” (or guidelines) you have ever managed to come up with. If you think both of these to be unlikely, the only alternative is that bees observe, remember, and pass on information – not through human-type calculations or “contemplation”, but through their own form of intelligence.

DAVID: You've ignored my point that even humans would not trust one event. It might be an accident of timing, but your bee story lacks that insight and is lacking entirely if thought through. I've admitted long ago, I don't know how God helps. Directed mutations of the genome is obvious. I presented a study recently with two mutations changing/advancing evolution.

Now you are complaining that my bee doesn’t think like a human being! Of course it doesn’t. I do not for one second believe that a bee would say to itself: “Did one cause the other?” It would observe, remember and communicate. I asked you for your explanation of this particular case: did your God programme it 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the bees a lesson in leaf-biting? Why don’t you give me a direct answer? “Directed mutations of the genome” does not explain how bees learned the leaf-biting trick! If you have no idea how God might have “helped” the bees to learn it, and you discount preprogramming and lecturing, you are left with bee intelligence. Not human intelligence, but bee intelligence.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 18:29 (1393 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you have carefully left out is the reasoning involved: bees: "we bit leaves almost a month ago and now there are flowers that weren't there before. Did one cause the other?" What you are ignoring, as a superior human, is the integrative thinking involved. 'What is it like to be a bee?' Nagelizing it shows what you miss. Only repeated biting under the same circumstances would prove it to the bees and probably to us after first time around. God may well have helped.

dhw: What you have carefully left out is my statement that nobody knows the origin of such “natural wonders”, but I would imagine a different dialogue. "Hey girls, I bit that leaf a fortnight ago and now it's flowered! Must remember that for next time, eh?"

dhw: I asked you whether you thought your God preprogrammed this trick 3.8 billion years ago or “stepped in” to teach bees a lesson in leaf-biting. These are the only forms of “help” (or guidelines) you have ever managed to come up with. If you think both of these to be unlikely, the only alternative is that bees observe, remember, and pass on information – not through human-type calculations or “contemplation”, but through their own form of intelligence.

DAVID: You've ignored my point that even humans would not trust one event. It might be an accident of timing, but your bee story lacks that insight and is lacking entirely if thought through. I've admitted long ago, I don't know how God helps. Directed mutations of the genome is obvious. I presented a study recently with two mutations changing/advancing evolution.

dhw: Now you are complaining that my bee doesn’t think like a human being! Of course it doesn’t. I do not for one second believe that a bee would say to itself: “Did one cause the other?” It would observe, remember and communicate.

You have still avoided the issue of a chance happening of 'bite leaves and then flowers'. Bees don't automatically bite leaves, which makes this so unusual. To solidify the issue it requires multiple repeated attempts with the same result for both bees and humans to remove the possibility of a chance reaction. For both it DOES NOT require our level of thought!!! Yours is an entirely superficial analysis to advance your agenda of downgrading the human intelligence difference from animals.

dhw: I asked you for your explanation of this particular case: did your God programme it 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the bees a lesson in leaf-biting? Why don’t you give me a direct answer? “Directed mutations of the genome” does not explain how bees learned the leaf-biting trick! If you have no idea how God might have “helped” the bees to learn it, and you discount preprogramming and lecturing, you are left with bee intelligence. Not human intelligence, but bee intelligence.

Not knowing exactly how the bees figured it out with God's help doesn't remove the point I made above. Obviously, God might have manipulated the genome so bees had a new instinct. I really doubt He appeared and gave lessons. Why didn't you accept that genomic point when I made it yesterday? To advance bee intelligence! Same old tired agenda.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 20:23 (1392 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Now you are complaining that my bee doesn’t think like a human being! Of course it doesn’t. I do not for one second believe that a bee would say to itself: “Did one cause the other?” It would observe, remember and communicate.


David: You have still avoided the issue of a chance happening of 'bite leaves and then flowers'. Bees don't automatically bite leaves, which makes this so unusual. To solidify the issue it requires multiple repeated attempts with the same result for both bees and humans to remove the possibility of a chance reaction. For both it DOES NOT require our level of thought!!! Yours is an entirely superficial analysis to advance your agenda of downgrading the human intelligence difference from animals.

dhw: I asked you for your explanation of this particular case: did your God programme it 3.8 billion years ago, or did he give the bees a lesson in leaf-biting? Why don’t you give me a direct answer? “Directed mutations of the genome” does not explain how bees learned the leaf-biting trick! If you have no idea how God might have “helped” the bees to learn it, and you discount preprogramming and lecturing, you are left with bee intelligence. Not human intelligence, but bee intelligence.


David: Not knowing exactly how the bees figured it out with God's help doesn't remove the point I made above. Obviously, God might have manipulated the genome so bees had a new instinct. I really doubt He appeared and gave lessons. Why didn't you accept that genomic point when I made it yesterday? To advance bee intelligence! Same old tired agenda.

Single observations prove nothing and you know that full-well. As example, below is a study that requires many observations:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/star-black-hole-high-energy-neutrino

"With no electric charge and very little mass, neutrinos are known to blast across the cosmos at high energies. But scientists have yet to fully track down how the particles get so juiced up.

"Spotted on October 1, 2019, the little neutrino packed a punch: an energy of 200 trillion electron volts. That’s about 30 times the energy of the protons in the most powerful human-made particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider. The neutrino’s signature was picked up by IceCube, a detector frozen deep in the Antarctic ice. That detector senses light produced when neutrinos interact with the ice.

***

"Determining where these particles come from can help scientists better understand some of the most extreme environments in the cosmos. Previously, astronomers had matched up a different energetic neutrino with a blazar experiencing a flare-up (SN:7/12/18). A blazar is a bright source of light powered by a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. Both a blazar flare and a tidal disruption event “are very special activities, which is when a lot of energy is released in a small amount of time,” says astrophysicist Ke Fang of Stanford University, who was not involved with the study.

"Making more observations of high-energy neutrinos is crucial, Fang says. “This is the only way we can clearly understand how the universe is operating at this extreme energy.'”

Comment: We still don't understand a lot of why the universe works as it does.
This shows that chance events warrant repeated observation to be understood. The bee problem is no different.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 10:56 (1392 days ago) @ David Turell

We can skip all the preliminaries, since you have kindly made my case for me:

DAVID: Not knowing exactly how the bees figured it out with God's help doesn't remove the point I made above. Obviously, God might have manipulated the genome so bees had a new instinct. I really doubt He appeared and gave lessons. Why didn't you accept that genomic point when I made it yesterday? To advance bee intelligence! Same old tired agenda.

Thank you for agreeing that bees act intelligently. If you think he dabbled with their genome in order to make them more intelligent than they were before they bit the leaves, that’s up to you. But we can explain all the natural wonders and strategies if (theistic version) we assume that your God endowed cells with intelligence right from the start, instead of this non-stop dabbling with the genome, and that the cell communities which make up every multicellular organism used their God-given intelligence to perform their wonders.

From your second post:
QUOTE: "Making more observations of high-energy neutrinos is crucial, Fang says. “This is the only way we can clearly understand how the universe is operating at this extreme energy.'”

DAVID: We still don't understand a lot of why the universe works as it does.
This shows that chance events warrant repeated observation to be understood. The bee problem is no different.

I have no idea what this is meant to prove. Nobody expects bees to understand why bitten leaves lead to early flowering! All they need to know is that it does. And using the intelligence which you have at last granted them, they would have latched onto anything which improved their chances of survival.

Under “ants control aggression”:
QUOTE: "Researchers have discovered they use a clever, precise mechanism to switch on aggression towards intruders from other colonies to defend their own…

QUOTE: “But the new research shows it is not that simple. Ants hold off on attacking if they cannot smell anything—or even if they do not recognize a scent. “Rather a precise signal present on the non-nest mate must be correctly decoded for aggression to occur…”

DAVID: Note this is very tightly controlled automatic response, no thought involved, and indicates most animal responses are quite automatic.

If I see someone rushing at me with a knife in his hand, I will automatically decode the signal and conclude that he is an enemy. Therefore most human responses are quite automatic, eh? Why don’t you focus on those areas of behaviour which do not involve automatic responses: ants “have complex, highly organised social structures that help their colonies thrive”, build cities, devise military strategies, have sophisticated farming techniques, make themselves into bridges. If God exists, he might have dabbled with their genome each time in order to “advance their intelligence”, but I reckon it’s more likely that intelligence was built into the first cells and inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 15:45 (1392 days ago) @ dhw

We can skip all the preliminaries, since you have kindly made my case for me:

DAVID: Not knowing exactly how the bees figured it out with God's help doesn't remove the point I made above. Obviously, God might have manipulated the genome so bees had a new instinct. I really doubt He appeared and gave lessons. Why didn't you accept that genomic point when I made it yesterday? To advance bee intelligence! Same old tired agenda.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bees act intelligently.

I didn't. The tired agenda is yours pushing intelligence that doesn't exist. God helps them to act intelligently.

dhw: If you think he dabbled with their genome in order to make them more intelligent than they were before they bit the leaves, that’s up to you. But we can explain all the natural wonders and strategies if (theistic version) we assume that your God endowed cells with intelligence right from the start, instead of this non-stop dabbling with the genome, and that the cell communities which make up every multicellular organism used their God-given intelligence to perform their wonders.

Thank you for bringing in God to explain the intelligent actions you see. That way you avoid explaining how intelligence could arise naturally without Him..


From your second post:
QUOTE: "Making more observations of high-energy neutrinos is crucial, Fang says. “This is the only way we can clearly understand how the universe is operating at this extreme energy.'”

DAVID: We still don't understand a lot of why the universe works as it does.
This shows that chance events warrant repeated observation to be understood. The bee problem is no different.

dhw: I have no idea what this is meant to prove. Nobody expects bees to understand why bitten leaves lead to early flowering! All they need to know is that it does. And using the intelligence which you have at last granted them, they would have latched onto anything which improved their chances of survival.

You miss the point yet again. Only repeated observations will lead to a recognition of cause and effect with bitten leaf and subsequent early flowering. And that requires a correlating conception by a mind capable of it..


Under “ants control aggression”:
QUOTE: "Researchers have discovered they use a clever, precise mechanism to switch on aggression towards intruders from other colonies to defend their own…

QUOTE: “But the new research shows it is not that simple. Ants hold off on attacking if they cannot smell anything—or even if they do not recognize a scent. “Rather a precise signal present on the non-nest mate must be correctly decoded for aggression to occur…”

DAVID: Note this is very tightly controlled automatic response, no thought involved, and indicates most animal responses are quite automatic.

dhw: If I see someone rushing at me with a knife in his hand, I will automatically decode the signal and conclude that he is an enemy. Therefore most human responses are quite automatic, eh? Why don’t you focus on those areas of behaviour which do not involve automatic responses: ants “have complex, highly organised social structures that help their colonies thrive”, build cities, devise military strategies, have sophisticated farming techniques, make themselves into bridges. If God exists, he might have dabbled with their genome each time in order to “advance their intelligence”, but I reckon it’s more likely that intelligence was built into the first cells and inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms.

Ants are not human. You still want oodles of intelligence everywhere, but please explain then how it arises naturally as life evolves naturally, no God ever involved. As an agnostic you keep explaining it both ways but only one way is correct, but that keeps you comfortable.. Intelligence always involves mental activity. Try being uncomfortable and pick a side.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by dhw, Thursday, May 28, 2020, 11:47 (1391 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not knowing exactly how the bees figured it out with God's help doesn't remove the point I made above. Obviously, God might have manipulated the genome so bees had a new instinct. I really doubt He appeared and gave lessons. Why didn't you accept that genomic point when I made it yesterday? To advance bee intelligence! Same old tired agenda.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bees act intelligently.

DAVID: I didn't. The tired agenda is yours pushing intelligence that doesn't exist. God helps them to act intelligently.

I asked you how he helped. You dismissed the idea that he gave them lessons, and suggested that he dabbled with their genome. I assumed your comment meant that this was in order to advance bee intelligence. How else would fiddling with their genome enable them to observe, remember and communicate the fact that a bitten leaf produced an early flowering?

dhw: If you think he dabbled with their genome in order to make them more intelligent than they were before they bit the leaves, that’s up to you. But we can explain all the natural wonders and strategies if (theistic version) we assume that your God endowed cells with intelligence right from the start, instead of this non-stop dabbling with the genome, and that the cell communities which make up every multicellular organism used their God-given intelligence to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Thank you for bringing in God to explain the intelligent actions you see. That way you avoid explaining how intelligence could arise naturally without Him.

I have always brought God in as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence! The disagreement between us is over your insistence that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, whereas I propose that (theistic version) he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing.

DAVID: You miss the point yet again. Only repeated observations will lead to a recognition of cause and effect with bitten leaf and subsequent early flowering. And that requires a correlating conception by a mind capable of it.

Little Miss Bee remembered biting a leaf on a plant which flowered early. She mentioned it to her buddy bees, and they tried the trick on different plants, and it worked. Your comment on neutrinos involved understanding how things work. Bees would not sit there puzzling over why plants flower earlier. The trick works, and that’s it. Observation, memory and communication – all attributes of the intelligence which you think your God can advance with a dabble although it doesn’t actually exist.

Under “ants control aggression”:

dhw: If God exists, he might have dabbled with their genome each time in order to “advance their intelligence”, but I reckon it’s more likely that intelligence was built into the first cells and inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms.

DAVID: Ants are not human.

We agree! Hence the bold above.

DAVID: You still want oodles of intelligence everywhere, but please explain then how it arises naturally as life evolves naturally, no God ever involved.

Because (theistic version) God endowed the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms. As above and about to be repeated below.

DAVID: As an agnostic you keep explaining it both ways but only one way is correct, but that keeps you comfortable.. Intelligence always involves mental activity. Try being uncomfortable and pick a side.

What “both ways”? Instead of your God preprogramming or dabbling everything, I have him endowing the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms….see bolds above.

slime mold decisions: begins to study loners

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 28, 2020, 15:25 (1391 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If you think he dabbled with their genome in order to make them more intelligent than they were before they bit the leaves, that’s up to you. But we can explain all the natural wonders and strategies if (theistic version) we assume that your God endowed cells with intelligence right from the start, instead of this non-stop dabbling with the genome, and that the cell communities which make up every multicellular organism used their God-given intelligence to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Thank you for bringing in God to explain the intelligent actions you see. That way you avoid explaining how intelligence could arise naturally without Him.

dhw: I have always brought God in as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence! The disagreement between us is over your insistence that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, whereas I propose that (theistic version) he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing.

As usual bringing in God when you have no explanation for a natural appearance of intelligence. You can't have it both ways.


DAVID: You miss the point yet again. Only repeated observations will lead to a recognition of cause and effect with bitten leaf and subsequent early flowering. And that requires a correlating conception by a mind capable of it.

dhw: Little Miss Bee remembered biting a leaf on a plant which flowered early. She mentioned it to her buddy bees, and they tried the trick on different plants, and it worked. Your comment on neutrinos involved understanding how things work. Bees would not sit there puzzling over why plants flower earlier. The trick works, and that’s it. Observation, memory and communication – all attributes of the intelligence which you think your God can advance with a dabble although it doesn’t actually exist.

You made up story is totally off the point: the two events weeks apart have to be correlated and need multiple observations to be a proven fact. You have your brain sitting in Miss Bee, but not acting as a human brain would have to act to see the relationship. Axiom: two events separated in time cannot be accepted as related without multiple examples recorded (mentaly or written). This is how observational science works.


Under “ants control aggression”:

dhw: If God exists, he might have dabbled with their genome each time in order to “advance their intelligence”, but I reckon it’s more likely that intelligence was built into the first cells and inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms.

DAVID: Ants are not human.

dhw: We agree! Hence the bold above.

Sounds like my pre-programming thought.


DAVID: You still want oodles of intelligence everywhere, but please explain then how it arises naturally as life evolves naturally, no God ever involved.

dhw: Because (theistic version) God endowed the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms. As above and about to be repeated below.

DAVID: As an agnostic you keep explaining it both ways but only one way is correct, but that keeps you comfortable.. Intelligence always involves mental activity. Try being uncomfortable and pick a side.

dhw: What “both ways”? Instead of your God preprogramming or dabbling everything, I have him endowing the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms….see bolds above.

Thank you for accepting pre-programming by God. Why not accept God? You are still having it both ways, because you have no explanation of intelligence without him.

slime mold decisions: another example

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 18:19 (1344 days ago) @ David Turell

Spore formation:

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/APB6XjoTAbggXw07_Qh3-DDjD54?reason=invalid_...

"Though they may resemble something from another planet, these strange, mushroom-like structures are in fact the reproductive phase of Physarum album, a slime mould species that feeds on bacteria on forest floors.

"Perched on top of each “stem” is the slime mould’s fruiting body, containing thousands of spores that burst and release their contents when the mould is ready to reproduce. Intricate though these structures are, most are only a few millimetres high. This makes them “painstakingly difficult to find”, says photographer Andy Sands from Hertfordshire in the UK, who took this shot.

"Slime moulds start out as single cells and can remain in this form all their lives if enough food is available. However, when supplies are scarce, hundreds of thousands of individuals can merge into a single, moving mass in the search for food."

Comment: amazing evolution from single cells of mold. This story is part of mailed in website to me. Nothing more to see

slime mold decisions: another example

by dhw, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 11:21 (1343 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Slime moulds start out as single cells and can remain in this form all their lives if enough food is available. However, when supplies are scarce, hundreds of thousands of individuals can merge into a single, moving mass in the search for food."

DAVID: amazing evolution from single cells of mold. This story is part of mailed in website to me. Nothing more to see

Thank you for this wonderful example of how evolution works! It started out as single cells which can still remain in the same form but also merged into single bodies of cooperating cells. And once the process of merging had begun, more and more new bodies formed, with variation upon variation as different cells pooled their individual resources. And over thousands of millions of years (we can scarcely conceive that length of time) the cooperating cells produced the vast variety of “single moving masses” that go to make up the history of life on Earth, culminating – we believe – in the most complex of all such masses: H. sapiens and his extraordinary brain.

slime mold decisions: another example

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 14:36 (1343 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Slime moulds start out as single cells and can remain in this form all their lives if enough food is available. However, when supplies are scarce, hundreds of thousands of individuals can merge into a single, moving mass in the search for food."

DAVID: amazing evolution from single cells of mold. This story is part of mailed in website to me. Nothing more to see

dhw: Thank you for this wonderful example of how evolution works! It started out as single cells which can still remain in the same form but also merged into single bodies of cooperating cells. And once the process of merging had begun, more and more new bodies formed, with variation upon variation as different cells pooled their individual resources. And over thousands of millions of years (we can scarcely conceive that length of time) the cooperating cells produced the vast variety of “single moving masses” that go to make up the history of life on Earth, culminating – we believe – in the most complex of all such masses: H. sapiens and his extraordinary brain.

The bold is fantasy. We do not know how evolution works. We see that it happens, as you and I debate as to what is the driving force. I say God, you say intelligent cells, with the source of that intelligence up for grabs.

slime mold decisions: another example

by dhw, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 11:05 (1342 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Slime moulds start out as single cells and can remain in this form all their lives if enough food is available. However, when supplies are scarce, hundreds of thousands of individuals can merge into a single, moving mass in the search for food."

DAVID: amazing evolution from single cells of mold. This story is part of mailed in website to me. Nothing more to see.

dhw: Thank you for this wonderful example of how evolution works! It started out as single cells which can still remain in the same form but also merged into single bodies of cooperating cells. And once the process of merging had begun, more and more new bodies formed, with variation upon variation as different cells pooled their individual resources. And over thousands of millions of years (we can scarcely conceive that length of time) the cooperating cells produced the vast variety of “single moving masses” that go to make up the history of life on Earth, culminating – we believe – in the most complex of all such masses: H. sapiens and his extraordinary brain. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold is fantasy. We do not know how evolution works. We see that it happens, as you and I debate as to what is the driving force. I say God, you say intelligent cells, with the source of that intelligence up for grabs.

A misunderstanding. My apologies. I simply meant to take the slime mold as a symbol for the whole marvellous history. It makes no difference whether your God preprogrammed it all, dabbled it all, or created an autonomous mechanism to make it all happen. As far as we know, life began with single cells, some of which have remained the same while others have combined into more and more “single moving masses”, with different cells performing different functions, and with the process culminating – we believe – in us. It was the process I meant to focus on, not the driving force.

slime mold decisions: another example

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 15:48 (1342 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Slime moulds start out as single cells and can remain in this form all their lives if enough food is available. However, when supplies are scarce, hundreds of thousands of individuals can merge into a single, moving mass in the search for food."

DAVID: amazing evolution from single cells of mold. This story is part of mailed in website to me. Nothing more to see.

dhw: Thank you for this wonderful example of how evolution works! It started out as single cells which can still remain in the same form but also merged into single bodies of cooperating cells. And once the process of merging had begun, more and more new bodies formed, with variation upon variation as different cells pooled their individual resources. And over thousands of millions of years (we can scarcely conceive that length of time) the cooperating cells produced the vast variety of “single moving masses” that go to make up the history of life on Earth, culminating – we believe – in the most complex of all such masses: H. sapiens and his extraordinary brain. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold is fantasy. We do not know how evolution works. We see that it happens, as you and I debate as to what is the driving force. I say God, you say intelligent cells, with the source of that intelligence up for grabs.

dhw: A misunderstanding. My apologies. I simply meant to take the slime mold as a symbol for the whole marvellous history. It makes no difference whether your God preprogrammed it all, dabbled it all, or created an autonomous mechanism to make it all happen. As far as we know, life began with single cells, some of which have remained the same while others have combined into more and more “single moving masses”, with different cells performing different functions, and with the process culminating – we believe – in us. It was the process I meant to focus on, not the driving force.

It is marvellous, amazing, miraculous, design-required, of unknown cause, and it happened. We debate why and how.

slime mold decisions: another example

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 20:24 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

The latest study of seeming food memory:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-single-celled-slime-mold-nervous-food.html

"The ability to store and recover information gives an organism a clear advantage when searching for food or avoiding harmful environments, and has been traditionally linked to organisms that have a nervous system. A new study authored by Mirna Kramar (MPIDS) and Prof. Karen Alim (TUM and MPIDS) challenges this view by uncovering the surprising abilities of a highly dynamic, single-celled organism to store and retrieve information about its environment.

***

"The decision-making ability of Physarum is especially fascinating given that its tubular network constantly undergoes fast reorganization—growing and disintegrating its tubes—while completely lacking an organizing center. The researchers discovered that the organism weaves memories of food encounters directly into the architecture of the network-like body and uses the stored information when making future decisions.

***

"'We followed the migration and feeding process of the organism and observed a distinct imprint of a food source on the pattern of thicker and thinner tubes of the network long after feeding. Given P. polycephalum's highly dynamic network reorganization, the persistence of this imprint sparked the idea that the network architecture itself could serve as memory of the past. However, we first needed to explain the mechanism behind the imprint formation." (my bold)

"To find out what is going on, the researchers combine microscopic observations of the adaption of the tubular network with theoretical modeling. An encounter with food triggers the release of a chemical that travels from the location where food was found throughout the organism and softens the tubes in the network, making the whole organism reorient its migration towards the food.

"'The gradual softening is where the existing imprints of previous food sources come into play and where information is stored and retrieved," says Mirna Kramar, first author of the study. "Past feeding events are embedded in the hierarchy of tube diameters, specifically in the arrangement of thick and thin tubes in the network. For the softening chemical that is now transported, the thick tubes in the network act as highways in traffic networks, enabling quick transport across the whole organism. Previous encounters imprinted in the network architecture weigh into the decision about the future direction of migration."

"The authors highlight that the ability of Physarum to form memories is intriguing given the simplicity of this living network. "It is remarkable that the organism relies on such a simple mechanism and yet controls it in such a fine-tuned way. These results present an important piece of the puzzle in understanding the behavior of this ancient organism and at the same time point to universal principles underlying behavior."

Comment: A physical-chemical mechanism is shown to easily replace a complex neuron network to create a mechanism of memory. This is much more understandable attribute than how slime mold solves mazes, but offers an answer: Thick and thin tubules respond to faint chemical traces from the maze goal and draws it forward by following intensity of the trace chemical.

slime mold decisions: remembering food location

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 01, 2021, 18:33 (1022 days ago) @ David Turell

More amazing responses:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-slime-molds-remember-where-they-ate/?utm...

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, revealed that when parts of P. polycephalum come in contact with a food source, they release a substance that softens the tube network's gel-like walls, making them widen from their inherent internal pressure. The slime mold moves by expanding along wider tubes and pruning narrower ones—so the enlarged tubes effectively record past food locations, as they influence the organism's overall direction of growth even after the food is gone.

The researchers do not yet know what the softening substance is, but by modeling changes in tube diameters, they found it is likely a soluble material that spreads by flow and diffusion. The team suggests this mechanism could also be common in other “living flow networks,” such as vertebrate vascular systems. (my bold)

Kramar and Alim “have pinned down nicely a mechanobiological mechanism for slime mold behavior implementing something like memory,” says University of Bremen physicist Hans-Günther Döbereiner, who was not involved in the study. Future research into a slime mold's ability to carry out complex tasks, he says, will require an examination of “molecular signaling, material properties and flow patterns of the cellular fluid regulating its behavior.”

Comment: Note my bold. Not enough research is yet accomplished to identify the substance or how it is biochemically triggered. I assume it is all coded in the DNA

slime mold decisions: study of decision making

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 15, 2021, 21:40 (977 days ago) @ David Turell

Latest findings:

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-brain-brainless-slime-molds-reveal.html

"The team's research demonstrated that this brainless creature was not simply growing toward the heaviest thing it could sense—it was making a calculated decision about where to grow based on the relative patterns of strain it detected in its environment.

"But how was it detecting these strain patterns? The scientists suspected it had to do with Physarum's ability to rhythmically contract and tug on its substrate, because the pulsing and sensing of the resultant changes in substrate deformation allows the organism to gain information about its surroundings. Other animals have special channel proteins in their cell membranes called TRP-like proteins that detect stretching, and co-author and Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D had previously shown that one of these TRP proteins mediates mechanosensing in human cells. When the team created a potent TRP channel-blocking drug and applied it to Physarum, the organism lost its ability to distinguish between high and low masses, only selecting the high-mass region in 11% of the trials and selecting both high- and low-mass regions in 71% of trials.

"'Our discovery of this slime mold's use of biomechanics to probe and react to its surrounding environment underscores how early this ability evolved in living organisms, and how closely related intelligence, behavior, and morphogenesis are. In this organism, which grows out to interact with the world, its shape change is its behavior. Other research has shown that similar strategies are used by cells in more complex animals, including neurons, stem cells, and cancer cells. This work in Physarum offers a new model in which to explore the ways in which evolution uses physics to implement primitive cognition that drives form and function," said corresponding author Mike Levin, Ph.D., a Wyss Associate Faculty member who is also the Vannevar Bush Chair and serves and Director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University."

Comment: this study shows the slime mold can sense the stresses and respond. I think the response are automatic to what is sensed. As the authors note an early step in setting up responses in more complex cells and structures.

slime mold decisions: a review of abilities

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 28, 2023, 17:50 (385 days ago) @ David Turell

It doesn't fit into the family tree of life:

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-predatory-slime-mold-from-the-last-of-us-isnt-actually...

"They are in fact much more ancient, and less closely related to fungi than even we are. Since scientists first tried to classify slime molds, they have been wrongly grouped with plants, animals, and in particular, fungi.

"This is because they typically occur in the same ecosystems as fungi, and because they produce structures to help spread their spores, much like their fungal cousins do.

"Molecular methods for grouping lifeforms by comparing their DNA have helped us better understand slime molds' distinct heritage. Yet their exact place on the tree of life is still unclear.

***

"Though they can grow quite large – up to several square meters across – each slime mold is a single cell, containing millions of nuclei and all the other complex machinery that lies inside cells like ours.

"The slime mold's "body" is a network of veins and tubes that can move at the rapid pace of up to five centimeters (two inches) per hour to locate and capture their prey.

"Inside the slime mold, a rich soup of cell components and food particles flows back and forth within the network. This flow transmits nutrients, chemical signals and information between different regions of the slime mold.

***

"Far from being simple cells moving blindly through the leaf litter, slime molds can gather a huge amount of information from their environment, and use it to make smart decisions about where to move and look for food, much like the infected in The Last of Us, which operate as one large organism in search of prey.

"So far, the slime mold has been shown to sense and move toward or away from carbohydrates, proteins, amino acids, free nucleotides, volatile organic chemicals, salts, pH, light, humidity and temperature, even sensing the direction of gravity and magnetic fields.

"When a slime mold finds several food sources at the same time, it tries to cover each food with as much of itself as it can (to absorb it), without splitting into disconnected individuals. The most efficient way to do this is to have a single tube connecting the two foods along the shortest path between them.

"Slime molds have evolved over millions of years to become master network engineers. They are expert maze-solvers, and researchers have begun to build computer algorithms for the design of human train and telecommunication networks based on slime mold approaches.

"Slime molds' problem-solving abilities are all the more fascinating because the creature doesn't have a brain or even a single neuron. Nevertheless, they show signs of memorisation and even learning – two things which traditionally were thought possible only in animals with brains.

"As they move, slime molds leave behind a trail of slime similar to mucus. This slime trail serves as an externalized memory of areas it has explored in the past, which is very useful for solving mazes.
They can distinguish between their own trails, their neighbors', and those of other slime mold species. They also use food signals left behind in the trails to judge their own chances of finding food in an area.

"Researchers have also found slime molds can learn to ignore a substance they normally find repellent (such as quinine or caffeine) after prolonged exposure. Researchers call this basic form of learning "habituation".

"Amazingly, when a habituated slime mold fuses together with an untrained slime mold (oh yeah, they can do that), the learned behavior is observed in the new combined individual."

Comment: it is a strange branch of evolution which could be viewed as an attempt to be multicellular. It also shows information can be developed and understood without the attributes of neurons. dhw will enjoy. Here are his intelligent cells.

Ants and use of tools

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 04, 2017, 01:18 (2631 days ago) @ dhw

Ants can choose materials to use as tools:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116641-ants-craft-tiny-sponges-to-dip-into-honey-...

István Maák at the University of Szeged in Hungary and his team offered two species of funnel ants liquids containing water and honey along with a range of tools that might help them carry this food to their nests.

"The ants experimented with the tools and chose those that were easiest to handle and could soak up plenty of liquid, such as bits of sponge or paper, despite them not being found in the insects’ natural environment..

"This suggests that ants can take into account the properties of both the tool and the liquid they are transporting. It also indicates they can learn to use new tools – even without big brains.

"'Some ant species are known to use tools, such as mud or sand grains, to collect and transport liquid to their nests. But this is the first time they are shown to select the most suitable ones, says team member Patrizia d’Ettorre from the University of Paris-North, France.

"To investigate this behaviour, the team offered Aphaenogaster subterranea and A. senilis ants various possible tools, both natural, such as twigs, pine needles and soil grains, and artificial.

"The ants experimented with the tools and eventually showed preference for certain tools – even unfamiliar ones. The ants would drop the tool into the liquid, pick it up and then carry it to the workers back in the nest to drink from.

"Subterranea workers preferred small soil grains to transfer diluted honey, and sponge for pure honey. Most of them even tore the sponge into smaller bits, presumably for better handling.

"Senilis started off using all the tools equally, but then focused on pieces of paper and sponge, which could soak up most of the diluted honey they were offered. This indicates that they can learn as they go along.

"Factors such as the weight of the tools could also have influenced the ants’ choice, but the researchers believe the tools’ absorbency and ease of handling mattered the most.

"Aphaenogaster ants possibly developed such tool use because, unlike many other ants, they can’t expand their stomach, says d’Ettorre. “They had to find a way to exploit the valuable resource of liquid food.”

"This way, when ants come across a fallen fruit or a dead insect in the wild, their fluids can be transferred to the nest for the rest of the colony.
As ants live in a highly competitive environment, natural selection may favour using such tools to help feed the colony, says Valerie S. Banschbach at Roanoke College, Virginia.

"And these ants may have been happy to try novel materials because which particular tools are available in their natural habitat varies according to the season.

“'Many other accomplishments of these small-brained creatures rival those of humans or even surpass them, such as farming fungi species or using ‘dead reckoning’, a sophisticated navigation to find their way back to the nest,” says Banschbach. “The size of brain needed for specific cognitive tasks is not clear.”

“'Tool use in insects is largely genetically controlled and evolved from selection of advantageous genetic mutations,” says Gavin R. Hunt at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. This is unlike most tool use in birds or primates, which begins as novel behaviour and can sometimes be enhanced through genetic changes, he says."

Comment: I think the last paragraph is most interesting, suggesting insect tool use instinct is genetic. But these ants do make logical choices, not genetically.

Natures wonders: ant rafts have set crews!

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 14:20 (2888 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: ants plant tough seeds for food

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 14, 2017, 01:04 (2621 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants store big tough seeds, can't crack them open, so they are planted and the softer seedling provides food:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2117953-harvester-ants-farm-by-planting-seeds-to-e...

"They’ve cracked it. Small ants carry home large seeds to eat all the time, but no one knew exactly how they managed to break through the seeds’ tough exterior.
It turns out that Florida harvester ants, Pogonomyrmex badius, have developed a clever farming strategy to do so – they plant seeds, wait for them to germinate and then eat the soft spoils.

"Some 18 genera of ants harvest seeds, and colonies of some species can store more than 300,000 seeds in their underground granaries..

"So far, scientists thought that ants must be able to break the seeds open and just ate them as they were. “The reality is a lot more interesting,” says Walter R. Tschinkel at the Florida State University.

“'There are many studies of seed choice by forager harvester ants, but none of the authors asked the question of whether the ants can open the seeds,” says Tschinkel. “This may be in part because most of these studies were done on western harvester ants whose deep nests are in hard soil, so the seed chambers are not easily excavated.”

"With his team, Tschinkel excavated and studied approximately 200 P. badius nests and found that the ants mostly open and consume small seeds, which are easier to crack. Foragers collect seeds of all sizes, so this leads to the accumulation of larger seeds, which end up forming 70 per cent of stored seeds by weight.

"In a series of lab and field experiments Tschinkel and colleagues showed that P. badius doesn’t seem to be able to open the large seeds unless they have germinated first. Even the caste of ants with large heads and mandibles thought to be specialised for seed opening can’t crack the big seeds.

"Germination, on the other hand, splits the tough husk, making the seed contents available as food for the ants. A single large seed may have nutritional value of 15 smaller seeds, so it makes sense to collect it and wait for it to crack open. Seeds from various species germinate at different times, which may give the ants a steady supply of their “crop”.

"This is the first example of ants relying on germination to consume large seeds, although some worms seem to do it, too. The only other example of ants farming plants for food is of the Fijian ant Philidris nagasau, which grows Squamellaria plants and harvests their fruit."

Comment: I think it is very probably that the ants figured this out for themselves. I imagine they brought some big seeds home, couldn't crack them, but didn't drag them out of the nest and were pleasantly surprised when the softer seedling popped up. The simply accepted it as a useful pattern of behaviour.

Natures wonders: ants plant tough seeds for food

by David Turell @, Monday, January 23, 2017, 00:22 (2612 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants can navigate home backwards:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170119125404.htm

"An international team including researchers at the university of Edinburgh and Antoine Wystrach of the Research Centre on Animal Cognition ... has shown that ants can get their bearings whatever the orientation of their body. Their brains may be smaller than the head of a pin, but ants are excellent navigators that use celestial and terrestrial cues to memorize their paths. To do so, they use several regions of the brain simultaneously, proving once again that the brain of insects is more complex than thought.

***

: the researchers studied Cataglyphis velox, an Andalusian desert ant known for its solo navigation ability. First they let the insects familiarize themselves with a route that included a 90° turn. After a day of training, ants that received a cookie crumb light enough to carry while walking forward handled the turn without the slightest difficulty. However, those given large cookie crumbs had to move backward, and unlike the others, they maintained their bearing instead of turning.

"They also exhibited unexpected behavior: After walking backward a bit, they would occasionally drop their crumb, turn around, observe the scenery while pointing their bodies in the right direction, return to the crumb, and resume towing it backward -- but this time in the correct direction. For these ants, body alignment thus seems necessary for recognition of scenery perceived by their retinas, but they are then able to memorize the new bearing and follow it backward. This behavior also shows that they can recall the existence of the dropped cookie crumb, and its location, in order to return to it after updating their bearing. These observations imply that at least 3 kinds of memory are working in unison: the visual memory of the route, the memory of the new direction to follow, and the memory of the crumb to retrieve.

"Through another experiment using a mirror to reflect the sun1, the team demonstrated that the ants used celestial cues to maintain their bearing while walking backwards. Furthermore, ants were able to move in straight paths, whether walking forward, backward, or sideways. Once a bearing is memorized, they stay on it no matter how their bodies are oriented. Together these observations suggest that ants register direction using an external -- or allocentric -- frame of reference.

"These new findings show that the ants' spatial orientation relies on multiple mental representations and memories woven together through a flow of information between several areas of their brain. This offers a whole new perspective on the world of insects, which is much more complex than previously believed."

Comment: I'm not surprised. Forager ants should be able to act this way.

Natures wonders: ants plant tough seeds for food

by dhw, Monday, January 23, 2017, 16:28 (2612 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE (under “tits”): "We often assume that only animals who are closely related to us will share our cognitive abilities. The new research suggests that very different species can evolve impressive learning skills that suit their particular environmental niche. Great Tits—like honeybees, humpbacks and humans—are sophisticated foragers who learn to adapt to new environments. The young American graduate student and the young Great Tit at her door both learned to become masters of the British bottle."

David’s comment: Not so much instinct as learning what they see and passing it on. The issue is whether it gets encoded into DNA, or whether surviving adults show the youngsters the trick. Humpbacks in the middle of the century taught themselves in Alaska how to bubble feed: a circle of them blow a circle of bubbles and surface within the circle eating everything there. They have done it ever since.

QUOTE: "These new findings show that the ants' spatial orientation relies on multiple mental representations and memories woven together through a flow of information between several areas of their brain. This offers a whole new perspective on the world of insects, which is much more complex than previously believed."

David's comment: I'm not surprised. Forager ants should be able to act this way.

I’m not surprised either. Thank you for yet more examples illustrating that our fellow creatures – even those most unlike ourselves - possess levels of intelligence (plus abilities to learn and pass on their knowledge) that certain humans, for reasons best summarized by Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”, would prefer to think they didn’t have!

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 01:11 (2442 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 01:22

It is npw sdttled. research has shown that ant rafts and towers are due to automatic activities on the part of each ant:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140354-ants-build-living-towers-that-flow-to-figh...

"The fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), which are found in wetlands, link together to build living rafts to keep the colony afloat during floods. When the water recedes, they cling to exposed plants and form a tower as a temporary shelter until they have a chance to build an underground nest.

"Craig Tovey of Georgia Tech and colleagues set up a camera to study how the ants build such a tower, and accidentally left it rolling for an hour after it was built. Since the tower appeared to be static once built, they thought the footage would be worthless.

"But when a PhD student watched it back at 10 times normal speed, he noticed that the middle of the tower was slowly sinking. “When you speed it up, the ants on the surface are a blur and underneath the blur you can see the slow sinking movement of the tower,” says Tovey.

"After further experiments, they realised that the sinking was due to ants at the bottom moving outwards under the weight of the ants on top. Meanwhile, ants on the outside were perpetually rebuilding the tower by moving towards the top. “The rest of the tower is gradually sinking, while the ants at the top keep building it higher and higher,” says Tovey. “It’s kind of hilarious.”

"The team’s previous research on ant rafts showed how, although no one is in charge and no ant can see the big picture, simple behavioural rules can lead to the creation of a resilient structure. The same rules guide the construction of the tower, with the added limitation of how much weight an ant can support." ( my bold)

Comment: that seems to settle the issue. Individual ant responses due to instinctual individual behaviour builds the structures

Further info:

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-ants-eiffel-towers.html

"But vertical is a relative term. The ants don't position themselves straight up and down like a skyscraper. Instead, the tower gets wider as it grows taller, gradually becoming the same shape as Paris' iconic landmark. The weight of the tower is supported by a wider cross-section at its base, which allows the ants to better distribute their weight.

"'We found that ants can withstand 750 times their body weight without injury, but they seem to be most comfortable supporting three ants on their backs," said Craig Tovey, a co-author of the study and professor in Georgia Tech's Stewart School of Industrial & Systems Engineering. "Any more than three and they'll simply give up, break their holds and walk away."

"Even though the ants evenly distribute their weight as a group, the tower is in constant motion. The column sinks as the insects work, as if the bottom is being melted like butter. The ants slide down, then exit out of tunnels buried in the base. The tower's movement is similar to a slow-motion chocolate fountain in reverse.

"The sinking was confirmed by X-ray videography. The researchers fed some of the ants radioactive food, then threw the colony in an X-ray machine across campus in Professor Dan Goldman's physics lab. Cameras again recorded the critters building a tower. Using time-lapse photography, they watched the radioactive insects walk up the sides, gradually sink to the tower's depths, leave the pile, then continually repeat the process for hours."

Comment: A very solid study. The colony is not one giant brain.

Natures wonders: sea spider guts move blood

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 14:30 (2442 days ago) @ David Turell

The strong peristaltic waves of its guts pushes its blood around, since its heart is weak beating:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/weak-hearted-sea-spiders-use-guts-to-pump-blood

"Most animals use the strong, steady beating of their hearts to move blood around their bodies and keep up the supplies of oxygen to the tissue that needs it. Not sea spiders: they pump their guts instead.

"While the underwater arthropods do have hearts, they beat only weakly. This discovery, made by H. Arthur Woods of the University of Montana after spending “a lot of time just watching blood and gut flows in sea spiders” while stationed at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, led Woods to realise that the heart was only circulating blood in the small inner section of the creatures’ legs.

"He had also noticed that the guts of the sea spider, which are complex and many-branched, extending down to the end of each leg, underwent frequent waves of peristaltic contraction much stronger than digestion would require.

"After conducting a series of experiments and observations in 12 sea spider species, which involved video microscopy of tracers in the animals' hemolymph and guts together with experimental manipulation of the guts' ability to contract, Woods and his colleagues were able to confirm that the guts were in fact doing the heavy lifting of moving the blood around.

"Strange as it may seem, the finding highlights how evolution often finds multiple ways to solve the same problem."

Comment: Lobsters have no heart, and muscle movement sloshes around the whitish fluid that is their substitute for blood.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, July 13, 2017, 05:56 (2441 days ago) @ David Turell

..
"The sinking was confirmed by X-ray videography. The researchers fed some of the ants radioactive food, then threw the colony in an X-ray machine across campus in Professor Dan Goldman's physics lab. Cameras again recorded the critters building a tower. Using time-lapse photography, they watched the radioactive insects walk up the sides, gradually sink to the tower's depths, leave the pile, then continually repeat the process for hours."

Comment: A very solid study. The colony is not one giant brain.

Perhaps more importantly, does this mechanism allow for a sort of shift work cycle that allows ants to rest. They start at the top, taking little strain, building up to taking their share of the distributed weight of the full tower, then get a break as they exit into the tunnels, probably grab a bite to eat, and then go back for another shift.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 13, 2017, 15:22 (2441 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

..
"The sinking was confirmed by X-ray videography. The researchers fed some of the ants radioactive food, then threw the colony in an X-ray machine across campus in Professor Dan Goldman's physics lab. Cameras again recorded the critters building a tower. Using time-lapse photography, they watched the radioactive insects walk up the sides, gradually sink to the tower's depths, leave the pile, then continually repeat the process for hours."

David Comment: A very solid study. The colony is not one giant brain.


Tony: Perhaps more importantly, does this mechanism allow for a sort of shift work cycle that allows ants to rest. They start at the top, taking little strain, building up to taking their share of the distributed weight of the full tower, then get a break as they exit into the tunnels, probably grab a bite to eat, and then go back for another shift.

Good point. Hadn't thought of it but it makes complete sense.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Monday, July 17, 2017, 08:55 (2437 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "The team’s previous research on ant rafts showed how, although no one is in charge and no ant can see the big picture, simple behavioural rules can lead to the creation of a resilient structure. The same rules guide the construction of the tower, with the added limitation of how much weight an ant can support." ( David’s bold)
David’s comment: that seems to settle the issue. Individual ant responses due to instinctual individual behaviour builds the structures.

QUOTE: The sinking was confirmed by X-ray videography. The researchers fed some of the ants radioactive food, then threw the colony in an X-ray machine across campus in Professor Dan Goldman's physics lab. Cameras again recorded the critters building a tower. Using time-lapse photography, they watched the radioactive insects walk up the sides, gradually sink to the tower's depths, leave the pile, then continually repeat the process for hours."
David’s comment: A very solid study. The colony is not one giant brain.

TONY: Perhaps more importantly, does this mechanism allow for a sort of shift work cycle that allows ants to rest. They start at the top, taking little strain, building up to taking their share of the distributed weight of the full tower, then get a break as they exit into the tunnels, probably grab a bite to eat, and then go back for another shift.
DAVID: Good point. Hadn't thought of it but it makes complete sense.

It does indeed make complete sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that these organisms don’t know what they’re doing (“instinctual behaviour”…”not one giant brain”). How did these marvellous feats of engineering originate? Do you think your God gave the first raft/tower builders personal lessons, or preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions to the first ants a few thousand million years later? I suggest that cooperating ants provide an analogy to cooperating cells: by pooling their intelligence they devise solutions which they would be incapable of finding on their own. The colony may not BE one giant brain, but the product of their cooperation is the same as that of a giant brain, and the brain itself is also a mass of cooperating individual units. Over and over again your natural wonders demonstrate the intelligent, inventive behaviour of the respective organisms, but you can never bring yourself to accept that this might have ORIGINATED through their own inventive (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Monday, July 17, 2017, 19:16 (2437 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "The team’s previous research on ant rafts showed how, although no one is in charge and no ant can see the big picture, simple behavioural rules can lead to the creation of a resilient structure. The same rules guide the construction of the tower, with the added limitation of how much weight an ant can support." ( David’s bold)
David’s comment: that seems to settle the issue. Individual ant responses due to instinctual individual behaviour builds the structures.

QUOTE: The sinking was confirmed by X-ray videography. The researchers fed some of the ants radioactive food, then threw the colony in an X-ray machine across campus in Professor Dan Goldman's physics lab. Cameras again recorded the critters building a tower. Using time-lapse photography, they watched the radioactive insects walk up the sides, gradually sink to the tower's depths, leave the pile, then continually repeat the process for hours."
David’s comment: A very solid study. The colony is not one giant brain.

TONY: Perhaps more importantly, does this mechanism allow for a sort of shift work cycle that allows ants to rest. They start at the top, taking little strain, building up to taking their share of the distributed weight of the full tower, then get a break as they exit into the tunnels, probably grab a bite to eat, and then go back for another shift.
DAVID: Good point. Hadn't thought of it but it makes complete sense.

dhw: It does indeed make complete sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that these organisms don’t know what they’re doing (“instinctual behaviour”…”not one giant brain”). How did these marvellous feats of engineering originate? Do you think your God gave the first raft/tower builders personal lessons, or preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions to the first ants a few thousand million years later? I suggest that cooperating ants provide an analogy to cooperating cells: by pooling their intelligence they devise solutions which they would be incapable of finding on their own. The colony may not BE one giant brain, but the product of their cooperation is the same as that of a giant brain, and the brain itself is also a mass of cooperating individual units. Over and over again your natural wonders demonstrate the intelligent, inventive behaviour of the respective organisms, but you can never bring yourself to accept that this might have ORIGINATED through their own inventive (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

The study is quite clear, but not to you. The authors specifically state each ant does its own thing. It can carry just so much weight, and responds accordingly. Your analogy is the usual stretch. They build nests by instinct. the rafts and towers are not that. Individual cells are complex factories, operating automatically following intelligent instructions thy have been given.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 08:43 (2436 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It does indeed make complete sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that these organisms don’t know what they’re doing (“instinctual behaviour”…”not one giant brain”). How did these marvellous feats of engineering originate? Do you think your God gave the first raft/tower builders personal lessons, or preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions to the first ants a few thousand million years later? I suggest that cooperating ants provide an analogy to cooperating cells: by pooling their intelligence they devise solutions which they would be incapable of finding on their own. The colony may not BE one giant brain, but the product of their cooperation is the same as that of a giant brain, and the brain itself is also a mass of cooperating individual units. Over and over again your natural wonders demonstrate the intelligent, inventive behaviour of the respective organisms, but you can never bring yourself to accept that this might have ORIGINATED through their own inventive (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

DAVID: The study is quite clear, but not to you. The authors specifically state each ant does its own thing. It can carry just so much weight, and responds accordingly. Your analogy is the usual stretch. They build nests by instinct. the rafts and towers are not that. Individual cells are complex factories, operating automatically following intelligent instructions thy have been given.

Individual ants are communities of cells and are also complex factories, and their astonishing architectural achievements can only be the product of intelligence. You have not responded to my question whether you think your God preprogrammed the first raft/tower-building ants or gave them lessons. I accept that in many cases cells operate automatically following instructions they have been given, but I am suggesting that those instructions come from the (possibly God-given) intelligence of the cell communities themselves - just like the instructions for raft and tower-building coming from the intelligence of the ant community - and not from a divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every natural wonder in the history of life, or from your God giving private lessons.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 01:33 (2435 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It does indeed make complete sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that these organisms don’t know what they’re doing (“instinctual behaviour”…”not one giant brain”). How did these marvellous feats of engineering originate? Do you think your God gave the first raft/tower builders personal lessons, or preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions to the first ants a few thousand million years later? I suggest that cooperating ants provide an analogy to cooperating cells: by pooling their intelligence they devise solutions which they would be incapable of finding on their own. The colony may not BE one giant brain, but the product of their cooperation is the same as that of a giant brain, and the brain itself is also a mass of cooperating individual units. Over and over again your natural wonders demonstrate the intelligent, inventive behaviour of the respective organisms, but you can never bring yourself to accept that this might have ORIGINATED through their own inventive (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

DAVID: The study is quite clear, but not to you. The authors specifically state each ant does its own thing. It can carry just so much weight, and responds accordingly. Your analogy is the usual stretch. They build nests by instinct. the rafts and towers are not that. Individual cells are complex factories, operating automatically following intelligent instructions thy have been given.

dhw Individual ants are communities of cells and are also complex factories, and their astonishing architectural achievements can only be the product of intelligence. You have not responded to my question whether you think your God preprogrammed the first raft/tower-building ants or gave them lessons.

Re-read the article. Each ant does what it can do under the circumstances automatically.

dhw: I accept that in many cases cells operate automatically following instructions they have been given, but I am suggesting that those instructions come from the (possibly God-given) intelligence of the cell communities themselves - just like the instructions for raft and tower-building coming from the intelligence of the ant community - and not from a divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every natural wonder in the history of life, or from your God giving private lessons.

You have again repeated what the study does not say about towers and rafts. Which is why I noted that their nests are instinctual (in contrast) and you note possibly God instructed.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 08:38 (2435 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw Individual ants are communities of cells and are also complex factories, and their astonishing architectural achievements can only be the product of intelligence. You have not responded to my question whether you think your God preprogrammed the first raft/tower-building ants or gave them lessons.

DAVID: Re-read the article. Each ant does what it can do under the circumstances automatically.

That is what I am (partly) disputing! The question is how such astonishing architectural feats originated, and I suggest that the source was the intelligence of ant communities and not a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or God giving ants private lessons. Once the pattern has been established, it may well be that there is a degree of automaticity in the work, although their collective intelligence will still need to make decisions according to the circumstances of the moment. Factory workers (before automation) would have done the same, but would have had to use their intelligence if things went wrong.

dhw: I accept that in many cases cells operate automatically following instructions they have been given, but I am suggesting that those instructions come from the (possibly God-given) intelligence of the cell communities themselves - just like the instructions for raft and tower-building coming from the intelligence of the ant community - and not from a divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every natural wonder in the history of life, or from your God giving private lessons.

DAVID: You have again repeated what the study does not say about towers and rafts. Which is why I noted that their nests are instinctual (in contrast) and you note possibly God instructed.

I am (partly) disagreeing with the authors’ interpretation, and I didn’t/don’t know why you mentioned nests. Ants’ nests can be astonishingly complex, and once again I see them as manifestations of ant intelligence, not as part of your God’s great plan to produce human beings by preprogramming or dabbling ants’ nests.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 16:37 (2435 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Re-read the article. Each ant does what it can do under the circumstances automatically.

dhw: That is what I am (partly) disputing! The question is how such astonishing architectural feats originated, and I suggest that the source was the intelligence of ant communities and not a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or God giving ants private lessons. Once the pattern has been established, it may well be that there is a degree of automaticity in the work, although their collective intelligence will still need to make decisions according to the circumstances of the moment. Factory workers (before automation) would have done the same, but would have had to use their intelligence if things went wrong.

dhw: I accept that in many cases cells operate automatically following instructions they have been given, but I am suggesting that those instructions come from the (possibly God-given) intelligence of the cell communities themselves - just like the instructions for raft and tower-building coming from the intelligence of the ant community - and not from a divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for every natural wonder in the history of life, or from your God giving private lessons.

DAVID: You have again repeated what the study does not say about towers and rafts. Which is why I noted that their nests are instinctual (in contrast) and you note possibly God instructed.

dhw: I am (partly) disagreeing with the authors’ interpretation, and I didn’t/don’t know why you mentioned nests. Ants’ nests can be astonishingly complex, and once again I see them as manifestations of ant intelligence, not as part of your God’s great plan to produce human beings by preprogramming or dabbling ants’ nests.

Ah, now you do what I do, re-interpret the results of studies. But I do it when the conclusions of the authors taken from the data appear to differ from what the data might mean. The authors here presented very specific observations of ant participation in the construction of the structures. You are presenting an unproven back story in which God did not have to give any instructions according to the authors. Don't you see your overreach?

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 11:27 (2434 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am (partly) disagreeing with the authors’ interpretation, and I didn’t/don’t know why you mentioned nests. Ants’ nests can be astonishingly complex, and once again I see them as manifestations of ant intelligence, not as part of your God’s great plan to produce human beings by preprogramming or dabbling ants’ nests.

DAVID: Ah, now you do what I do, re-interpret the results of studies. But I do it when the conclusions of the authors taken from the data appear to differ from what the data might mean. The authors here presented very specific observations of ant participation in the construction of the structures. You are presenting an unproven back story in which God did not have to give any instructions according to the authors. Don't you see your overreach?

I see ants building structures (rafts, towers, nests) which seem to me to require intelligence. I propose that individual ants cooperated intelligently as a community to design these structures. The authors propose that they build them “automatically”. You presumably propose that God gave them instructions. All of us extrapolate our conclusions from “what the data might mean”. None of us can prove our proposals.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 16:53 (2434 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am (partly) disagreeing with the authors’ interpretation, and I didn’t/don’t know why you mentioned nests. Ants’ nests can be astonishingly complex, and once again I see them as manifestations of ant intelligence, not as part of your God’s great plan to produce human beings by preprogramming or dabbling ants’ nests.

DAVID: Ah, now you do what I do, re-interpret the results of studies. But I do it when the conclusions of the authors taken from the data appear to differ from what the data might mean. The authors here presented very specific observations of ant participation in the construction of the structures. You are presenting an unproven back story in which God did not have to give any instructions according to the authors. Don't you see your overreach?

dhw: I see ants building structures (rafts, towers, nests) which seem to me to require intelligence. I propose that individual ants cooperated intelligently as a community to design these structures. The authors propose that they build them “automatically”. You presumably propose that God gave them instructions. All of us extrapolate our conclusions from “what the data might mean”. None of us can prove our proposals.

I did not presume God gave them instructions for rafts or towers. Again, your overreach.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Friday, July 21, 2017, 11:26 (2433 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I see ants building structures (rafts, towers, nests) which seem to me to require intelligence. I propose that individual ants cooperated intelligently as a community to design these structures. The authors propose that they build them “automatically”. You presumably propose that God gave them instructions. All of us extrapolate our conclusions from “what the data might mean”. None of us can prove our proposals.

DAVID: I did not presume God gave them instructions for rafts or towers. Again, your overreach.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, but in that case I can only assume you agree with me that the ORIGINAL rafts and towers were the product of ant intelligence, so what are we disagreeing about?

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Friday, July 21, 2017, 16:13 (2433 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I see ants building structures (rafts, towers, nests) which seem to me to require intelligence. I propose that individual ants cooperated intelligently as a community to design these structures. The authors propose that they build them “automatically”. You presumably propose that God gave them instructions. All of us extrapolate our conclusions from “what the data might mean”. None of us can prove our proposals.

DAVID: I did not presume God gave them instructions for rafts or towers. Again, your overreach.

dhw: Apologies for the misunderstanding, but in that case I can only assume you agree with me that the ORIGINAL rafts and towers were the product of ant intelligence, so what are we disagreeing about?

My objection originally was to your interpretation denying the author's results that individual ants acted automatically. I still agree with their interpretation, God not needed.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Saturday, July 22, 2017, 10:05 (2432 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I see ants building structures (rafts, towers, nests) which seem to me to require intelligence. I propose that individual ants cooperated intelligently as a community to design these structures. The authors propose that they build them “automatically”. You presumably propose that God gave them instructions. All of us extrapolate our conclusions from “what the data might mean”. None of us can prove our proposals.

DAVID: I did not presume God gave them instructions for rafts or towers. Again, your overreach.

dhw: Apologies for the misunderstanding, but in that case I can only assume you agree with me that the ORIGINAL rafts and towers were the product of ant intelligence, so what are we disagreeing about?

DAVID: My objection originally was to your interpretation denying the author's results that individual ants acted automatically. I still agree with their interpretation, God not needed.

I am, of course, delighted that you do not think your God was needed to design these extraordinary feats of engineering, but bearing in mind that there must have been a first raft and a first tower, I don’t understand what you or the authors mean by “automatically”. Do you really think those first raft and tower builders didn’t know what they were doing?

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 22, 2017, 15:01 (2432 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: My objection originally was to your interpretation denying the author's results that individual ants acted automatically. I still agree with their interpretation, God not needed.

dhw: I am, of course, delighted that you do not think your God was needed to design these extraordinary feats of engineering, but bearing in mind that there must have been a first raft and a first tower, I don’t understand what you or the authors mean by “automatically”. Do you really think those first raft and tower builders didn’t know what they were doing?

Each individual ant knew what he was naturally doing, the point of the article, resulting in the group acting together.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Sunday, July 23, 2017, 09:23 (2431 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My objection originally was to your interpretation denying the author's results that individual ants acted automatically. I still agree with their interpretation, God not needed.

dhw: I am, of course, delighted that you do not think your God was needed to design these extraordinary feats of engineering, but bearing in mind that there must have been a first raft and a first tower, I don’t understand what you or the authors mean by “automatically”. Do you really think those first raft and tower builders didn’t know what they were doing?

DAVID: Each individual ant knew what he was naturally doing, the point of the article, resulting in the group acting together.

One would not expect any organisms (other than humans!) to act unnaturally, and one would expect social organisms to act together. I don’t see that as meaning that the ants act “automatically” as opposed to intelligently. You constantly point to complexity as evidence of intelligent design. Ant rafts and towers are complex feats of engineering, and so if your God was not needed, they are clear evidence of ant intelligence.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 23, 2017, 19:29 (2431 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My objection originally was to your interpretation denying the author's results that individual ants acted automatically. I still agree with their interpretation, God not needed.

dhw: I am, of course, delighted that you do not think your God was needed to design these extraordinary feats of engineering, but bearing in mind that there must have been a first raft and a first tower, I don’t understand what you or the authors mean by “automatically”. Do you really think those first raft and tower builders didn’t know what they were doing?

DAVID: Each individual ant knew what he was naturally doing, the point of the article, resulting in the group acting together.

dhw: One would not expect any organisms (other than humans!) to act unnaturally, and one would expect social organisms to act together. I don’t see that as meaning that the ants act “automatically” as opposed to intelligently. You constantly point to complexity as evidence of intelligent design. Ant rafts and towers are complex feats of engineering, and so if your God was not needed, they are clear evidence of ant intelligence.

Intelligent design of intelligent creatures of with varying degrees of intelligence. I do not see these as mutually exclusive. Though, they all kind of blow random chance right out of the water. However, with all the intelligence DHW continually talks about, where are the more complex signs of intelligence. I don't mean climbing up your buddies back not to drown, or floating while linked up(which is what sea survival training teaches you to do). Where are the signs of higher intelligence? If cells are intelligent, and that intelligence grows when in a community (multicellular life) why are humans they only creatures that exhibit our degree of intelligence? Surely brain mass alone can not account for it, and neither can size, as ants lack both and perform some impressive feats. Where is expression that we should be seeing in larger life forms if DHW's theory of cellular intelligence is correct?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Monday, July 24, 2017, 13:14 (2430 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Intelligent design of intelligent creatures of with varying degrees of intelligence. I do not see these as mutually exclusive.

Nor do I. I keep repeating that we do not know the source of (hypothetical) cellular intelligence, but your God is one possibility.

TONY: Though, they all kind of blow random chance right out of the water.

They blow chance out of the window as the driving force behind evolution, but the problem is the original source of the intelligence. Other possible sources I have mentioned are indeed random chance and some form of panpsychism (see “Understanding the ribosome”). I find all three hypotheses equally difficult to believe in.

TONY: However, with all the intelligence DHW continually talks about, where are the more complex signs of intelligence. I don't mean climbing up your buddies back not to drown, or floating while linked up(which is what sea survival training teaches you to do). Where are the signs of higher intelligence? If cells are intelligent, and that intelligence grows when in a community (multicellular life) why are humans they only creatures that exhibit our degree of intelligence? Surely brain mass alone can not account for it, and neither can size, as ants lack both and perform some impressive feats. Where is expression that we should be seeing in larger life forms if DHW's theory of cellular intelligence is correct?

I don’t understand your final question, unless you are asking why all life forms haven’t evolved into highly intelligent humans, to which the answer is below. Your comment on brain mass and size ties in with our discussion on dualism versus materialism. If materialism is wrong, then organisms must have some kind of “soul” that is in charge, and you then need a material mechanism to enable the soul to direct the physical being - a brain (or in single cells the equivalent of a brain). Materialism argues that the brain or the brain equivalent generates the intelligence. Why different degrees? Why so many different species? Why do some cope with environmental change while others become extinct? Why didn’t all cell communities become humans? The pattern seems to be that cell communities (organisms) work out their own paths to survival and/or improvement. If the path is successful, the organism or improvement survives. New conditions then provide a new threat or a new opportunity for improvement, and so the cycle goes on. Highly intelligent humans are one product of this long history of survival/improvement, as are dogs with their heightened sense of smell, fish with their ability to live in water, birds with their ability to fly, ants with their ability to build rafts, towers and cities. According to my hypothesis, they are all the result of different cell communities working out their own paths, through different degrees and also different forms of intelligence. An ant thinks like an ant and not like an eagle or a human, though all are composed of cell communities that have taken on different forms. This idea does not in any way exclude the existence of your God as the source of cellular intelligence, just as Darwin’s theory allows for the existence of God as the inventor of the whole process of evolution.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 06:54 (2429 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Intelligent design of intelligent creatures of with varying degrees of intelligence. I do not see these as mutually exclusive.

Nor do I. I keep repeating that we do not know the source of (hypothetical) cellular intelligence, but your God is one possibility.

TONY: Though, they all kind of blow random chance right out of the water.

They blow chance out of the window as the driving force behind evolution, but the problem is the original source of the intelligence. Other possible sources I have mentioned are indeed random chance and some form of panpsychism (see “Understanding the ribosome”). I find all three hypotheses equally difficult to believe in.

TONY: However, with all the intelligence DHW continually talks about, where are the more complex signs of intelligence. I don't mean climbing up your buddies back not to drown, or floating while linked up(which is what sea survival training teaches you to do). Where are the signs of higher intelligence? If cells are intelligent, and that intelligence grows when in a community (multicellular life) why are humans they only creatures that exhibit our degree of intelligence? Surely brain mass alone can not account for it, and neither can size, as ants lack both and perform some impressive feats. Where is expression that we should be seeing in larger life forms if DHW's theory of cellular intelligence is correct?

DHW: I don’t understand your final question, unless you are asking why all life forms haven’t evolved into highly intelligent humans, to which the answer is below. Your comment on brain mass and size ties in with our discussion on dualism versus materialism. If materialism is wrong, then organisms must have some kind of “soul” that is in charge, and you then need a material mechanism to enable the soul to direct the physical being - a brain (or in single cells the equivalent of a brain).

And of course, this is 'unscientific' for now, at least, because it is an unprovable claim with modern technology.

DHW: Materialism argues that the brain or the brain equivalent generates the intelligence. Why different degrees? Why so many different species? Why do some cope with environmental change while others become extinct? Why didn’t all cell communities become humans? The pattern seems to be that cell communities (organisms) work out their own paths to survival and/or improvement. If the path is successful, the organism or improvement survives. New conditions then provide a new threat or a new opportunity for improvement, and so the cycle goes on. Highly intelligent humans are one product of this long history of survival/improvement, as are dogs with their heightened sense of smell, fish with their ability to live in water, birds with their ability to fly, ants with their ability to build rafts, towers and cities. According to my hypothesis, they are all the result of different cell communities working out their own paths, through different degrees and also different forms of intelligence. An ant thinks like an ant and not like an eagle or a human, though all are composed of cell communities that have taken on different forms. This idea does not in any way exclude the existence of your God as the source of cellular intelligence, just as Darwin’s theory allows for the existence of God as the inventor of the whole process of evolution.

This, of course, is also unprovable. Where are the failed experiments? Where are the failed attempts at increased complexity that should be in the record? And, for the record, I am referring to non-anatomical complexity. Crude attempts at art? A slow but steady progression from simpler tools to more complex? A slow progression of hunting techniques for apex predators that show their intelligence has 'evolved' over time. This is just Darwinism repackaged and sold as a psychological argument.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 13:43 (2429 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: According to my hypothesis, they [humans, dogs, fish, birds, ants] are all the result of different cell communities working out their own paths, through different degrees and also different forms of intelligence. An ant thinks like an ant and not like an eagle or a human, though all are composed of cell communities that have taken on different forms. This idea does not in any way exclude the existence of your God as the source of cellular intelligence, just as Darwin’s theory allows for the existence of God as the inventor of the whole process of evolution.

TONY: This, of course, is also unprovable. Where are the failed experiments? Where are the failed attempts at increased complexity that should be in the record? And, for the record, I am referring to non-anatomical complexity. Crude attempts at art? A slow but steady progression from simpler tools to more complex? A slow progression of hunting techniques for apex predators that show their intelligence has 'evolved' over time. This is just Darwinism repackaged and sold as a psychological argument.

Yes, all hypotheses concerning origins are unprovable, but increased complexity is very much on the record, unless you think that bacteria, trilobites and humans came into existence at the same time. Crude attempts at art and progression from simpler tools to more complex are also on the record (though “slow but steady” is a bit misleading: one would not expect to find half a non-painting or half a non-functioning spear). Hunting techniques have clearly progressed from spears to bows and arrows to rifles. Or are you asking why our fellow animals did not come up with these ideas? I can only repeat that there are different forms and different degrees of intelligence, but many predators have been around far longer than we have, and their hunting techniques have worked perfectly well. No need for improvement, and in any case they don’t have the intelligence to imagine weaponry beyond the most rudimentary of tools. I accept that humans, with their enhanced intelligence, are vastly different from all other organisms, but I’m struggling to understand what point you are trying to make here. I know you don’t believe in evolution, though many theists do, but I don’t understand how it’s disproved by the argument that we have not found evidence of failed non-anatomical experiments. I believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent, but not in his random mutations or gradualism, which is why I offer cellular intelligence as the driving force behind life’s great variety. Again I’m struggling to understand what you mean by this being “a psychological argument” (and why that matters). I’m sure we both agree that the complexities of living forms seem to provide evidence of intelligent design, so why is the intelligence of cells more “psychological” than the intelligence of your God (who may have designed the intelligence of cells)? My apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m sure you will explain what that is.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 19:43 (2429 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent, but not in his random mutations or gradualism, which is why I offer cellular intelligence as the driving force behind life’s great variety. Again I’m struggling to understand what you mean by this being “a psychological argument” (and why that matters). I’m sure we both agree that the complexities of living forms seem to provide evidence of intelligent design, so why is the intelligence of cells more “psychological” than the intelligence of your God (who may have designed the intelligence of cells)? My apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but I’m sure you will explain what that is.

I think Tony's point is God did not give cells supreme design intelligence ability to jump the fossil gaps in design of new animal forms. That is a form of God-lite which doesn't compute. I've commented in the past that your thinking seems to still be very influenced by your original readings of Origins, so some of your very stretched theories smell like Darwin-lite, rather than understanding current biological complexity such as research is showing us. That is where Tony's 'psychological argument' comes from. Perhaps Tony will confirm. The complexity is a very compelling argument for God.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by dhw, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 10:03 (2428 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think Tony's point is God did not give cells supreme design intelligence ability to jump the fossil gaps in design of new animal forms. That is a form of God-lite which doesn't compute. I've commented in the past that your thinking seems to still be very influenced by your original readings of Origins, so some of your very stretched theories smell like Darwin-lite, rather than understanding current biological complexity such as research is showing us. That is where Tony's 'psychological argument' comes from. Perhaps Tony will confirm. The complexity is a very compelling argument for God.

I am indeed influenced by Darwin’s theory of common descent but I reject his random mutations and gradualism, and my hypothesis (theistic version) is that your God may have given cells the intelligence to produce saltatory innovations, which I regard as being a less stretched theory than your God preprogramming or dabbling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sake of producing humans. I am fully aware of biological complexity (please believe me, I am not THAT stupid or ignorant) and I keep repeating that this complexity is a major reason why I cannot embrace atheism. There are very different reasons why I cannot embrace theism either. But I’ll look forward to Tony’s clarification of the point he is trying to make.

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 17:09 (2428 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I think Tony's point is God did not give cells supreme design intelligence ability to jump the fossil gaps in design of new animal forms. That is a form of God-lite which doesn't compute. I've commented in the past that your thinking seems to still be very influenced by your original readings of Origins, so some of your very stretched theories smell like Darwin-lite, rather than understanding current biological complexity such as research is showing us. That is where Tony's 'psychological argument' comes from. Perhaps Tony will confirm. The complexity is a very compelling argument for God.

dhw: I am indeed influenced by Darwin’s theory of common descent but I reject his random mutations and gradualism, and my hypothesis (theistic version) is that your God may have given cells the intelligence to produce saltatory innovations, which I regard as being a less stretched theory than your God preprogramming or dabbling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sake of producing humans. I am fully aware of biological complexity (please believe me, I am not THAT stupid or ignorant) and I keep repeating that this complexity is a major reason why I cannot embrace atheism. There are very different reasons why I cannot embrace theism either. But I’ll look forward to Tony’s clarification of the point he is trying to make.

Life's complexity demands a planning mind as the source. I also wait for Tony's response.

Natures wonders: ant colony work arrangements

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 09, 2017, 01:21 (2383 days ago) @ David Turell

The colonies have inactive ants who act as replacement for lost workers:

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lazy-ants-unexpected-ways.html

"If the first thing that comes to mind when you think about ants is "industrious," you might be in for a surprise. In 2015, biologists at the University of Arizona reported that a sizable chunk of the "workers" that make up an ant colony spent the vast majority of their day engaging in one task: doing absolutely nothing.

"'They really just sit there," says Daniel Charbonneau, who dedicated his Ph.D. thesis to studying the behavior (or lack thereof) of these lazy ants. "And whenever they're doing anything other than doing nothing, they do chores around the nest, like a bit of brood care here or grooming another worker there."

"In a new paper, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, authors Charbonneau, Takao Sasaki of the University of Oxford and Dornhaus show for the first time that inactive ants can act as a reserve labor force. When they removed the top 20 percent of most active workers, they found that within a week, they were replaced mostly by individuals belonging to the "lazy" demographic, which stepped up and increased their activity levels to match those of the lost workers.

"'This suggests that the colony responds to the loss of highly active workers by replacing them with inactive ones," Charbonneau says.

***

"Analyzing the video recordings revealed that a colony breaks down into four main demographics, according to Charbonneau: inactive, lazy ants; so-called walkers that spend most of their time just wandering around the nest; foragers that take care of outside tasks such as foraging and building protective walls from tiny rocks; and nurses in charge of rearing the brood.

"Charbonneau observed that the lazy ants tend to have more distended abdomens, hinting at the possibility that they could serve as "living pantries." Published in another recent paper, this observation awaits further testing to determine whether their larger circumference is a cause or a consequence of the lazier workers' lifestyle.

"To see what would happen if the colony lost sizable amounts of inactive members, Charbonneau and Dornhaus did a separate experiment in which they removed the least active 20 percent. They found that those ants, unlike their top-performing peers, were not replaced.

"'This suggests that workers are not switching from other task groups to replace the removed 'inactive' workers," the authors conclude, noting that the problem of adjusting supply to demand is not unique to social insects.

***

"'My speculation is this: Since young workers start out as the most vulnerable members of the colony, it makes sense for them to lay low and be inactive," Charbonneau says. "And because their ovaries are the most active, they produce eggs, and while they're doing that, they might as well store food. When the colony loses workers, it makes sense to replace them with those ants that are not already busy pursuing other tasks.'"

Comment: Makes good organizational sense. Certainly doing it by instinct at this point. Originally guided by God?

Natures wonders: ant colony work arrangements

by dhw, Saturday, September 09, 2017, 10:44 (2383 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "'My speculation is this: Since young workers start out as the most vulnerable members of the colony, it makes sense for them to lay low and be inactive," Charbonneau says. "And because their ovaries are the most active, they produce eggs, and while they're doing that, they might as well store food. When the colony loses workers, it makes sense to replace them with those ants that are not already busy pursuing other tasks.'"

DAVID’S comment: Makes good organizational sense. Certainly doing it by instinct at this point. Originally guided by God?

Wonderful article! Thank you. I think ants probably hold the key to many aspects of evolution. Originally guided by God? My speculation would be originally guided by their own intelligence. God may come into it when we ask where their intelligence came from.

Natures wonders: ant colony work arrangements

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 09, 2017, 14:48 (2383 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "'My speculation is this: Since young workers start out as the most vulnerable members of the colony, it makes sense for them to lay low and be inactive," Charbonneau says. "And because their ovaries are the most active, they produce eggs, and while they're doing that, they might as well store food. When the colony loses workers, it makes sense to replace them with those ants that are not already busy pursuing other tasks.'"

DAVID’S comment: Makes good organizational sense. Certainly doing it by instinct at this point. Originally guided by God?

dhw: Wonderful article! Thank you. I think ants probably hold the key to many aspects of evolution. Originally guided by God? My speculation would be originally guided by their own intelligence. God may come into it when we ask where their intelligence came from.

The other issue is the origin of the different classes of ants to set up their societal arrangement. God again?

Natures wonders: ant colony work arrangements

by dhw, Sunday, September 10, 2017, 14:04 (2382 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’S comment: Makes good organizational sense. Certainly doing it by instinct at this point. Originally guided by God?

dhw: Wonderful article! Thank you. I think ants probably hold the key to many aspects of evolution. Originally guided by God? My speculation would be originally guided by their own intelligence. God may come into it when we ask where their intelligence came from.

DAVID: The other issue is the origin of the different classes of ants to set up their societal arrangement. God again?

Amazing how your God creates all these variations when his prime purpose is to produce the brain of homo sapiens. I would suggest ant intelligence again. Different species and different classes of species work out their own social arrangements – a talent inherited by us humans.

Natures wonders: ant colony work arrangements

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 10, 2017, 15:31 (2382 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’S comment: Makes good organizational sense. Certainly doing it by instinct at this point. Originally guided by God?

dhw: Wonderful article! Thank you. I think ants probably hold the key to many aspects of evolution. Originally guided by God? My speculation would be originally guided by their own intelligence. God may come into it when we ask where their intelligence came from.

DAVID: The other issue is the origin of the different classes of ants to set up their societal arrangement. God again?

dhw: Amazing how your God creates all these variations when his prime purpose is to produce the brain of homo sapiens. I would suggest ant intelligence again. Different species and different classes of species work out their own social arrangements – a talent inherited by us humans.

Did the ants invent their own classes of societal level?

Natures wonders: ant rafts and towers

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 23, 2017, 22:40 (2430 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: One would not expect any organisms (other than humans!) to act unnaturally, and one would expect social organisms to act together. I don’t see that as meaning that the ants act “automatically” as opposed to intelligently. You constantly point to complexity as evidence of intelligent design. Ant rafts and towers are complex feats of engineering, and so if your God was not needed, they are clear evidence of ant intelligence.

Let's drop it. I agree with the authors interpretation and you don't.

Natures wonders: Clever corvids

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 25, 2014, 02:13 (3675 days ago) @ David Turell

007, a clever corvid. How much of this is prior traning and how much is thinking:-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2556662/Bird-brained-This-crows-genius-Amazing-video-reveals-creature-solves-8-complex-puzzles-unlock-treat.html

Natures wonders: More about Clever corvids

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 02:53 (3521 days ago) @ David Turell

They understand water volumes and dropping stones a la' Aesop's fable:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140723180824.htm-Seven year old children get this but younger ones do not.

Natures wonders: Fine Tuned Clocks

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 06:40 (3747 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine Tuned Clocks in Plants->>The researchers found that both population mortality rates and population birth rates of all plant species scale as the ...1/4 power of plant mass. In other words, the smaller a plant, the higher its mortality and birth rates, meaning the shorter its lifespan. Hence, plant lifespan scales as almost exactly the 1/4 power of plant mass.-
Evidence of pre-planning and design is everywhere. :)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Into the Deep

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 07:14 (3747 days ago) @ David Turell

Into the Deep-Extremophiles turn geophysics on its head.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Tick mouth

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 04, 2014, 02:19 (3727 days ago) @ David Turell

Ouch. Looks designed to me:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ticks-latch-on-with-telescoping-barbed-mouthparts&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140103

Natures wonders: Salmon Migration

by David Turell @, Friday, February 07, 2014, 01:18 (3693 days ago) @ David Turell

Follows Earth's magnetic field:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140206133648.htm

Natures wonders: Crazy ants

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 13, 2014, 19:47 (3686 days ago) @ David Turell

Defeat fire ant venom:-http://www.livescience.com/43366-crazy-ants-taking-over-south-secret-weapon.html-"All over the southern United States, miniature foes are engaging in fierce battle. Invasive "crazy ants" have been displacing fire ants, and a curious defensive strategy may be behind the crazy ants' bold takeover.
 
"Fire ants pack potent venom that kills most ants that come into contact with it. But when crazy ants get stung, they secrete a substance and rub it all over themselves to neutralize the venom, new research finds.
 
"This detoxifying behavior — the first example of an insect capable of detoxifying another's venom — may be the reason crazy ants have been able to compete with the venomous fire ants, according to the study detailed online today (Feb. 13) in the journal Science. [See Photos of Crazy Ants & Video of Crazy Ants Neutralizing Venom]"

Natures wonders: Owl wings

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 20, 2014, 01:16 (3680 days ago) @ David Turell

Are being studied to improve wind turbines and airplane wings. Owls hunt silently on large wings, eagles and hawks rely on speed:-http://www4.lehigh.edu/news/newsarticle.aspx?Channel=/Channels/News+2013&WorkflowItemID=8ff33edc-5b3b-4b9a-9991-3ba6e3db16d9

Natures wonders: Blocking antibiotics

by David Turell @, Friday, February 21, 2014, 22:22 (3678 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria produce antibiotics to fight enemies, but block the effect on themselves:
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39237/title/How-a-Microbe-Resists-its-Own-Antibiotics/

Natures wonders: killing Crazy Ants

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 02, 2022, 00:44 (717 days ago) @ David Turell

Using a fungus to kill the ants:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/invasive-crazy-ants-are-being-annihilated-by-...

"Tawny crazy ants, like other crazy ant species, are named for their frantic foraging movements and erratic behavior. When attacked, the ants bite and excrete formic acid through the end of their abdomen, using it like venom. In addition to killing larger arthropods like crickets and scorpions, the ants can force birds from their nests and even blind young rabbits with their acid.

"So when LeBrun and colleagues found a type of fungus that seems to only target tawny crazy ants, they were immediately intrigued. The fungus, Myrmecomorba nylanderiae, works by eating the ants from the inside out. Once a fungal spore is swallowed by an ant, the pathogen hijacks an insect’s fat cells and makes them shed more spores, which infect others.

"Before doing their latest study, the research team observed and sampled over a dozen infected and uninfected crazy ant colonies. They found all infected colonies were declining, and more than half of them disappeared completely within four to seven years of being infected with the pathogen, according to Live Science’s Mindy Weisberger.

"To see how quickly the fungus would take down a colony of tawny crazy ants, scientists intentionally infected two different populations of ants. In their experiment, they collected ants infected with M. nylanderiae and had them mingle with uninfected ants in the wild using hot dogs as a lure. The pathogen has spread to every nearby ant within seven months, and two years later, the colonies were totally wiped out.

"LeBrun’s team theorizes that the reason for colony collapse is because the pathogen shortens the lifespan of worker ants, making it difficult for a population to make it through the winter. It’s not clear where the fungus came from originally, but it doesn't seem to affect native arthropods, reports Ars Technica’s Jennifer Ouellette.

"If the pathogen continues to spread, entomologists behind the study say the fungus could make a serious dent in the U.S. crazy ant population within the next few years.

“'This doesn’t mean crazy ants will disappear,” LeBrun says in a press release. “It’s impossible to predict how long it will take for the lightning bolt to strike and the pathogen to infect any one crazy ant population. But it’s a big relief because it means these populations appear to have a lifespan.'”

Comment: A great use of Mother Nature. We are aware that a fungus can attack leaf-eating ants and change their behaviour. This is sort of similar. The Crazy Ants are not a bad bug. as we have discussed about bacteria, just an ant in the wrong environment.

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by David Turell @, Friday, March 07, 2014, 15:21 (3665 days ago) @ David Turell

European robins do it by quantum mechanics to follow the magnetic fields to the south in winter:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jepgOQEvWT0

Natures wonders:Sea turtle migration

by David Turell @, Monday, March 10, 2014, 20:05 (3661 days ago) @ David Turell

Out at sea for a decade and back to the same beach!!-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-turtles-lost-years-transatlantic-journey-mapped-for-first-time/?&WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20140310

Natures wonders: Camouflage

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 00:39 (3661 days ago) @ David Turell

How do imitators mutate to a perfect copy?:-
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-impersonating-poisonous-prey.html-Somehow they do.

Natures wonders: Ants as bodyguards

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 15:12 (3660 days ago) @ David Turell

Jumping spiders utilize ants as protectors, even if the ants are enemies:-
"The spitting spider can immobilize its prey by spitting on it from a distance. In the Philippines, it lives on the same large waxy leaves as the jumping spider. It normally spins its web right over the nest of the jumping spider, to make hunting just a little bit easier. However, the researchers found that a spitting spider does not come near a jumping spider when the latter positions its own nest near that of weaver ants. This is because the spitting spider is repelled by the specific airborne olfactory compounds that these ants release.
 
"The researchers found that jumping spiders choose nesting sites based on whether they can see active living ants, if they detect ant odor or can see mounts made from dead weaver ants. However, it's not yet plain sailing for the jumping spider, as it is also a favorite snack of its savior, the weaver ant. Therefore jumping spiders build dense ant-proof nests of an unusually tough and dense weave that are difficult for the insects to tear open. The nest's hinged flaps of silk at each end function as swinging doors. The spider quickly raises these when it enters or leaves the nest, before any ants can follow, too."-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140311100612.htm

Natures wonders: Plant defence

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 20, 2014, 16:49 (3652 days ago) @ David Turell

Sensing snails about to bite:-http://discovermagazine.com/2014/april/8-snail-fail

Natures wonders: How sea snakes drink

by David Turell @, Friday, March 28, 2014, 19:14 (3643 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: Biomimetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 03, 2014, 15:16 (3638 days ago) @ David Turell

Using nature's designs to aid in human inventions. we constantly copy natural designs, Velcro anyone?:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/engineers_flatt_1083801.html

Natures wonders: Nematode detox

by David Turell @, Friday, April 04, 2014, 16:28 (3637 days ago) @ David Turell

"Plants defend themselves against infectious bacteria and fungi by releasing a storm of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which kill the invaders. But for the sugarbeet nematode (Heterodera schachtii), this defensive attack is actually the key to its success.
 
"Shahid Siddique and Christiane Matera from the University of Bonn in Germany have found that the nematode switches on plant genes that produce ROS. Without these molecules, the parasite cannot properly grow within its host. Their results are published today (April 3) in Science Signaling."-
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39628/title/Worm-Subverts-Plant-Attack/

Natures wonders: Making plants zombies

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 01:56 (3632 days ago) @ David Turell

It is quite a trick:-"The beauty of the paper is that the bacteria control both plant and insect at the same time with the same protein," said Hughes. "That's stunning."-
http://www.nature.com/news/bacterial-tricks-for-turning-plants-into-zombies-1.15011

Natures wonders: photosynthesis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 15, 2014, 15:14 (3626 days ago) @ David Turell

Dual role for CO^2:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140413154053.htm

Natures wonders: carnivorous sponges

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 19, 2014, 15:20 (3622 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution ever very inventive. Meat eating sponges. 120 species around the world:-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/science/spongebob-the-carnivore.html?_r=0

Natures wonders: fungal antibiotics

by David Turell @, Monday, April 21, 2014, 19:07 (3620 days ago) @ David Turell

New defences made by fungi:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2014/04/19/fighting-bacteria-with-weapons-from-fungi/

Natures wonders: carnivorous plant trick

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 24, 2014, 14:41 (3617 days ago) @ David Turell

Natures wonders: bioluminescent squid

by David Turell @, Monday, May 19, 2014, 14:55 (3592 days ago) @ David Turell

Using lighted bacteria as a light organ:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39782/title/The-Telltale-Tail/

Natures wonders: Ant baby sits butterfly larva

by David Turell @, Monday, May 19, 2014, 22:51 (3591 days ago) @ David Turell

Another strange interspecies relationship:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2014/05/18/butterfly-watch-the-caterpillars-that-exploit-ants-as-childminders/

Natures wonders: Brainy animals

by David Turell @, Monday, May 19, 2014, 22:56 (3591 days ago) @ David Turell

More clever behavior by several species:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/orangutans-share-their-future-plans-with-others/?&WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20140519

Natures wonders: The Eyes have it

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 21, 2014, 15:42 (3590 days ago) @ David Turell

Larva with 12 eyes and 28 retinas, some with bifocal lenses:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25601-zoologger-larval-hunter-uses-bifocals-to-catch-prey.html-The ultimate in convergence.

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 27, 2014, 14:33 (3584 days ago) @ David Turell

Somewhat chaotic but it works:-http://phys.org/news/2014-05-chaos-ants-optimize-food.html

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by dhw, Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 17:11 (3583 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Somewhat chaotic but it works:-http://phys.org/news/2014-05-chaos-ants-optimize-food.html-Thank you for this. As you know, I am a great ant fan. There's nothing new about this discovery, but a couple of comments seem to me yet again to highlight the parallels between these extraordinary creatures and the phenomenon of "emergence" in relation to our own cell communities in particular, and cell communities generally.
 
QUOTE: "Importantly, the researchers found that the experience of individual ants contributes to their foraging success ... something also neglected in previous research. Older ants have a better knowledge of the nests surroundings. The foraging of younger ants is a learning process rather than an effective contribution to scout food, according to the study."-The process of adaptation and innovation through cooperation between cells and cell communities has to entail a pooling of knowledge through communication. Maybe the ants' foraging can be seen as parallel to experimentation by cell communities (just as the cells of our individual organs must work out how best to deal with whatever changes our bodies are subjected to).
 
QUOTE: "A highly efficient complex network"
"While the single ant is certainly not smart, the collective acts in a way that I'm tempted to call intelligent," says co-author Jürgen Kurths who leads PIK's research domain Transdisciplinary Concepts and Methods." -And while the individual brain cell may not be "smart", put it together with a few billion others and between them they can produce a Shakespeare, a Beethoven, an Einstein. Of course, each brain is different, and some are "smarter" than others. Ditto ants, and ditto the cell communities that innovate.

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 17:46 (3583 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The process of adaptation and innovation through cooperation between cells and cell communities has to entail a pooling of knowledge through communication. Maybe the ants' foraging can be seen as parallel to experimentation by cell communities (just as the cells of our individual organs must work out how best to deal with whatever changes our bodies are subjected to).-Again to the kidney. Those cells evolved to do complex work, but their sudden appearance in the Cambrian denies your cooperation theory. They suddenly worked together. Where was the time for negotiation and testing cooperation?-
> 
> dhw: And while the individual brain cell may not be "smart", put it together with a few billion others and between them they can produce a Shakespeare, a Beethoven, an Einstein. Of course, each brain is different, and some are "smarter" than others. Ditto ants, and ditto the cell communities that innovate.-First part of your comment is right on. Brain cells are so pliable they can produce. Cell commmunities, no. They are automatically in tight control of their productive capacities. They are production-line factories.

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by dhw, Thursday, May 29, 2014, 17:11 (3582 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The process of adaptation and innovation through cooperation between cells and cell communities has to entail a pooling of knowledge through communication. Maybe the ants' foraging can be seen as parallel to experimentation by cell communities (just as the cells of our individual organs must work out how best to deal with whatever changes our bodies are subjected to).-DAVID: Again to the kidney. Those cells evolved to do complex work, but their sudden appearance in the Cambrian denies your cooperation theory. They suddenly worked together. Where was the time for negotiation and testing cooperation?-If innovations don't work, they won't survive. "Punctuated equilibrium" suggests sudden bursts of activity, and clearly the Cambrian Explosion was one ... but "sudden" is a relative term. The period lasted for about 50 million years, which allows for quite a few generations! Either the cell communities cooperated to invent these new organs within the given time frame, or you are going to have reject evolution and revert to special creation, or to your God pre-programming every single innovation in the first few forms of life, to be passed down through billions of generations of billions of species.-dhw: And while the individual brain cell may not be "smart", put it together with a few billion others and between them they can produce a Shakespeare, a Beethoven, an Einstein. Of course, each brain is different, and some are "smarter" than others. Ditto ants, and ditto the cell communities that innovate.-DAVID: First part of your comment is right on. Brain cells are so pliable they can produce. Cell commmunities, no. They are automatically in tight control of their productive capacities. They are production-line factories.-Once the organ has been invented, the cells will certainly follow the established patterns, just as ants do, but I have specified the cell communities that innovate. This takes us back to my comment above. Are you arguing for special creation, or for the very first forms of life being preprogrammed with billions of innovations to be passed down etc.?

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 29, 2014, 19:01 (3582 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: If innovations don't work, they won't survive. "Punctuated equilibrium" suggests sudden bursts of activity, and clearly the Cambrian Explosion was one ... but "sudden" is a relative term. The period lasted for about 50 million years, which allows for quite a few generations!-But you are ignoring the abrupt appearance of whole animals with whole previously absent organ systems. Yes these appearances covered 50 million years, but with no anticedents for any of them! -> 
> dhw: Once the organ has been invented, the cells will certainly follow the established patterns, just as ants do, but I have specified the cell communities that innovate. This takes us back to my comment above. Are you arguing for special creation, or for the very first forms of life being preprogrammed with billions of innovations to be passed down etc.?-Your specification is not God's. I have no idea how God did it. I just know the simple fact that evolution produced us with no obvious natural reason for that invention..

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by GateKeeper @, Friday, May 30, 2014, 12:36 (3581 days ago) @ David Turell

Did you ever wonder what a "brain" would do without a body? Ants!-Why are human so "stupid" when born? The size of the opening in the pelvis.-The "non-believer" has to explain to me were a bird learned to be a bird. I am having great trouble answering this without the notion the information was there (or at least very possible) before the bird.-Ignore what "god" they told you had to be. Listen first to the "information" that speaks between your thoughts. Then ask a friend what they think of it. And after you curse them ask them "what you say again?"

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by David Turell @, Friday, May 30, 2014, 15:38 (3581 days ago) @ GateKeeper

GK:The "non-believer" has to explain to me were a bird learned to be a bird. I am having great trouble answering this without the notion the information was there (or at least very possible) before the bird.
> 
> Ignore what "god" they told you had to be. Listen first to the "information" that speaks between your thoughts. -Everything is based on information that we discover. the information is not a human invention. It was there first. This is a major key issue to consider, as you do. Information does not arise by chance.

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by GateKeeper @, Friday, May 30, 2014, 17:51 (3581 days ago) @ David Turell

yep,-Why couldn't "god" has started by "chance"? I mean "it" is with us now, that's clear enough. And maybe we weren't "by chance"?. But first the universe/god then humans seems ok to me.-I love ants. A brain running about with no "body". Can you imagine when we don't need hadrons and a lepton? how cool.

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by David Turell @, Friday, May 30, 2014, 18:02 (3581 days ago) @ GateKeeper

GK:yep,
> 
> Why couldn't "god" has started by "chance"? I mean "it" is with us now, that's clear enough. And maybe we weren't "by chance"?. But first the universe/god then humans seems ok to me.-The cannot be something from an absolute true 'nothing' total void. thre has always been something

Natures wonders: Ant colony food finding

by GateKeeper @, Friday, May 30, 2014, 20:39 (3580 days ago) @ David Turell

that may very well be true. In fact, I am a "something" before this universe guy too. But those things are not test table yet. What we do have is "now" and what we know now. "probability" works. we don't know why. we don't know about before. We don't know a lot. But we see that probability seems to work for us. -So why couldn't the "god" you believe in right now, with us now, not have been created from "what was before "it"? "born", Like everything else we see around us? Exactly like DNA is "you before now", but you are "now" and DNA will be "after you". DNA is everything.-Did I say I love ants?
One ant asked another "whats your proof the colony has a purpose".
A third ant said "stfu and get that queen her food, then carry that egg down stairs!!!"

Natures wonders: smart slime

by David Turell @, Monday, June 02, 2014, 14:57 (3578 days ago) @ GateKeeper

Food sensors lead the way to smart solutions of a maze:-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/944790.stm

Natures wonders: smart viruses

by David Turell @, Monday, June 02, 2014, 15:34 (3578 days ago) @ David Turell

Plaant viruses can disable plant anti-viral antibodies:-http://phys.org/news/2014-06-virus-rounds-enzymes.html

Natures wonders: smart slime

by dhw, Wednesday, June 04, 2014, 11:34 (3576 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Food sensors lead the way to smart solutions of a maze:-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/944790.stm-As always, thank you for this constant stream of highly educational articles. I found this one particularly interesting because of the following:-QUOTE: "This remarkable process of cellular computation implies that cellular materials can show a primitive intelligence," the team writes in Nature.-Their discovery clearly reinforces the concept of the "intelligent cell", which we have discussed at length as being the basis of evolutionary change ... as opposed to Darwin's random mutations and gradualism.

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 05, 2014, 21:33 (3574 days ago) @ dhw

Fire fly design improves LEDs:-http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/7-brighter-idea

Natures wonders: using pH

by David Turell @, Monday, June 09, 2014, 16:29 (3571 days ago) @ David Turell

Cat fish fish by following a more acid pH to get the worm:-"they found that the fish respond most strongly to slight variations in the acidity of seawater. This is measured on the pH scale: 0 is completely acidic, 7 is neutral and 14 is completely alkaline. Seawater normally varies between 8.1 and 8.2, but Caprio found that a drop of just 0.1 ... a slight increase in acidity ... was enough to get the fish hunting.-"It's quite dramatic," says Caprio. "The fish is like a swimming pH meter."-"Like all animals, the worms breathe out carbon dioxide, and this reacts with water to form carbonic acid, slightly acidifying it. Caprio found this was enough to temporarily acidify the water at the mouth of a worm's tunnel, reducing pH by around 0.1. He covered the tunnel exits with netting to stop the worms being sucked out, and found the catfish repeatedly targeted the occupied tunnels and mostly ignored empty ones."-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25679-zoologger-acid-for-breath-helps-catfish-find-food.html

Natures wonders: male spider sex trick

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 16:02 (3569 days ago) @ David Turell

Using a plug as birth control to block other spiders from impregnating their lady.:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40185/title/Spiders-Try-to-Ensure-Paternity/

Natures wonders: Plants abilities

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 14, 2014, 14:52 (3566 days ago) @ David Turell

Ten different attributes of plants. Not so docile:-http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 19, 2014, 15:46 (3561 days ago) @ David Turell

Studying insect flight with insect-like robots:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40278/title/Insect-Inspired-Sensors-Improve-Tiny-Robot-s-Flight/

Natures wonders: cyanide protection

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 24, 2014, 00:12 (3556 days ago) @ David Turell

Some plants release cyanide when bitten. Great self-protection. The article actually discusses evolutionary constraints.:-http://phys.org/news/2014-06-evolutionary-history.html

Natures wonders: bacterial antibiotic tolerance

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 29, 2014, 16:16 (3551 days ago) @ David Turell

This new study shows how bacteria do this. What the article does not mention is that antibiotic resistance is natural in nature and the original antibiotics came from soil molds:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40348/title/Evolving-Antibiotic-Tolerance/-All nature is at war.

Natures wonders: amazing shrimp eyes

by David Turell @, Monday, July 07, 2014, 21:04 (3542 days ago) @ David Turell

Most of the vision wirk is done in the eyes, while in humans, our eyes are simpler and the work is done in the brain.-http://www.livescience.com/46675-sunscreen-gives-mantis-shrimp-uv-vision.html?cmpid=557891

Natures wonders: ant corpses

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 09, 2014, 02:02 (3541 days ago) @ David Turell

Protect certain types of wasp nests!-http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0101592

Natures wonders: electron-eating bacteria

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 19, 2014, 00:49 (3531 days ago) @ David Turell

Living only on energy:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25894-meet-the-electric-life-forms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html#.U8mtCfl3KM5--"Over at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, Daniel Bond and his colleagues have published experiments showing that they could grow a type of bacteria that harvested electrons from an iron electrode (mBio, doi.org/tqg). That research, says Jangir's supervisor Moh El-Naggar, may be the most convincing example we have so far of electricity eaters grown on a supply of electrons with no added food.-"But Nealson says there is much more to come. His PhD student Annette Rowe has identified up to eight different kinds of bacteria that consume electricity. Those results are being submitted for publication.-"Nealson is particularly excited that Rowe has found so many types of electric bacteria, all very different to one another, and none of them anything like Shewanella or Geobacter. "This is huge. What it means is that there's a whole part of the microbial world that we don't know about."-"Discovering this hidden biosphere is precisely why Jangir and El-Naggar want to cultivate electric bacteria. "We're using electrodes to mimic their interactions," says El-Naggar. "Culturing the 'unculturables', if you will." The researchers plan to install a battery inside a gold mine in South Dakota to see what they can find living down there."

Natures wonders: cold-blooded corrections

by David Turell @, Monday, July 21, 2014, 14:30 (3529 days ago) @ David Turell

Fruit flies, when cold, alter protein production as an adaptation:-http://phys.org/news/2014-07-temperatures-cold-newly-discovered-fruit-flies.html

Natures wonders: orchid pheromones

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 15:17 (3520 days ago) @ David Turell

Fooling a wasp into fertilizing an orchid. How in the world did the plant learn to do that?-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40612/title/Image-of-the-Day--Floral-Fraud/

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 16, 2014, 19:42 (3442 days ago) @ David Turell

Slick surface coating from pitcher plaats stops blood clotting on tubes. Even stops a gecko from climbing:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/carnivorous-plant-inspires-anticlotting-medical-devices/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20141016

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 15:40 (3408 days ago) @ David Turell

Climbing a vertical wall like a gecko:-"To climb, a person reaches up, places a pad against the wall (causing the step on that side to rise an equal distance) places a foot on the step and pushes themselves higher using leg force. The process is repeated alternating between the left and right hands/feet as the person climbs higher.-"Currently, the pads only work on clean smooth surfaces, but the team hopes to improve on that by making self cleaning pads, similar to the approach used by geckos. Applications range from window washing to satellite retrieval systems.-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-11-gecko-pads-climb-glass-wall.html#jCp

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 23:46 (3386 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders leg slit sensors for vibrations now made into an electronic sensor:-http://www.livescience.com/49083-spider-inspired-vibration-sensor.html?cmpid=558757-"Spiders have an organ called the "slit sensilla" near their leg joints that detects tiny vibrations in their environment. By mimicking the design of this organ, researchers produced a sensor that is extremely sensitive and flexible, and could be used in wearable electronics.-"The slit sensilla in spiders consists of parallel slits of different lengths embedded in their exoskeleton, resembling the strings of a harp, which senses movement by opening and closing in response to forces exerted on it. The slits are connected to nerves that relay information about the vibrations to the spiders' brains."

Natures wonders: more biomimetics

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 18, 2014, 15:11 (3379 days ago) @ David Turell

Using spider venom as pesticide. Great progress in this field. Products are coming to market:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41498/title/Along-Came-a-Spider/-"As expected, the toxin effectively killed pests: ingestion of either the purified peptide or the leaves of the Hvt-transgenic plants had fatal effects on the African cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis) and the tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens). More importantly, the purified toxin peptide did not harm any of four beneficial nontarget species: the common green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea), the aphid parasitoid (Aphidius colemani), the seven-spot ladybird (Coccinella septempunctata)—three aphid predators used for biological control—or the western honey bee (Apis mellifera) (J Appl Entomol, doi:10.1111/jen.12156, 2014). “We tested the nontarget [insects] with the same concentration [of toxin peptide that killed the pests], and it did not affect them in any way,” Ullah says.-"The results confirm research published this June in Proceedings of the Royal Society B (281:20140619, 2014), in which a group of UK researchers demonstrated that Hvt, linked to a carrier molecule called GNA from the common snowdrop plant (Galanthus nivalis), did not reduce honey bee survival or rates of learning and memory. “They did a whole range of studies that show that it has absolutely no effect at all,” says King. “All of the data is looking very, very strong.”"

Natures wonders: more biomimetics; snake skin

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 00:30 (3184 days ago) @ David Turell

Snake skin is slick, 40% reduction in friction:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-snake-skin-surfaces-percent-friction.html-"Snake skin inspired surfaces smash records, providing an astonishing 40% friction reduction in tests of high performance materials.-"These new surfaces could improve the reliability of mechanical components in machines such as high performance cars and add grist to the mill of engineers designing a new generation of space exploration robots.-"The skin of many snakes and lizards has been studied by biologists and has long been known to provide friction reduction to the animal as it moves. It is also resistant to wear, particularly in environments that are dry and dusty or sandy.-"Dr Greiner and his team used a laser to etch the surface of a steel pin so that it closely resembled the texture of snake skin. They then tested the friction created when the pin moved against another surface.-"In dry conditions, i.e. with no oil or other lubricant, the scale-like surface created far less friction—40% less—than its smooth counterpart."

Natures wonders: biomimetics; Mussel glue

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 19:44 (3164 days ago) @ David Turell

A glue that holds and heals without scarring. A great surgical advance:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721111211.htm-"Inspired by nature's wonders, Korean scientists have developed new mussel-protein based adhesive hydrogel that is activated via a photochemical reaction when applied blue visible light. The innovative surgical protein glue, called LAMBA, not only closes an open wound on a wet bleeding site within less than 60 seconds but also effectively facilitates the healing process without inflammation or a scar. LAMBA's outstanding qualities such as compatibility with the human body, strong adhesiveness in wet conditions, and convenient handling point to the possibility of myriad medical applications including sutureless wound closures of delicate organs or tissues beyond surgeons' reach.-"The new product LAMBA, a focus of their recent publication in Biomaterials, is an upgrade version of previously known mussel-inspired adhesives that copy mussels' ability to fix their body under water. Instead of producing recombinant mussel adhesive proteins (MAPs) by modifying DOPA, a key element for the adhesive property, E.Y. Jeon et al., have created the new tissue adhesive via a photochemical reaction using blue visible light.-"E.Y. Jeon et al gained the idea for this more economic, facile, and reliable strategy from dityrosine crosslinks that are often found in dragonfly wings and insect cuticles. When visible light triggers a photo-oxidation reaction in MAPs plentiful of tyrosine, neighboring tyrosine residues are instantly coupled into dityrosine crosslinks, which in turn enhance structural stability and adhesive properties of the new MAPs in the form of hydrogel."

Natures wonders: biomimetics; a review

by David Turell @, Monday, August 03, 2015, 14:13 (3151 days ago) @ David Turell

This article describes several different advances:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43625/title/Inspired-by-Nature/-"The jellyfish is far from the only intriguing organism to have served as a blueprint for scientists in the field of bioinspired medicine. Researchers have taken cues from the adhesive chemistry perfected by mussels and marine worms to create tissue glues that stick in wet and turbulent conditions; from red blood cell membranes to help drug-carrying nanoparticles avoid immune attack; and from the slippery slides that help carnivorous pitcher plants catch prey to produce novel antibacterial surfaces. (See “Bioinspired Antibacterial Surfaces.”) Nature, it seems, provides a compendium of biomedical solutions.-“'Nature has used the power of evolution by natural selection to develop the most efficient ways to solve all kinds of problems,” says Donald Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston. “We've uncovered so much about how nature works, builds, controls, and manufactures from the nanoscale up. Now we're starting to leverage those biological principles.'”

Natures wonders: biomimetics; medical uses

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 27, 2015, 13:40 (3127 days ago) @ David Turell

Another review article covering many of the new approaches in medical research. Not just glues to repair cuts, mechanical trapping of travelling cancer cells for tumor identification, smart delivery systems which fool the immune system to let materials pass by, etc:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43625/title/Inspired-by-Nature/

Natures wonders: biomimetics; swan neck cameras

by David Turell @, Monday, August 31, 2015, 14:40 (3123 days ago) @ David Turell

Studying how swans and geese keep their heads steady while twisting and turning in the air has led to ways of keeping drone cameras steady:-http://phys.org/news/2015-08-secret-steady-drone-cameras-swan.html-"Swans and geese are the envy of aeronautical engineers. Even plump geese can perform remarkable aerial acrobatics - twisting their body and flapping their powerful wings while keeping their head completely still. -"They found that the neck functions much like how a car's suspension system provides a smooth ride over a bumpy road. The neck vertebrae and muscles respond with just the right stiffness and flexibility to passively keep the head steady during flapping flight, and even in mild gusts.-"'This simple mechanism is a remarkable finding considering the daunting complexity of avian neck morphology with about 20 vertebrae and more than 200 muscles on each side," said Lentink, the senior author on the study."

Natures wonders: biomimetics; avoiding interference

by David Turell @, Monday, December 21, 2015, 21:39 (3010 days ago) @ David Turell

A fish uses electrolocation to spot prey, and has a mechanisms to damp down interference. -http://phys.org/news/2015-12-fish-key-efficient-wireless-networks.html- -
An unlikely source—a small South American fish known as Eigenmannia that depends on electrolocation for survival—presents a potential solution, according to researchers in the University of Georgia College of Engineering.-"Eigenmannia (virescens) is a species of glass knifefish, and they locate objects by generating an electric field and detecting distortions in the field," assistant professor Mable Fok said. "They have a neural circuit that can effectively sense the frequency emitted by other fish, and they use this sense to regulate their own emitting frequency so they don't interfere with the others."-In other words, the fish have developed a natural system that prevents them from jamming each other's signals.-***-"'If we can borrow the JAR circuit from the Eigenmannia and replicate it in our communications frequency bands, then we can create a communications system that allows automated interference mitigation," Fok said.-"To simulate the theory, Fok and Toole designed an artificial neural model using photonics technology that mimics the way the JAR circuit behaves in the fish.-"Photonics is the science of generating, controlling and detecting photons, which are particles of light. Photonic technology is found in a wide range of applications, from consumer electronics—barcode scanners, DVD players and remote TV controls—to defense and security—infrared cameras and remote sensing equipment. The technology allows systems to complete complex, real-time categorization and decision-making tasks.-"In the researchers' computer simulation, photonic interconnections mimic the neural function in the fish's nervous system. The ultimate idea is to design a photonic nervous system that allows wireless devices to automatically seek an unused frequency when they detect interference from other devices.-
Comment: It is amazing how much nature has invented that we can copy.

Natures wonders: biomimetics; bat wing design

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 18, 2016, 15:17 (2952 days ago) @ David Turell

For very small aircraft, a batwing design:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160218062248.htm-"Researchers from the University of Southampton have designed innovative membrane wings inspired by bats, paving the way for a new breed of unmanned Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) that have improved aerodynamic properties, can fly over long distances and are more economical to run.-
"The wings work like artificial muscles, changing shape in response to the forces they experience and have no mechanical parts, making MAVs incorporating them easier to maintain.-"The unique design of the wings incorporates electro-active polymers that makes the wings stiffen and relax in response to an applied voltage and further enhances their performance.-By changing the voltage input, the shape of the electroactive membrane and therefore aerodynamic characteristics can be altered during flight. The proof of concept wing will eventually enable flight over much longer distances than currently possible.-***-"Sometimes as small as 15cm across, MAVs are increasingly used in a wide variety of civil and military applications, such as surveying remote and dangerous areas. One emerging trend among MAV developers is to draw inspiration from the natural world to design vehicles that can achieve better flight performance and that offer similar levels of controllability to small drones but use the efficiency provided by wings to fly much further.-"The Southampton-Imperial team have focused on mimicking the physiology of bats -- the only type of mammal naturally capable of genuine flight. To inform and speed up the design process, the Imperial team built innovative computational models and used them to aid the construction of a test MAV incorporating the pioneering 'bat wings'.-***-"Professor Bharath Ganapathisubramani of Southampton's Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group, who has led the overall project, says: "We've successfully demonstrated the fundamental feasibility of MAVs incorporating wings that respond to their environment, just like those of the bats that have fuelled our thinking. We've also shown in laboratory trials that active wings can dramatically alter the performance. The combined computational and experimental approach that characterised the project is unique in the field of bio-inspired MAV design.'"-Comment: Nature knows best. All by chance?

Natures wonders: biomimetics;octopus suction cup mat

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 06, 2016, 23:49 (2812 days ago) @ David Turell

Coping the octopus suction cup has helped cerate a suction cup map using heat:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-suction-cup-mat-based-octopus.html-"Building flexible sensors, the researchers note, is difficult and cumbersome—it requires moving nano- and/or microribbons of inorganic semiconductor materials onto rubber sheets. Making the process easier, the researchers thought, could be done by building a simple suction device that could hold onto the material and then let go without grabbing it. To build such a device, they turned to the octopus—it gets around, they noted by moving its tentacles to a new location and then holding on using suction cups. The suction cups work due to muscles around their edges that can be made thinner or thicker on demand, increasing or decreasing air pressure inside the cup, allowing for sucking and releasing as desired.-"To mimic the octopus suction cups, the researchers created a small rubber mat made out of polydimethylsiloxane (a type of silicon that has a rubbery texture) with small pits on one side. At room temperature, the walls of each pit sit in an 'open' state, but when the mat is heated to approximately 32°C, the walls contract, creating suction, allowing the entire mate to adhere to a material. To use the mat as a device to move materials, all the team needed to do was heat it, apply to the material, move to the new location, then allow the mat to cool, whereupon the material would be dropped into place.-"The team reports that the mat worked as envisioned—they made some indium gallium arsenide transistors that sat on a flexible substrate and also used it to move some nanomaterials to a different type of flexible material. They believe there might be a wide variety of applications that could benefit from such mats, such as Band-Aids or sensors that stick to the skin at normal body temperatures but fall off when rinsed under cold water."-Comment: Mother Nature is the best inventor, but who is the real inventor? If we have chance or design, who is the designer? If not God, who?

Natures wonders: Water fleas grow armor

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 07, 2016, 00:00 (2812 days ago) @ David Turell

Water fleas grow exoskeletons shaped to repel specific predators depending on which are present:-http://www.livescience.com/55297-how-water-fleas-grow-body-armor.html?utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160706-ls-test-"Water fleas prepare for battle by growing armor that's customized to specific enemies, new research finds.-"Tiny Daphnia species develop impressive protective structures as they mature, including pointy tail spines and tough helmets. Now, researcher Linda Weiss of Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany and her colleagues have found the neurotransmitters that help water fleas customize their bodies in response to the chemical cues in their watery environments.-"'Dopamine, in particular, appears to code neuronal signals into endocrine [hormone] signals," Weiss said in a statement.-***-"When juvenile Daphnia molt and develop a mature exoskeleton, they mold their bodies based on the chemicals they encounter in the water. The water fleas use appendages called antennules to detect scents and chemicals left by predators (fish, for example, or the upside-down swimming insects called backswimmers). They then develop armor defenses in response to the threats they expect to face.-"'These defenses are speculated to act like an anti-lock key system, which means that they somehow interfere with the predator's feeding apparatus," Weiss said. "Many freshwater fish can only eat small prey. So, for example, Daphnia lumholtzi grows head and tail spines to make eating them more difficult."-***-"Weiss and her colleagues have found the intermediary steps that make this transformation occur. The antennules create brain signals when they detect chemical cues, which in turn cause the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine, in turn, cues the release of juvenile hormones that promote growth in particular body regions.-"The same juvenile hormones promote growth in many other arthropods, Weiss said, which suggests that this developmental pathway is a widely shared way for crustaceans and insects to respond to environmental conditions."-Comment: A complex mechanism involving nerve impulses and the release of dopamine. Saltation?

Natures wonders: biomimetics;low reflection screens

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 19:55 (2427 days ago) @ David Turell

Moth eyes show us how. At night the moonlight does not reflect from their eyes, perhaps as a developed protection from being spotted by predators:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-from-nature-moth-eyes-inspire-nonre...

"It is a summer night, and the moths are all aflutter. Despite being drenched in moonlight, their eyes do not reflect it—and soon the same principle could help you see your cell-phone screen in bright sunlight.

***

"When light moves from one medium to another, it bends and changes speed as the result of differences in a material property called refractive index. If the difference is sharp—as when light moving through air suddenly hits a pane of glass—much of the light is reflected. But a moth’s eye is coated with tiny, uniform bumps that gradually bend (or refract) incoming light. The light waves interfere with one another and cancel one another out, rendering the eyes dark.


"Wu and his colleagues at National Taiwan University created a silicon dioxide mold that resembles a moth’s eye surface and used it to produce a hard, dimpled coating on a flexible sheet. Although these dimples are concave rather than convex such as those on the moth’s eye, they prevent glare in the same way. In tests, the material resulted in less than 1 percent reflectance."

Comment: Nature is always smarter than we are. And these inventions all occurred by chance through evolution! No way!

Natures wonders: biomimetics; beetle bites resemble them

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 18:22 (2212 days ago) @ David Turell

A very brief excerpt with a picture of the way the beetles look like the leaf injury from their bites:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2162276-beetles-hide-by-looking-like-the-bite-mark...

"Beetle or bite mark? Leaf beetles are disguising themselves as the holes and scrapes they make on leaves while eating. Although many insects trick predators by mimicking objects like twigs and leaves, this is the first instance of feeding damage being used as a decoy.
Fredric Vencl from Stony Brook University in New York and his colleagues had trouble picking out skeletonising leaf beetles on heavily-chewed leaves, and decided to investigate. They analysed photographs of 119 species alongside the size, shape and colour of their bite patterns. Most species resembled their own bite …" (paywall)

Comment: I'm too cheap to buy the article, but look at the picture to make the point. How does an evolutionary process do this? Not by chance.

Natures wonders: when photosynthesis started

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 15, 2017, 15:04 (2408 days ago) @ David Turell

Estimated at 2.1 billion years ago:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/study-dates-origin-of-photosynthesis-to-2-1-billion-...

Peer into a plant cell and you’ll find the engine at its heart is a stowaway. In size, shape, and the genes it carries it resembles a bacterium: a cyanobacterium, to be precise.

It’s a very valuable stowaway. Known as a chloroplast, this cyanobacteria-like interloper carries the machinery for photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to power the synthesis of sugar. As a side effect, photosynthesis also produces the oxygen that we breathe and require for cellular respiration.

The evolution of this stowaway is believed to have occurred by a process called endosymbiosis, whereby a cyanobacterium was engulfed by a larger single-celled eukaryote – a more complex kind of cell that contains discrete organelles surrounded by membranes. Eventually a symbiotic relationship formed between the two which led to the development of photosynthetic plant cells.

***

The study revealed that the chloroplast diverged from its closest relative, the cyanobacterium Gloeomargarita, around 2.1 billion years ago. It also showed that the divergence occurred in a freshwater environment, rather than in a marine environment as previously thought, and that it took another 200 million years for the first photosynthetic eukaryote to evolve.

Dr Geoff McFadden, a researcher at the University of Melbourne who was not involved in the study, says it’s a significant step forward in our understanding.

“This study has a lot of credence due the number of genetic sequences used,”says McFadden. “It has provided a lot of evidence for a time point which was not previously known.”

McFadden did question the large gap in time between the endosymbiosis event and the evolution of the photosynthetic eukaryotes, suggesting that it is an area that should be further explored.

Comment: the same theory applies to the mitochondria as being engulfed energy-active bacteria. Without photosynthesis we would not have 21% oxygen in our atmosphere.

Natures wonders: when photosynthesis started

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 18, 2021, 15:30 (1066 days ago) @ David Turell

Another very early estimate of ability to photosynthesize, possibly at the start of life:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/217553/photosynthesis-could-life-itself/

"Researchers find that the earliest bacteria had the tools to perform a crucial step in photosynthesis, changing how we think life evolved on Earth.

"The finding also challenges expectations for how life might have evolved on other planets. The evolution of photosynthesis that produces oxygen is thought to be the key factor in the eventual emergence of complex life. This was thought to take several billion years to evolve, but if in fact the earliest life could do it, then other planets may have evolved complex life much earlier than previously thought.

***

“'We had previously shown that the biological system for performing oxygen-production, known as Photosystem II, was extremely old, but until now we hadn’t been able to place it on the timeline of life’s history.

"'Now, we know that Photosystem II shows patterns of evolution that are usually only attributed to the oldest known enzymes, which were crucial for life itself to evolve.”

"Photosynthesis, which converts sunlight into energy, can come in two forms: one that produces oxygen, and one that doesn’t. The oxygen-producing form is usually assumed to have evolved later, particularly with the emergence of cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, around 2.5 billion years ago.

***

"The new research finds that enzymes capable of performing the key process in oxygenic photosynthesis – splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen – could actually have been present in some of the earliest bacteria. The earliest evidence for life on Earth is over 3.4 billion years old and some studies have suggested that the earliest life could well be older than 4.0 billion years old.

***

"The team made their discovery by tracing the ‘molecular clock’ of key photosynthesis proteins responsible for splitting water. This method estimates the rate of evolution of proteins by looking at the time between known evolutionary moments, such as the emergence of different groups of cyanobacteria or land plants, which carry a version of these proteins today. The calculated rate of evolution is then extended back in time, to see when the proteins first evolved.

***

"The photosynthesis proteins showed nearly identical patterns of evolution to the oldest enzymes, stretching far back in time, suggesting they evolved in a similar way.

"First author of the study Thomas Oliver, from the Department of Life Sciences at Imperial, said: “We used a technique called Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction to predict the protein sequences of ancestral photosynthetic proteins.

"'These sequences give us information about how the ancestral Photosystem II would have worked and we were able to show that many of the key components required for oxygen evolution in Photosystem II can be traced to the earliest stages in the evolution of the enzyme.'”

Comment: Photosynthesis is so complex we are still picking apart steps we don't understand. As in origin of life it seems obvious design is required since there is no time for a Darwin style evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

Natures wonders: when photosynthesis started

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 15, 2021, 20:46 (1038 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study describes the early process:

https://phys.org/news/2021-05-path-photosynthesis.html

"Heliobacteria, a type of bacteria that uses photosynthesis to generate energy, has reaction centers thought to be similar to those of the common ancestors for all photosynthetic organisms. Now, a University of Michigan team has determined the first steps in converting light into energy for this bacterium.

"'Our study highlights the different ways in which nature has made use of the basic reaction center architecture that emerged over 3 billion years ago," said lead author and U-M physicist Jennifer Ogilvie. "We want to ultimately understand how energy moves through the system and ends up creating what we call the 'charge-separated state.' This state is the battery that drives the engine of photosynthesis."

"Photosynthetic organisms contain "antenna" proteins that are packed with pigment molecules to harvest photons. The collected energy is then directed to "reaction centers" that power the initial steps that convert light energy into food for the organism. These initial steps happen on incredibly fast timescales—femtoseconds, or one millionth of one billionth of a second. During the blink of an eye, this conversion happens many quadrillions of times.

***

"When light hits a photosynthetic organism, pigments within the antenna gather photons and direct the energy toward the reaction center. In the reaction center, the energy bumps an electron to a higher energy level, from which it moves to a new location, leaving behind a positive charge. This is called a charge separation. This process happens differently based on the structure of the reaction center in which it occurs.

"In the reaction centers of plants and most photosynthetic organisms, the pigments that orchestrate charge separation absorb similar colors of light, making it difficult to visualize charge separation. Using the heliobacteria, the researchers identified which pigments initially donate the electron after they're excited by a photon, and which pigments accept the electron.

"Heliobacteria is a good model to examine, Ogilvie said, because their reaction centers have a mixture of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll, which means that these different pigments absorb different colors of lights. For example, she said, imagine trying to follow a person in a crowd—but everyone is wearing blue jackets, you're watching from a distance and you can only take snapshots of the person moving through the crowd.

"'But if the person you were watching was wearing a red jacket, you could follow them much more easily. This system is kind of like that: It has distinct markers," said Ogilvie, professor of physics, biophysics, and macromolecular science and engineering.

***

"To probe reaction centers in heliobacteria, Ogilvie's team uses a type of ultrafast spectroscopy called multidimensional electronic spectroscopy, implemented in Ogilvie's lab by lead author and postdoctoral fellow Yin Song. The team aims a sequence of carefully timed, very short laser pulses at a sample of bacteria. The shorter the laser pulse, the broader light spectrum it can excite.

"Each time the laser pulse hits the sample, the light excites the reaction centers within. The researchers vary the time delay between the pulses, and then record how each of those pulses interacts with the sample. When pulses hit the sample, its electrons are excited to a higher energy level. The pigments in the sample absorb specific wavelengths of light from the laser—specific colors—and the colors that are absorbed give the researchers information about the energy level structure of the system and how energy flows through it."

Comment: This study picks apart another aspect of the photosynthetic process. I've previously presented quantum processes as part of the mechanism. Without this process there would not be enough oxygen for complex life.

Natures wonders:Sea turtle migration; new study

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 06, 2020, 21:17 (1198 days ago) @ David Turell

Not always back to the same spot it is now known:

http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/644/how-sea-turtles-find-their-way?mc_cid=e6cd2fa557&am...

"Other than the moments after they hatch and crawl into the surf, sea turtles spend their entire lives in the ocean. Only when females return to lay eggs on the same beaches where they hatched do they leave the water—just briefly, for a few hours, before slipping back into the sea. They may lay several clutches of eggs during the mating season before setting off for their foraging territories. There they stay for several years, regaining energy by feasting on seagrass, before returning to their natal beach, mating just offshore, and beginning the cycle anew.

***

"And so on that moonlit night in October of 2017 volunteers from the U.S. military facility on Diego Garcia helped Nicole Esteban, a marine biologist and sea turtle conservationist at Swansea University, fasten a GPS transmitter to the top of the turtle's shell while she laid her eggs. The volunteers nicknamed the turtle Serenity and watched as she and the computer on her back crept back into the waves and disappeared.

***

"Their destinations underscored the extraordinary nature of sea turtle migration. It’s astonishing enough that a sea turtle can navigate across thousands of miles of open ocean, with no discernible landmarks, and wind up in the correct place. Even more astonishing is when the correct place is a dot of sand with nothing but blue until the horizon in every direction.

***

"'We used turtles that had never been in the ocean before," Lohmann emphasizes. They had only hatched a few hours earlier, "and we just exposed them to these faraway locations." Sea turtles are born not just with a magnetic compass, but also with a magnetic map.

"Despite these sophisticated systems, however, adult turtles like Serenity do make mistakes. "They have these amazing feats of navigation but they're not perfect at it," says Rattray. From the ocean north of Madagascar, she would travel almost 600 kilometers further west before apparently realizing she was off course.

***

"If turtles are born with a map of their natal ocean basin, I ask him, how can they wind up so many hundreds of kilometers off course? Even the few turtles whose foraging territories are located not in faraway waters but on the Great Chagos Bank, just a few dozen kilometers from Diego Garcia, didn't swim in anything resembling a straight path.

"'Turtles may sometimes choose not to go the most direct route," Lohmann offers. "There may be foraging areas along the way, they may wish to detour to areas that are rich in food. There may also be areas that have predators in them. And there sometimes are oceanographic reasons that they may not go on the most direct route."

***

"A more likely explanation is that the turtles' inherited magnetic map is simply so crude that deviations of dozens or even hundreds of kilometers are to be expected. That evolution endowed them with a fairly coarse-grained map isn't very surprising, given the imperfections of Earth's magnetic field.

"The field is formed by movements of liquified iron and nickel within the planet’s core, a phenomenon called magneto-hydro-dynamics that geophysicists are still working to fully understand. Because those metals swirl around somewhat erratically, the resulting magnetic field winds up being somewhat uneven as well.

***

"If sea turtles were sensitive to just one of these parameters—strength or inclination—then they could derive their position along a roughly north-south axis. Because sea turtles can detect both features, they can also derive their position on an east-west axis. The bi-coordinate grid utilized by sea turtles is not exactly the same as latitude and longitude, but it works in a similar way. "And that seems to be pre-programmed, that's the software that comes with the computer," says Putman. "Which is kind of wild."

***

"'The real redeeming thing about that is they always manage to work out where they are and how to get to where they're going,” says Rattray. “It reinforces their reputation as these amazing marine navigators.'”

Comment: Great navigators but they make mistakes. Amazing migration that I think God designed as part of an oceanic ecosystem..

Natures wonders: more on bird migration correction

by David Turell @, Friday, February 12, 2021, 21:05 (1130 days ago) @ David Turell

If blown off course warblers can still get where they are going:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-birds-earth-magnetic-signature.html

"...new research by an international team shows for the first time, how birds displaced in this way are able to navigate back to their migratory route and gives us an insight into how they accomplish this feat.

"Writing in Current Biology, the team from Bangor and Keele Universities describe how reed warblers can navigate from a 'magnetic position' beyond what they have experienced in their normal migration route, back towards that correct route.

"Different parts of the Earth have a distinct 'geomagnetic signature' according to their location. This is a combination of the strength of the geomagnetic field, the magnetic inclination or the dip angle between magnetic field lines and the horizon and the magnetic declination, or the angle between directions to the geographic and magnetic North poles.

"Adult birds already familiar with their migration route, and its general magnetic signatures, were held in captivity for a short period before being released back into the wild, and exposed to a simulation of the earth's magnetic signature at a location thousands of miles beyond the birds' natural migratory corridor.

"Despite remaining physically located at their capture site and experiencing all other sensory clues about their location, including starlight and the sights, smell and sounds of their actual location, the birds still showed the urge to begin their journey as though they were in the location suggested by the magnetic signal they were experiencing.

"They oriented themselves to fly in a direction which would lead them 'back' to their migratory path from the location suggested to them by the magnetic signals they were experiencing.

"This shows that the earth's magnetic field is the key factor in guiding reed warblers when they are blown off course.

"'The overriding impulse was to respond to the magnetic information they were receiving," explained Richard Holland of Bangor University's School of Natural Sciences.

"What our current work shows is that birds are able to sense that they are beyond the bounds of the magnetic fields that are familiar to them from their year-round movements, and are able to extrapolate their position sufficiently from the signals. This fascinating ability enables bird to navigate towards their normal migration route.'"

Comment: If migration is so important to lifestyle The mechanism that controls migration must contain a correction mechanism also. My resumption is God designed it. I don't think birds figured out these routes bit by bit. What was the reward in partial trips?

Natures wonders: One sperm fertilizes an egg

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 17, 2014, 23:36 (3623 days ago) @ David Turell

How it is done biochemically. Too many sperm would spoil a zygote:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/16/how-do-sperm-recognize-eggs-mechanism-finally-found/

Natures wonders: Plant vibration response

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 03, 2014, 15:07 (3547 days ago) @ David Turell

If eating a plant leaf produces vibration, the plant produces mustard oil to drive the muncher away:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140701183820.htm-For dhw: the plant is not thinking, just automatically reacting.

Natures wonders: majic fern

by David Turell @, Monday, July 14, 2014, 23:17 (3535 days ago) @ David Turell

Living in symbiosis with cyanobacteria, this fern sequesters CO2 like crazy and is anarctic fresh watger plant:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scientists-uncovered-arctic-clues-to-a-past-where-a-tiny-fern-changed-the-planet/?&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140714

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 31, 2014, 22:11 (3518 days ago) @ David Turell

May be partially controlled by DNA:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/07/29/when-mom-and-dad-have-different-migratory-routes-kids-fly-right-down-the-middle/

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 16:44 (2834 days ago) @ David Turell

The connection with the magnetic field may be in the retina, not in the iron fund in some spots on the birds:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/09/why-dont-birds-get-lost-they-may-have-mastered-quantum-mechanics/-"We think they are using quantum mechanics to navigate," said Daniel Kattnig, a researcher in the chemistry department at Oxford University. Kattnig works in a lab that studies radical pairs — a phenomenon in which atoms acquire extra electrons that are "entangled" with one another, each affecting the other's motion even though they're separated by space. It's a field of science that's difficult to understand under the best of circumstances; imagine trying to figure out it out with a bird brain.-"But according to an increasingly popular theory, birds and other animals use a radical pair-based compass to "see" the Earth's magnetic field, allowing them to undertake great migrations and daring rescues without getting lost. It's still unproven, but Kattnig and his colleagues just verified a key component: In a study in the New Journal of Physics on Thursday, they report that the timing of these subatomic interactions makes them a good candidate to explain avian navigation.-***-"Those results sent scientists on a frenzied search for animals' magneto-receptors. They discovered iron particles in the beaks of pigeons and hens, magnetite in the noses of trout, and other magnetic molecules in the ear hairs of birds.-"Subsequent research found that some of those iron molecules were in immune cells rather than sensory ones, shaking up the migration-by-magnetic-molecules theory. But animal navigation scholars already had another possible mechanism: the radical pairs that Kattnig studies.-***-"It's thought that light-sensitive proteins called cryptochromes — which have been found in the retinas of birds, butterflies, fruit flies, frogs and humans, among others — are at the center of the mystery. When light strikes the proteins, it creates radical pairs that begin to spin in synchrony; they're entangled.-"The chemical reaction lasts only for a few microseconds, but Kattnig's research shows that it's long enough for the Earth's magnetic field to modulate the quality and direction of the electrons' spin. He also found that the radical pairs become more sensitive to the magnetic field as they "relax" — that is, as they transition back to equilibrium — if you take into account outside factors like ambient temperature.-"This suggests to Kattnig and his colleagues that sensors in the bird's eyes survey the spin state of various radical pairs and then signal the results to the brain, allowing birds to more or less "see" the Earth's magnetic field as they fly through it.-"There's still years of work to be done, Kattnig acknowledged. "We need to locate the spot where the cryptochromes are responsive to magnetism," he said. "And then we need to find the interaction partners — the cascade of signals which is then following up and giving rise to the visual impression.'"-Comment: We do not naturally sense the magnetic field on Earth, nor can we tell how it is oriented without a magnetic compass, which had to be invented by humans. How did birds, coming out of dinosaurs, after learning to fly then discover this and migrate? I can't image cell communities knowing what to do if unaware! Saltation from God? Why not?

Natures wonders: Bird Migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 22:44 (1094 days ago) @ David Turell

Recent studies of the longest ones:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/something-in-the-air-books-on-bird-migration-11616163225?p...

"Mr. Unwin devotes several pages of descriptive text to each of the 67 species mentioned in his book. The subjects, for the most part, all share a common feature: They are large and strong enough to be fitted with tracking units. Thus unfolds a collection of species-specific accounts of birds, from albatrosses to orioles, from the Canadian Arctic to Patagonia and from China to Africa to Australasia, that emphasizes the central fact of each one’s life history: the incredible migratory journey these birds must make. Migration is hazardous and stopover sites are precious, so land conservation is tightly wound into the narrative.

"Solar-powered transmitters using cellular networks can now record a bird’s latitude, longitude and altitude at 30-second intervals. From this cascade of information we’ve learned, for instance, that a fledgling Atlantic puffin leaves its burrow in the dead of night, even before it can fly. Forging into the cold ocean, the chicks feed themselves, alone at sea for three to four years before making landfall. They’re 8 years old before they begin to breed. In 2004, a tracking device revealed that a gray-headed albatross maintained an average flight speed of 78.9 mph for eight hours as it soared, rigid-winged, homeward on the wind with a gullet full of food for its chick. Trackers have revealed common swifts never touching earth—sleeping on the wing—for a documented 10-month period.

***

"Twenty years ago, scientists employing some of the first miniaturized satellite transmitters were stunned to learn that many godwits make a 7,200-mile nonstop flight each autumn from western Alaska to New Zealand, a journey that takes them eight or nine days of uninterrupted flight—the longest nonstop migration known, exercising at the same metabolic rate as a human running endless four-minute miles. . . . Journeys like this have prompted one specialist in migrant physiology to say, “The metaphor of marathon running is inadequate to fully capture the magnitude of long-distance migratory flight of birds. In some respects a journey to the moon seems more appropriate.”

***

"Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

Comment: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

Natures wonders: spider hearing and net slinging

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 18:58 (1093 days ago) @ David Turell

Done by ogre-faced spiders in Florida:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ogre-faced-spider-hearing-catch-insects-prey-air-so...

"The ogre-faced spider (Deinopis spinosa) uses its sense of hearing to take its web to the prey.

"Hanging upside down, the spider weaves a rectangular web between its legs. When an insect flies behind the dangling arachnid, the spider swings backward, casting the web toward the prey. This behind-the-back hunting technique is one clue that the spiders can hear an unexpectedly wide range of sounds, researchers report online October 29 in Current Biology.

“'A couple years ago, we didn’t really have a great idea that spiders could hear,” says Jay Stafstrom, a sensory ecologist at Cornell University. But now, he and his colleagues have looked at several spider species, and most can hear using specialized organs on their legs, he says. That includes jumping spiders, which respond to low frequencies. Surprisingly, ogre-faced spiders can also hear fairly high frequencies, Stafstrom says.

***

"Nerve cells in amputated spider legs — where the slit sensilla, the organ that responds to sound vibrations, is located — also responded to the wide range of frequencies. This finding confirms that the spiders hear with their legs, the researchers say.

"The team wondered how the spiders would respond to hearing sounds of varying frequencies in the wild. So the scientists took their speaker to part of the spiders’ natural range in Gainesville, Fla., and found 25 of the dangling hunters waiting for prey in the dark. Of those, 13 reacted to frequencies of 150, 400 or 750 Hz. And each reacted in the same way — with a blind, backward strike.

“'They can obviously catch things out of the air just using sound,” Stafstrom says. And because the spiders strike only at low frequencies, they’re probably using the lower end of their hearing to listen for prey and hunt. As for the upper frequency range, “they don’t seem to be using it in a foraging context,” he says.

"Still, the fact that the spiders can detect higher frequencies means that these sounds are probably important to them, says Jayne Yack, a neuroethologist at Carleton University in Ottawa who wasn’t involved in the research. Spiders may be using their sense of hearing for a range of things, including eavesdropping on predators, she says.

"In fact, those higher frequencies fall in the same range of sounds that predators, including birds, make as they move around or call, so it makes sense for spiders to listen for those frequencies, says Damian Elias, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley who wasn’t involved in the study. The tricky thing, though, is detecting a behavioral response to those higher sounds. Unlike web slinging, the reaction to hearing a predator may simply be to stay put and hide."

Comment: The same old problem, how did this behaviour evolve? It is a neat trick. The prey sneaks up in back not realizing the spider hears them. I believe God gave them the trick and dhw will claim one of them figured it out and 'told' the others, when like the possum it requires demonstrations to the species of the nets construction and the special backward thrust at the right moment to create the right technique. At the human level we coach to teach others. Do spiders?

Natures wonders: insect wings are almost damage proof

by David Turell @, Monday, March 22, 2021, 18:50 (1093 days ago) @ David Turell

The wings will hit flower petals, branches as the fly in for pollen, but the wings survive::

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-insect-wings-collisions.html

"About once a second wings of foraging bees collide with small obstacles such as flowers, leaves or branches during flight without suffering major long-term damage. At the same time, they withstand aerodynamic loads effortlessly—yet the fragile structures make up just two percent of the total mass of an insect's body....they show several special features in the wing structure, thanks to which they are both stable and flexible and can thus adapt to different needs.

***

"Dragonfly wings consist of rigid vein network and membranous areas between them. The veins are connected by flexible joints. These allow the wings to deform under relatively small loads. Under higher loads, microscopic spikes in the proximity of the microjoints interlock and stop the deformation. They increase the stiffness to support the wing against aerodynamic loads. And finally, special zones in the wing reversibly buckle to a certain extent in the event of a collision with an obstacle. "Thanks to these three design strategies, insects can change the characteristics of their wings and thus fulfill several functions at the same time," says Ph.D. student Ali Khaheshi, first author of the study.

"But the research team went one step further: to test whether their theory about the design strategies of insect wings also stands up to practical application, they applied it to an aircraft model with a size of 8 x 5 x 1.1 cm and a weight of 3.8 g. They 3D printed it from PLA / PLH filament and performed both collision and free fall tests. It turned out that the wings survived the collisions, while conventionally constructed aircraft models broke. In addition, they performed static, dynamic and fatigue tests with slightly modified constructions in which they omitted one of the design strategies in each case. "These experiments confirm that it takes all three design strategies in combination to gain the observed mechanical performances," says the engineer and materials scientist Khaheshi. This could also work with other, higher-quality materials, the researchers assume.

"The main point is, that the strategies are already integrated into the structure of the wings and function fully passive, there is no requirement for complex control strategies. "Such insights from biology could help us to construct technical systems that adapt autonomously to extreme or unforeseen situations—for example, in environments where humans cannot actively intervene, such as in space missions," says Dr. Hamed Rajabi."

Comment: As usual God designs teach us how to do it. I think insect wings were designed this way from the beginning of flying insects that feed on plants. Why? Because such a complex construction can not develop stepwise.

Natures wonders: how antibiotic spores spread

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 14:10 (1092 days ago) @ David Turell

The spores are from Streptomycetes bacteria which make antibiotics:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-021-00952-8

"Here, we show that Streptomyces spores are capable of utilizing the motility machinery of other soil bacteria. Motility assays and microscopy studies reveal that Streptomyces spores are transported to plant tissues by interacting directly with the flagella of both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Genetics experiments demonstrate that this form of motility is facilitated by structural proteins on the spore coat. These results demonstrate that nonmotile bacteria are capable of utilizing the motility machinery of other microbes to complete necessary stages of their lifecycle.

***

"Here, we demonstrate that spores of the sessile Streptomycetes, such as Sc, are transported by Bs to their preferred microenvironment. Sc and Bs are both soil-dwelling bacteria that utilize plant root exudate as a nutritive source. Using microscopy methods, motility assays, and genetics approaches, we demonstrate that Bs transports Sc spores via direct attachment to Bs flagella, a mode of transportation we call “hitchhiking”. Hitchhiking is dependent on the conserved rodlin proteins, which form a fibrous outer layer on the spore coat of almost all Streptomycetes, but with a hitherto unclear function. These results exemplify that nonmotile bacteria are capable of utilizing the motility machinery of other microbes to occupy advantageous environments, and that this mode of transport may be widespread in nature.

From a Science mag report:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/microscopic-hitchhiker-friend-both-plants-and-h...

"Soil bacteria called Streptomyces are the guardian angels of the microbial world: They produce antibiotics that humans depend on and protect plants from harmful microbes. But because neither the bacteria nor their spores can move themselves around, researchers have long puzzled over how they find the plants they protect.

"Now scientists have discovered that the microbe’s dormant spores (brown) hitch rides on the whiplike appendages—flagella—of mobile soil microbes (blue) heading for plant roots. The journey is an essential part of Streptomyces’ life cycle, the researchers report this month in The ISME Journal: Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecology.

"Microscopic examinations revealed the spore surface is lined with rows of proteins called rodlins that may grab a passing flagellum—working much like Velcro. The researchers have seen the hitchhikers transported 10 centimeters—the limit of the size of the dish they were on. They think that in soil, the spores may travel even farther.

"A few other species of bacteria and a fungus are known to catch rides on other microbes. But this is a first for spores, which are known to latch on to insects and other small animals to travel long distances. The team suspects hitchhiking is a common mode of transportation for nonmotile bacteria.

"Still, not everyone gets a free ride. For the bacteria providing the transport, says one of the study’s authors, “it’s like a ball and chain around your ankle.'”

Comment: This bacterium and Penicillium mold gave us our first antibiotics for humans. The war between organisms is a permanent part of living. These are very complex molecules that well could have been designed by God.

Natures wonders: Fig puncturing wasp

by David Turell @, Monday, August 11, 2014, 01:06 (3508 days ago) @ David Turell

Has a zinc tipped thin flexible syringe to deposit eggs in a larva in a fig!-http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/found-the-first-metal-plated-syringe-in-a-living-creature-16838120-Of course, intelligent cells invented this process.

Natures wonders: Fig puncturing wasp

by dhw, Monday, August 11, 2014, 23:04 (3507 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Has a zinc tipped thin flexible syringe to deposit eggs in a larva in a fig!
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/found-the-first-metal-plated-syringe-in-a-living-creature-16838120
 
Of course, intelligent cells invented this process.-Do you really believe your God preprogrammed this wasp syringe into the very first living cells, to be passed down through billions of generations of zillions of organisms before finally becoming zinc-tipped reality billions of years later? Or - your less preferred version - do you think your God "stepped in" to specially create this wonderful mechanism? All these programmes in just a few first cells, or all this dabbling, when of course his real aim was to produce humans...Ugh, doesn't it beggar belief?

Natures wonders: Fig puncturing wasp

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 16:20 (3507 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Do you really believe your God preprogrammed this wasp syringe into the very first living cells, ........Or - your less preferred version - do you think your God "stepped in" to specially create this wonderful mechanism? All these programmes in just a few first cells, or all this dabbling, when of course his real aim was to produce humans...Ugh, doesn't it beggar belief?-The real problem is the Darwinists want us to believe it all came by a mindless chance evolving process. Doesn't the design of the syringe suggest an intelligent plan?

Natures wonders: Bladderwort suction

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 23, 2014, 16:11 (3496 days ago) @ David Turell

Lightning speed trap:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216110314.htm-"The bladders contain water which is pumped out by special glands, hence generating negative pressure und allowing elastic energy to be stored in the trap walls. A door with four protruding trigger hairs provides a watertight closure for the trap. When these hairs are touched by prey, the door opens and closes in a fraction of a second, and relaxation of the trap walls leads to the sucking of water and prey. This capture process takes less than a millisecond and therefore ranks among the fastest plant movements known so far.
 
"Prey animals are sucked in with an acceleration of up to 600 times that of gravity, leaving them no chance to escape. The door deformation involves a complete inversion of curvature which runs in several distinguishable intermediate steps. This ultra-fast, complex and at the same time precise and highly repetitive movement is enabled by certain functional-morphological adaptations."

Natures wonders: Dragonfly

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 27, 2014, 16:50 (3492 days ago) @ David Turell

This insect is the wonder of flying insects, better than any helicopter we've invented. Flies forward and backward, high speed darting, even with a wing damaged. The most surprising part is that it appears in the fossil record, from 300 million years ago looking just like it does now, afer a 50 million year gap of no insects with wings ( shades of the Cambrian explosion). And we are told this was invented by a committee of intelligent insect cells which recognized it needed wings. It took 50 million years with no experimental intermediates produced, just 50 million years to devise a perfect plan for the body and wings and 'pow!' out it comes perfectly functional then, now shown frozen in stone to instruct us as to how evolution works. If it appears suddenly and rather perfect judging by its 300 million years of little change, how does evolution really work? -Conclusion: most species pop up completely functional. Huge gaps between precursor forms, also fully fuctional. No Darwinian tiny steps. Darwin was wrong!-http://books.google.com/books?id=9FVTkRgSSLwC&pg=PA741&lpg=PA741&dq=Precursors+of+dragonfly+insect&source=bl&ots=xKP63m3H5G&sig=XcedYv-uKNRbqRAkLTJbf20VdRw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6Pr9U_iHC-mj8AG8uYHACw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Precursors%20of%20dragonfly%20insect&f=false

Natures wonders: Dragonfly

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 27, 2014, 21:09 (3491 days ago) @ David Turell

David: ... It took 50 million years with no experimental intermediates produced, just 50 million years to devise a perfect plan for the body and wings and 'pow!' out it comes perfectly functional then, now shown frozen in stone to instruct us as to how evolution works. If it appears suddenly and rather perfect judging by its 300 million years of little change, how does evolution really work? 
> 
> Conclusion: most species pop up completely functional. Huge gaps between precursor forms, also fully fuctional. No Darwinian tiny steps. Darwin was wrong!-
I could not have put it better myself.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Dragonfly

by dhw, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 12:15 (3491 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This insect is the wonder of flying insects, better than any helicopter we've invented. Flies forward and backward, high speed darting, even with a wing damaged. The most surprising part is that it appears in the fossil record, from 300 million years ago looking just like it does now, afer a 50 million year gap of no insects with wings ( shades of the Cambrian explosion). And we are told this was invented by a committee of intelligent insect cells which recognized it needed wings. It took 50 million years with no experimental intermediates produced, just 50 million years to devise a perfect plan for the body and wings and 'pow!' out it comes perfectly functional then, now shown frozen in stone to instruct us as to how evolution works. If it appears suddenly and rather perfect judging by its 300 million years of little change, how does evolution really work? 
 
 Conclusion: most species pop up completely functional. Huge gaps between precursor forms, also fully fuctional. No Darwinian tiny steps. Darwin was wrong! - http://books.google.com/books?id=9FVTkRgSSLwC&pg=PA741&lpg=PA741&dq=Precurs... shucks, David, how many more times? Even evolutionists have agreed that Darwin's gradualism was wrong (ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?)You and I agreed on that yonks ago, and have spent several years discussing how evolution "really works". One hypothesis is the "intelligent cell" possibly called the "inventive cell"? Remember?

Natures wonders: Dragonfly

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 15:53 (3491 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Aw shucks, David, how many more times? Even evolutionists have agreed that Darwin's gradualism was wrong (ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?)You and I agreed on that yonks ago, and have spent several years discussing how evolution "really works". One hypothesis is the "intelligent cell" possibly called the "inventive cell"? Remember?-Not the point. We are discussing the arrival of new species. We are trying to explain the Cambrian gap. Does the appearance of the dragonfly with no precursors surprise you? Apparently not. Full-blown body plan, barely changed over 300 million years. Pray, tell me, how does a committee of intelligent cells conjure up such a perfect body plan de novo that remains almost unchanged to date? How about the plans we haven't discussed, the embryological plan to take the organism from egg to adult? Piling the parts of a building on a piece of land does not create a building. It requires thoughtful planning and then guided execution. You are totally blind to the complex biology behind all of this problem we are discussing. There is much too much complexity for chance. That you have accepted. Tell me how cooperating cells do it. Where did they get the plans and information? We see no tiny experimental steps, only huge jumps in fossils. That was the point I was making. Your only escape from this problem is if you recognize that an inventive mechanism in cells comes with full-blown plans.

Natures wonders: Dragonfly

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 28, 2014, 16:13 (3491 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Your only escape from this problem is if you recognize that an inventive mechanism in cells comes with full-blown plans.-Another example is the issue of sea to land transition of animals. We do have walking fish, and we have amphibians, but there is a huge fossil gap that does not explain the jump from sea to land:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140827131547.htm-"About 400 million years ago a group of fish began exploring land and evolved into tetrapods -- today's amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. But just how these ancient fish used their fishy bodies and fins in a terrestrial environment and what evolutionary processes were at play remain scientific mysteries"-The jump happened, but is as much a problem as the dragonfly and the Cambrian.

Natures wonders: Archer fish

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 06, 2014, 14:39 (3482 days ago) @ David Turell

Shoot their prey up to six feet away with water jet:-http://www.livescience.com/47683-archerfish-target-prey-with-water-jets.html?cmpid=558281

Natures wonders: Mosquitofish

by David Turell @, Monday, September 08, 2014, 16:54 (3480 days ago) @ David Turell

Jumps on land to excape predator; rolls back to water:-http://phys.org/news/2014-09-mosquitofish.html

Natures wonders: single cell sex reproduction

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 09, 2014, 15:58 (3479 days ago) @ David Turell

"Life can be so intricate and novel that even a single cell can pack a few surprises, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.-"The pond-dwelling, single-celled organism Oxytricha trifallax has the remarkable ability to break its own DNA into nearly a quarter-million pieces and rapidly reassemble those pieces when it's time to mate, the researchers report in the journal Cell. The organism internally stores its genome as thousands of scrambled, encrypted gene pieces. Upon mating with another of its kind, the organism rummages through these jumbled genes and DNA segments to piece together more than 225,000 tiny strands of DNA. This all happens in about 60 hours."-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140908152926.htm

Natures wonders: magnetic sense

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 02, 2014, 01:42 (3456 days ago) @ David Turell

Many animals have it, sensing the Earth's magnetic field. Dolphins may have it:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dolphins-may-use-magnetic-sense-as-gps/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20141001

Natures wonders: Beatles living off ants

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 04, 2014, 15:06 (3454 days ago) @ David Turell

These little guys sneak into the ant colonies, have changed to be of a pretty look-alike body, and live the 'life of Riley'. Are the ants fooled or accepting?:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141002123635.htm-
"Adopting this lifestyle brings lots of benefits. These beetles live in a climate- controlled nest that is well protected against predators, and they have access to a great deal of food, including the ants' eggs and brood, and, most remarkably, liquid food regurgitated directly to their mouths by the worker ants themselves," Parker said. "But pulling off this way of life means undergoing drastic morphological changes."

Natures wonders: Brain GPS

by David Turell @, Monday, October 06, 2014, 14:45 (3452 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, October 06, 2014, 14:56

The discovery of this system wins the Nobel. it must develop using the brain's plasticity ability:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41155/title/Brain-s--Inner-GPS--Wins-Nobel/-"Together identifying an inner positioning system within the brain, O'Keefe is being honored for his discovery of so-called place cells, while the Mosers are recognized for their later work identifying grid cells.
 
“The discoveries of John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser have solved a problem that has occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries,” the Nobel Foundation noted in its press release announcing the award: “How does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?”-Another take:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/06/three-who-discovered-inner-gps-win-nobel-prize-in-medicine/-"In 2005, the Mosers mapped the connections in the hippocampus as rats moved about a room. They “discovered an astonishing pattern of activity in a nearby part of the brain called the entorhinal cortex,” where certain cells activated as the rats moved past locations in a hexagonal grid.
 
"The found that these “grid cells” comprised a system of coordinates that permitted spatial navigation.
 
"Later research using brain imaging showed that the same system exists in humans. Patients with Alzheimer's disease lose their way around because the particular areas of the brain are affected."

Natures wonders: Clams and algae

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 08, 2014, 15:08 (3450 days ago) @ David Turell

The clams concentrate the light for the algae to make food for both on the coral reef:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41170/title/Sophisticated-Symbiosis/-" Iridescent cells in the mantle tissue of giant clams spread light of a wavelength that drives photosynthesis to microalgae that provide nutrition for the animals,"

Natures wonders: Bird GPS

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 17:45 (3444 days ago) @ David Turell

Birds that store caches of seeds remember where they are. The hippocampus of the bird brain is larger, as in London cabbies who memorize the whole city.-http://phys.org/news/2014-10-gps-bird-brains-humans.html

Natures wonders: Transvestite squid

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 16, 2014, 18:52 (3442 days ago) @ David Turell

Wearing fake testes keeps the boys away:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/10/10/for-disguise-female-squid-turn-on-fake-testes/#5465

Natures wonders: Ant male sex bondage

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 05:01 (3429 days ago) @ David Turell

The queens try to rule:-http://phys.org/news/2014-10-ant-sperm.html-There are tricks back and forth, while turning tricks. Ain't life wonderful!

Natures wonders: Pit viper sixth sense

by David Turell @, Friday, October 31, 2014, 13:27 (3427 days ago) @ David Turell

With infared they pick up warm-blooded prey:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41352/title/Image-of-the-Day--Sixth-Sense/

Natures wonders: Beetles trick ants

by David Turell @, Monday, November 03, 2014, 14:59 (3424 days ago) @ David Turell

These tiny beetles use ants to raise their young which then eat the ants. Turn about is fair play?:-"Ants communicate with one another through a complex system of stridulation (noise making by rubbing together different parts of their body) combined with chemical messaging. Paussus beetles also stridulate and produce chemicals. Their stridulation may mimic that of their host ants, and the chemicals they secrete from their antennae are powerfully attractive to ants. Somehow, the beetles are able to use these traits to interfere with the ants' own chemical communications and hijack the normal functioning of ant society."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-11-beetles-hack-ant-colonies.html#jCp-This is not symbiosis in the true meaning of the word. One side is winning.

Natures wonders: Bats can jam sonar!

by David Turell @, Monday, November 10, 2014, 15:37 (3417 days ago) @ David Turell

In competition for food a bat can jam another's sonar:-"Bats use echolocation, or biological sonar, to find and track insect prey in complete darkness. When a bat hears a competitor going in for the kill, it makes a specialized jamming call to prevent its competitor from making the catch. The bats often take turns jamming each other until one of them gives up."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143721.htm

Natures wonders: Turtles can breathe!

by David Turell @, Monday, November 10, 2014, 15:45 (3417 days ago) @ David Turell

Turtles appear suddenly in the fossil record and pose dilemmas re' their breathing ability:-" "Tortoises have a bizarre body plan and one of the more puzzling aspects to this body plan is the fact that tortoises have locked their ribs up into the iconic tortoise shell. No other animal does this and the likely reason is that ribs play such an important role in breathing in most animals including mammals, birds, crocodilians, and lizards."-"Instead tortoises have developed a unique abdominal muscular sling that wraps around their lungs and organs to help them breathe. When and how this mechanism evolved has been unknown.

"It seemed pretty clear that the tortoise shell and breathing mechanism evolved in tandem, but which happened first? It's a bit of the chicken or the egg causality dilemma," Lyson said. By studying the anatomy and thin sections (also known as histology), Lyson and his colleagues have shown that the modern tortoise breathing apparatus was already in place in the earliest fossil tortoise, an animal known as Eunotosaurus africanus. (my bold)-"This animal lived in South Africa 260 million years ago and shares many unique features with modern day tortoises, but lacked a shell. A recognisable tortoise shell does not appear for another 50 million years."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107111042.htm

Natures wonders: Killer whales (Orcas) speak dolphin

by David Turell @, Friday, November 14, 2014, 00:14 (3413 days ago) @ David Turell

They can mimic the sounds:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/seriouslyscience/2014/11/06/killer-whales-can-learn-speak-dolphin/#5465- "Scientists noticed that killer whales who had spent time with bottlenose dolphins incorporated more clicking and whistles in their vocalizations than other whales, making their “language” a mashup of the two. In fact, one whale was able to learn the sounds taught to a dolphin trained by people! Although we don't know what these different languages mean, or how much information is being transmitted between the species, it's clear that these animals are motivated to learn to make each other's sounds."

Natures wonders: Molecular path to hearing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 26, 2014, 15:17 (3401 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, November 26, 2014, 15:28

Hearing is not as simple as having a microphone or a speaker. It involves a series of protein molecules of course, and the pathway is only partially understood:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41527/title/New-Piece-of-a-Mysterious-Channel/-Nothing is very simple in biologic engineering. Note the specificity of each protein, and Wagner's theoretical approach is problematic in suggesting that gene circuits could find specific proteins in a specific series as needed. It is not just that a single 100 amino acid strand has 10^700 possibilities but there must be a series of these proteins to accomplish the task. this is why I do not accept natural causes for evolution.

Natures wonders: Vulture gut microbiome

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 02, 2014, 02:50 (3395 days ago) @ David Turell

Protects them from foul bugs that can kill in the carrion they eat:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vultures-s-gut-bacteria-make-sure-rotten-meat-diet-isn-t-fatal/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20141201-:Carrion luggage
 "The microbes that do thrive in vultures' guts are dominated by two types of bacterium: Clostridia (which often produce toxins, including the one that causes botulism) and Fusobacteria, some of which are flesh-eating. Hansen says that the birds could be immune to these pathogens and the toxins they produce or, alternatively, vultures might fill their guts with harmless relatives of pathogenic Clostridia and Fusobacteria, which have lost the genes that cause disease. "They kind of work like a probiotic. They occupy the same niches that the pathogens would,” says Hansen. His team plans to do more in-depth DNA sequencing of the vulture microbiome to determine the answer.-"Last year, a study of the gut microbiome of alligators, also carrion eaters, found high levels of the same two bacteria. “I don't think it's coincidence,” says Sarah Keenan, a geobiologist at Saint Louis University in Missouri who led that study. ”The fact that both of these vertebrates are scavengers, and they're eating things that are likely to be partially decomposed — that suggests they've developed this microbiome that allows them to thrive.”"

Natures wonders: How geckos adhere

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 03, 2014, 15:45 (3394 days ago) @ David Turell

Lots of little hairs:-http://phys.org/news/2014-12-geckos-sticky-effort.html-"Geckos can climb a variety of surfaces, including smooth glass. Their sticky toes have inspired climbing devices such as Spider-Man gloves. The toe pads on the underside of gecko feet contain tiny hair-like structures called setae. The setae adhere to contacted surfaces through frictional forces as well as forces between molecules, called van der Waals forces. These tiny structures are so strong that the setae on a single foot can support 20 times the gecko's body weight."

Natures wonders: Bat spacial orientation

by David Turell @, Friday, December 05, 2014, 15:36 (3392 days ago) @ David Turell

Using a neural 3-d compass and wing clicks for echolocation. A complex system covered by a complex article:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41580/title/Bat-Navigation-Revealed/-Sounds irreducibly complex to me.-"Finkelstein and his colleagues determined that the bats they studied had neurons in the hippocampal-parahippocampal region of the brain that work together to form a representation of 3-D space that the animal then uses to sense where and how its body is positioned within that space. Implanting miniature electrodes thinner than human hairs into the brains of bats who were allowed to crawl or fly through experimental arenas, the researchers recorded nervous impulses from new components—pitch cells, roll cells, and cells that respond to combinations of orientation information—used to build this mental compass. And the picture of that compass that emerged looked more toroidal—or doughnut-shaped—than spherical. Combining inputs from all the different types of cells, bats maintain a toroidal representation of 3-D space, allowing them to more accurately track their position as they flip, spin, and bank through their habitats. This more intricate 3-D compass may set bats apart from rodents, which tend to become more disoriented when flipped upside down, for example. “[Bats] are more similar to primates than to rodents,” Finkelstein said."-In humans this aids the basketball center as he spins and jumps to make a shot.-"The findings indicate that echolocation, long considered to be a highly complex physiological trait, may have some more rudimentary precursors. While a solid model for the evolution of the sophisticated laryngeal echolocation employed by microbats remains elusive, this research adds a new piece to the puzzle by indicating that simpler echolocation may play a role in that evolution. In addition, the three species observed by Yovel and Boonman are a good evolutionary representation of the 59 or so species that make up the family of Old World fruit bats, indicating that the tactic is likely used widely throughout the family. Brock Fenton, a bat biologist at Western University in Ontario who wasn't involved with the research, said that the findings may add echolocation to the list of widespread adaptations that were evolved many times in several different groups. “Echolocation, now we know, is sort of like venom,” said Brock Fenton, a bat biologist at Western University in Ontario. “It crops up all over the place.”"-More convergence?

Natures wonders: Eels living tasers

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 06, 2014, 15:44 (3391 days ago) @ David Turell

600 volts, five times what is in an American socket, 2 1/2 European!-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141204140610.htm-"The electric eel -- the scaleless Amazonian fish that can deliver an electrical jolt strong enough to knock down a full-grown horse -- possesses an electroshock system uncannily similar to a Taser. That is the conclusion of a nine-month study of the way in which the electric eel uses high-voltage electrical discharges to locate and incapacitate its prey."-"'If you take a step back and think about it, what the eel can do is extremely remarkable," said Catania. "It can use its electrical system to take remote control of its prey's body. If a fish is hiding nearby, the eel can force it to twitch, giving away its location, and if the eel is ready to capture a fish, it can paralyze it so it can't escape.'"

Natures wonders: Poison frogs eat fire ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 09, 2014, 00:19 (3388 days ago) @ David Turell

And live to tell about it. If they are exposed to the ants, they develop alkaloid poisons for defense:-"In Central America, the tropical fire ant, S. geminata, occupies the same territory as the poison dart frog, Oophaga pumilio, Vander Meer says. The major alkaloid produced by S. geminata is found on the skin of O. pumilio, showing that this frog eats S. geminata ants. However, the bioassay showed that this alkaloid was not very effective against S. invicta.-"Interestingly, this same frog has a varied diet of ants and mites," he says. "Mite-derived alkaloids have also been reported on O. pumilio's skin, and these compounds were found to be highly effective at incapacitating S. invicta."-"The varied frog diet appears to protect the frogs from ant predation, he adds. This supports the observation that poison frogs are not attacked by predatory ants in their natural habitat, but if the frogs are raised on a diet that does not contain alkaloids, they are readily attacked when exposed to ants.-"Once the frogs get these alkaloids into their systems, they may modify some of the compounds," Vander Meer says. "Without those starting materials from the arthropods, they cannot produce the alkaloids.'"-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-poison-frog-compounds-ants.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 11, 2014, 19:04 (3385 days ago) @ David Turell

"A joint effort by researchers at the Universities of Copenhagen and Lund has produced a reconstruction of how fungus-growing ants have stepwise improved their clonal crops into a robust and superbly efficient farming system. The results, published today in the journal Nature Communications, show that reliable delivery of some enzymes and vital amino acids in the fungal food explains that the ant farmers have lost the ability to produce these compounds themselves.-"Leaf-cutting ants use a broad range of fungal enzymes to degrade harvested leaf fragments in what appears to be an optimal joint venture with sophisticated division of labor. The fungus produces clusters of inflated food packages for the ants. These symbiotic organs provide carbohydrates, lipids, fungal enzymes and vital amino acids and satisfy all the nutritious needs of the ant farmers and of their brood, which also eat garden-fungus. These foodpackage organs evolved ca. 20 million years ago and represented an innovation that allowed today's leaf-cutting ants to evolve truly large-scale farms. Fungus-growing ants became farmers ca. 50 million years ago, but the first 30 million years they only had small-scale subsistence farms in which they used plant debris to make tiny fungus gardens grow. However, that suddenly changed and from then on developments accelerated.-"Although it took ages of slow natural selection, today's ant farms are ca. 100,000 times larger than those of the first ancestors that invented farming," says Henrik De Fine Licht -the first and corresponding author."-"This is comparable to what most modern human agricultural systems have achieved, and it is striking that the scale of environmental effects appears to have increased to the same degree. Not like human farming that uses enormous amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides, but for the ants the key resource is access to fresh leaves. Their most advanced societies became aggressive herbivores that cause massive defoliation damage in natural ecosystems and human farmland in Latin America."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210131307.htm

Natures wonders: Muscle building while hibernating

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 11, 2014, 21:00 (3385 days ago) @ David Turell

Long distance migratory birds also build muscle without exercising.-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/12/04/no-exercise-plan-squirrels-build-muscle-while-hibernating/#5465-"From the MRI scans, the scientists calculated the volume of the animals' hind leg muscles. They saw that as ground squirrels lost weight, their muscles shrank too. But while the squirrels weighed the least in April—at the end of their hibernation—their muscle volume stopped plummeting before then. Sometime during the final two months of hibernation, squirrels' muscles started to pump up, even while the rest of their bodies continued shrinking.-"In a separate study, researchers directly sampled the muscles of Ictidomys tridecemlineatus at different times during hibernation. They looked at several muscles from both the front and back legs. Once again, they saw that muscles started to grow at the end of winter, while the squirrels themselves were still withering away."

Natures wonders: molecular battles

by David Turell @, Friday, December 12, 2014, 00:54 (3385 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans hide iron atoms in transferrin so invading bacteria can't use it for their metabolism:-"Following infection, the familiar sneezing, runny nose, and inflammation are all part of the immune system's attempts to rid the body of hostile invaders. Lesser known is a separate defense against invasive microbes, called nutritional immunity, that quietly takes place under our skin. This defense mechanism starves infectious bacteria by hiding circulating iron, an essential nutrient it needs for survival. The protein that transports iron in the blood, transferrin, tucks the trace metal safely out of reach."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-human-dna-million-year-survival-primate.html#jCp

Natures wonders: firefly lights

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 17, 2014, 15:10 (3380 days ago) @ David Turell

A transfer of oxygen to specialized cells:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141217074508.htm

Natures wonders: butt breathing turtles

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 18, 2014, 00:49 (3379 days ago) @ David Turell

Helps them hide. They are endangered:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2014/12/12/butt-breathing-turtle-critically-endangered/

Natures wonders: bacterial flagella

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 18, 2014, 01:07 (3379 days ago) @ David Turell

Same basic plan but at least eleven sub-types are seen. More evidence for patterns at the basis of evolutionary variation:-"Now comes a surprise. One would expect that such a complex structure [the bacterial motor] be the product of an uncommon event in evolution, consequently, that it be alike in different bacterial species. Not so. A most exciting detailed analysis of eleven different species shows that although the basic plan is the same, these tiny machines vary considerably in detail. Their elements differ in curvature and in the positioning with regard to the axis. True, the bacteria species chosen included an assortment of their flagellar arrangement, the flagella being polar in some, all over the surface (peritrichous) in others, and in yet others encased in the periplasm [the space between the inner and outer membranes]. One can well imagine that such different arrangements might require specially adapted machinery. But this finding does reveal a great degree of plasticity in the way flagellar motors are made. Isn't this amazing?"-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/2014/12/16/bacterial-motors-come-in-a-dizzying-array-of-models/-How did a series of mutations create such specified complexity? Not by Darwin's thoughts.

Natures wonders: pearlfish find safe homes

by David Turell @, Friday, December 19, 2014, 00:13 (3378 days ago) @ David Turell

Pearl fish make sounds and find safe homes:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/2014/12/17/heres-how-pearlfish-call-to-each-other-from-inside-the-bodies-of-other-living-animals/-"“We may think of them as silent, but fish make many sounds that are rarely appreciated by the human ear. Clownfish chirp and pop by gnashing their teeth together. Oyster toadfish hum and blare like foghorns by quickly contracting muscles attached to their swim bladders. Croaking gourami make their signature noise by snapping the tendons of their pectoral fins. -"Altogether, more than 800 fish species are known to hoot, moan, grunt, groan, thump, bark, or otherwise vocalise. Carol Johnston, an ecologist at Auburn University, is partial to the sounds made by lollipop darters, small fish native to Alabama and Tennessee. ‘They sound like whales,' she told me.”-"Rather famously, pearlfish (family: Carapidae) species from the the genera Carapus and Encheliophis make their homes in the living bodies of invertebrate hosts, including sea cucumbers and starfish. Once inside, some of the creepier species even feed off their host's genitals. But how, exactly, do they get in? Either head-first, propelling themselves forward with a few vigorous tail-thrusts, or tail-first, coordinating their inwards slides with the host's next ‘breath'.-"“Oh”, I hear you say, “they go in through the mouth?” Well, not quite. They go in through the cloaca, which is in all intents and purposes, an anus, through which sea cucumbers and starfish breathe. Once inside, a pearlfish will hang out in a unique breathing organ called the ‘respiratory tree' all day, very occasionally poking their own anuses outside to relieve themselves into the open ocean. Pearlfish only leave their hosts at night to feed, when their ribbon-thin bodies can hide from predators under the cover of darkness."

Natures wonders: microbiome influence an IM?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 14:56 (3381 days ago) @ David Turell

Another possibility for an IM mechanism is microbiome influence on the host animal. It is now well recognized that beneficial bacteria help horse digestion, influence human digestion, and that we pack pounds of 'friendly, but foreign' bugs in our bodies. This study looks at the influence of bacteria in insects:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41668/title/Communicating-Across-Kingdoms-/-"Wolbachia bacteria live inside the cells of other species and can strongly influence the lives of their hosts. These bacteria manipulate host reproductive biology to increase their own transmission. Wolbachia have been documented in more than 40 percent of terrestrial arthropods.-"Previous studies have shown that Wolbachia can regulate certain microRNAs (miRNAs) in the host Aedes aegypti, resulting in increased production of certain enzymes and decreased production of others, both in favor Wolbachia persistence. Using deep sequencing, Asgari's team found that two miRNAs, WsnRNA-46 and WsnRNA-49, were highly expressed in Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes—and especially in cells where the bacteria dwelled. WsnRNA-46 and WsnRNA-49 are both about 30 nucleotides long, have stem-loop structures, and are far from each other on the genome, governed by independent promoters.-"But Bryan Cullen, a molecular geneticist at Duke University, is skeptical of the role of Wolbachia miRNAs in host gene regulation. “This argument that miRNAs increase target gene expression—not repress—has no precedent,” he told The Scientist in an e-mail.-“The study is very intriguing, and opens up new mechanisms by which Wolbachia and other bacteria could manipulate or more generally interact with their hosts,” said evolutionary geneticist John Werren from the University of Rochester in New York. “I am not sure that I would call this ‘communication,' however,” he added, as the authors have in their paper."

Natures wonders: Seal navigation

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 02:58 (3374 days ago) @ David Turell

They may use magnetic gps:-http://www.livescience.com/49221-researchers-investigate-to-see-if-seals-have-magnetic-gps.html?cmpid=558762-"While hunting, Weddell seals have biological adaptations that allow them to dive deep, as much as of hundreds of meters, but also an uncanny ability to find the breathing holes they need on the surface of the ice. Now, researchers supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) believe they have figured out they do it: by using the Earth's magnetic field as a natural GPS. -"This animal, we think, may be highly evolved with an ability to navigate using magnetic sense in order to find ice holes some distance apart and get back to them safely," explained Randall Davis of the Department of Marine Biology at Texas A&M University."

Natures wonders: odor camouflage

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 14:49 (3374 days ago) @ David Turell

A small fish looks like the coral it lives in and smells like it:-http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/10/4145224.htm

Natures wonders: ant rescue

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 01:30 (3373 days ago) @ David Turell

Some species do, some don't. And it depends on the type of ant in the social group. :-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029481.200-goodwill-hunting-random-ants-of-kindness.html?page=1#.VJoZlsB0MA-"Rather than empathy, ants seem to be driven by an evolved urge to help members of their group - what biologists call pro-social behaviour. Their selfless acts suggest that complex, cognitively motivated behaviour might come about through simpler mechanisms than we had thought. Or, put another way, exactly what makes ants so nice to each other is a bit of a mystery. No doubt the same can be said for humans."

Natures wonders: Counting wolves beat dogs

by David Turell @, Friday, December 26, 2014, 23:15 (3370 days ago) @ David Turell

Wolves grasp counts one thru four better than dogs-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/12/19/dogs-not-great-math-wolves-better/#5465-"The animals couldn't judge the cheese piles by size, but it was still possible they were getting clues without counting. They might be keeping track of the time it took to drop the cheese cubes, for example. So the researchers tried the test again, spacing out the smaller numbers of cheese cubes so they took the same amount of time to drop as the larger numbers. They also tried adding rocks to the experiment: an experimenter dropped the same number of items on each side, but some of the items were small stones, and the dog still had to pick the side with more cheese.-"Even with these controls in place, wolves picked the correct side more often than not. But dogs failed. They performed no better than if they'd been guessing.-"Dogs may have lost their wolfish number sense when they moved in with humans. On the other hand, they gained the opportunity to eat cheese. Who's smart now?":-)

Natures wonders: Ferns catapult spores

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 19:57 (3365 days ago) @ David Turell

They use a very complex mechanism that does not require the usual stopping arm or bar seen in Mediaeval catapults:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/2014/12/31/wonderful-things-ferns-eject-their-spores-with-medieval-style-catapults/-"But the spores would just get slammed into the bottom of the sporangium by the annulus without some way to halt its motion mid-swing. The narrator points out that every respectable medieval catapult contained a crossbar for stopping the arm and launching the payload. You have no doubt noted that the fern leptosporangium lacks such a device. So what halts the rebound of the annulus?-"The answer is viscosity. The paper explains the effect using a lesser-known relation called “Darcy's Law“. The walls of the annulus are especially thick and spongy. Water moving through the walls as the annulus springs back is subject to a lot of viscous drag. This drag is created by the difference in the speed of water moving next to walls (slow) and that moving farther away from them (faster), which induces internal friction in the water molecules moving at different speeds.-"Because there are so many tiny pores (and hence more wall surface area) in the cellulose of the annulus, the viscous drag is great, dissipating the energy of the rebound and halting the catapult arm. The spores, encountering no similar resistance to their motion, continue off into the wild blue yonder, with any luck landing on a patch of fertile, fern-free ground."

Natures wonders: Bacteria use spears

by David Turell @, Friday, January 02, 2015, 15:20 (3364 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Saturday, January 03, 2015, 09:31

To attack others and obtain horizontal gene transfer:-"The researchers grew these bacteria on chitin surfaces that simulated their natural habitat on crustaceans. What they found was that the tiny spear is not only part of V. cholerae's natural survival system, but it also contributed to the transfer of genes that could make the bacterium more resistant to threats, even to antibiotics. The researchers then used genetic and bioimaging techniques to identify, in real time, which mechanisms are involved in this event, which is called "horizontal gene transfer".-"Using this mode of DNA acquisition, a single V. cholerae cell can absorb fragments containing more than 40 genes from another bacterium," says Melanie Blokesch. "That's an enormous amount of new genetic information." This phenomenon is referred to as "horizontal" gene transfer, as opposed to the conventional "vertical" passage of genes from parent to offspring."-http://phys.org/news/2015-01-dna-predatory-device-cholera-bacterium.html

Natures wonders: Walking stick insects

by David Turell @, Friday, January 02, 2015, 19:33 (3363 days ago) @ David Turell

New species almost two feet long:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/12/30/second-biggest-insect-discovered/#5465-"Stick insects have devised clever defense mechanisms to stay alive in the wild — including, most obviously, looking like a branch. However some stick insects can also change colors or mimic the swaying of a branch in the wind.-"Stick insects are also known for their marathon copulation sessions, which can last for several months in some species. Recent studies by other research teams have doubled the number of stick insects identified, bringing the total number of known species to about 70. Southeast Asia is said to host the largest variety of stick insect species, and researchers are certain there are more to discover."

Natures wonders: Walking stick insects

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, January 03, 2015, 10:06 (3363 days ago) @ David Turell

I'm jealous....:-P

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Walking stick insects

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 03, 2015, 15:31 (3363 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I'm jealous....:-P-Llama sex is almost as long and they hum while doing it. Biologically it is tgermed as 'drip ejaculation'.

Natures wonders: Carnivorous plant strategy

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 15, 2015, 14:52 (3351 days ago) @ David Turell

Is this a clever plan for more food, or are the researchers seeing too much?-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41904/title/Slippery-When-Wet/-
"Constantly wet pitchers caught more flying insects, but the untouched pitchers overall nabbed 2.5 times as many prey over the study period, mainly due to a 10 percent increase in batches of five or more ants—the primary food source of N. rafflesiana—trapped at a time. The scientists thus reasoned that alternating between ineffective and highly effective trap modes allows the plant to exploit the behavior of “scout” ants—those insects responsible for sourcing food and alerting their colonies to its location—by letting one ant escape in order to capture many more. “What looks like a disadvantage at first sight turns out to be a clever strategy to exploit the recruitment behavior of social insects,” Bauer said in a statement."

Natures wonders: Migrating geese conserve energy

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 18, 2015, 19:29 (3347 days ago) @ David Turell

Flying low when they can, but flying over the Himalayas when they have to:-http://www.livescience.com/49470-roller-coaster-goose-flight.html?cmpid=558956-" The tracking data also showed that the birds flapped their wings more frequently at higher altitudes, where the air is less dense. But more important, a small increase in the wingbeat frequency was strongly correlated with a large increase in the heart rate. For example, a 5 percent increase in the wingbeat rate produced a 19 percent change in the birds' heart rate, Bishop said.-"This all suggests that as the birds increased their altitude, they had to flap their wings harder to generate the same amount of lift, and this used up a lot of energy. Thus, it makes more sense for the birds to swoop down to lower altitudes when the ground dips down, Bishop explained."

Natures wonders: Migrating turtles use Earth's magnetism

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 20, 2015, 14:50 (3346 days ago) @ David Turell

Many animals do this:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41933/title/Turtle-Magnetism/-"The Earth's magnetic field is in constant flux, yet the turtles use it to navigate in the open ocean. Until now, however, the turtle's magnetic senses weren't explored as a possible explanation for the adult females' incredible homing ability. J. Roger Brothers and Kenneth Lohmann of the University of North Carolina hypothesized that if the turtles also followed the magnetic field back to their birthing beaches, shifts in the field should impact where on the beach loggerhead mothers-to-be landed. In particular, a change in the distances between the magnetic addresses, or isolines, on the beach would lead to a change in the density of turtle nests.-
"By comparing volunteer-collected nesting data and the positions of the isolines along the Florida coast over a 19-year period, Brothers and Lohmann found that when the distances between the magnetic signatures shrank, so did the distance between the nests. When the field shifted to create greater distances between isolines, the turtles were more spread out. “These results provide strong evidence that nesting sea turtles use Earth's magnetic field to locate their natal beaches,” the authors wrote in their paper. In addition, since many other species also follow the Earth's magnetic fields to reach their destinations, the suggestion that turtles might be storing magnetic information from birth to maturity could impact the understanding of other animals' journeys as well."

Natures wonders: Migrating turtles use Earth's magnetism

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 24, 2015, 17:46 (3342 days ago) @ David Turell

Snails use weaponized insulin to stun fish they eat:-http://www.livescience.com/49547-cone-snails-insulin-weapon.html?cmpid=558959-"This is the first reported case of any animal using insulin in its venom, Safavi said. What's more, the insulin resembles fish insulin, making it an effective tool against the snails' preferred prey. When the researchers injected the insulin into zebrafish, the fish became less active in less than a minute, even though the fish started the experiment with high blood sugar levels.-"The weaponized insulin also varies depending on the snail's preferred diet. For instance, some cone snails that eat worms also produce insulin that is similar to worm insulin. This suggests that certain species of cone snails have honed their weaponized insulin to imitate that of their prey's, the researchers said."

Natures wonders: How whales hear

by David Turell @, Friday, January 30, 2015, 19:22 (3335 days ago) @ David Turell

Probably bone conduction:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143032.htm-"There are two ways sound can reach a whale's tympanoperiotic complex (TPC), an "interlocking bony puzzle" of ear bones that is rigidly attached to the skull. One way is for the sound's pressure waves to travel through the whale's soft tissue to their TPC, but this becomes ineffective once sound waves are longer than the whale's body, Cranford said.-"The second way is for sounds to vibrate along the skull, a process known as bone conduction. Unlike pressure waves passing through soft tissue, longer waves lengths are amplified as they vibrate the skull.-"When Cranford and Krysl modeled various wavelengths traveling through their computerized skull, they found that bone conduction was approximately four times more sensitive to low frequency sounds than the pressure mechanism. Importantly, their model predicts that for the lowest frequencies used by fin whales, 10 Hz -- 130 Hz, bone conduction is up to 10 times more sensitive.-"'Bone conduction is likely the predominant mechanism for hearing in fin whales and other baleen whales," Cranford said. "This is, in my opinion, a grand discovery.'"

Natures wonders: Slug uses algae to make its food

by David Turell @, Friday, February 06, 2015, 01:47 (3329 days ago) @ David Turell

The slug eats plants and the algae chriomosomes in the slug make food for it up to nine months:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203155925.htm-"The authors present the first direct evidence that the emerald green sea slug's chromosomes have some genes that come from the algae it eats.-"These genes help sustain photosynthetic processes inside the slug that provide it with all the food it needs.-"Importantly, this is one of the only known examples of functional gene transfer from one multicellular species to another."

Natures wonders: Double parasitic trouble

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 12, 2015, 14:41 (3323 days ago) @ David Turell

A parasitoid wasp uses a virus to subdue the larva's beetle food supply:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42134/title/Cooperative-Control/-"Twenty days after a fateful bite from a parasitoid wasp (Dinocampus coccinellae), a pre-pupa emerges from the bitten lady beetle (Coleomegilla maculata) and spins a cocoon between the beetle's six legs. Eventually, the beetle becomes immobile, twitching and shaking at irregular intervals, grasping the wasp cocoon as if its own life depended on it. To force C. maculata into bodyguard duty for its young, the wasp is aided by a virus— D. coccinellae paralysis virus, or DcPV—that partially paralyzes the lady beetle, according to a study published today (February 10) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.-"Viral mediation of host-parasite interactions are nothing new. However, this study was the first to find “that a virus is involved in the behavioral manipulation by another parasite,” said Nolwenn Dheilly of Stony Brook University in New York, who led the study."-Setting this mechanism up took lots of coordination

Natures wonders: charged bacteria.

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 14, 2015, 05:11 (3321 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Saturday, February 14, 2015, 09:42

Ten different types live only on electrons:-http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186537-biologists-discover-electric-bacteria-that-eat-pure-electrons-rather-than-sugar-redefining-the-tenacity-of-life-
"These special bacteria, however, don't need no p[r]oxy sugars — instead, they cut out the middleman and feed directly on electrons. To discover these bacteria, and to cultivate them in the lab, the USC biologists quite simply scooped up some sediment from the ocean, took it back to the lab, stuck some electrodes into it, and then turned on the power. When higher voltages are pumped into the water, the bacteria “eats” electrons from the electrode; when a lower voltage is present, the bacteria “exhales” electrons onto the electrode, creating an electrical current (which could be used to power a device, if you were so inclined). The USC study very carefully controlled for other sources of nutrition — these bacteria were definitely eating electrons directly.-"The ten varieties discovered so far are not from the same family, and are not related to Shewanella or Geobacter, which also feature “interesting electrical properties.” So this is convergent evolution."

Natures wonders: have a tail save a life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 15:23 (3317 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 19:21

Moths' tails confuse bats:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42190/title/Distracting-Tails/-"To test this idea, researchers from Boise State University, the University of Florida, and Northeast Ohio Medical University affixed 162 luna moths to the ceiling with fishing line, then used high-speed infrared cameras and ultrasonic recorders to capture information on eight brown bats attacking the moths. Of the 87 moths with intact tails, 34.5 percent were nabbed by bats. By contrast, 81 percent of the 75 tailless luna moths in the study were eaten. The researchers also noted that the bats often aimed for the tails of intact moths, and in the vast majority of these attacks, the moths were able to escape.-
"Further investigation revealed that the echo signature created by the moths' tails spinning through the air closely mimics that of wing beats, suggesting that the tails provide a life-saving decoy. By analyzing the tail lengths of related moths, the researchers found that similar tails had evolved independently at least four times. “Our data suggest that diversionary anti-bat defenses can be as successful as other acoustic strategies in this arms race,” the authors wrote in their paper."

Natures wonders: a bird like squirrels

by David Turell @, Monday, February 23, 2015, 23:12 (3311 days ago) @ David Turell

The spotted nutcracker of Switzerland hides seeds to eat after the Aug/Sept seeding season is over:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clever-bird-uses-nature-as-its-breadbox/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20150223-"By comparing their experimental caches with those of the birds, Neuschulz discovered that the nutcrackers explicitly chose to hide seeds in the areas that were least likely to sprout a tree—sites that lacked the requisite soil moisture or were heavily shaded. The team also found that all caches were equally likely to be pilfered, no matter their surroundings, according to results published in January in the Journal of Animal Ecology.-"“The Swiss stone pine can [live] more than 500 years,” Neuschulz says, “so it doesn't need a lot of successful germination events to maintain population viability.” That life cycle explains how these evergreens evolved to rely on birds that attempt to hide the seeds where they are least likely to result in a new tree. Just a few germinated seeds each season spread out over multiple centuries can yield quite a lot of offspring. Meanwhile the spotted nutcrackers have learned to use nature as a breadbox, keeping their food from spoiling."-Two entirely different life forms have worked out a zero-sum game. How?

Natures wonders: ideal eyelash length

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 01, 2015, 18:55 (3305 days ago) @ David Turell

One-third of the width (vertical) of the mammalian eye. Protects against dust and evaporation:-"Our study demonstrates that eyelashes divert airflows, acting as a passive dust controlling system for the eyes. They reduce evaporation and particle deposition up to 50%, indicating the evolution of eyelashes may have played a role in reducing the frequency of endogenous blinks, which replenish and clean the tear film [2]. Our experiments show that eyelashes of an intermediate length accrue the greatest benefits in terms of flow reduction and particle deposition. In our simulations, the optimum eyelash length is assessed through shear rate as a proxy for particle deposition and evaporation. This optimum is unique to porous eyelashes, and does not apply for completely impermeable eyelashes, such as paper cylinders. Thus the porosity of surfaces can induce non-intuitive and advantageous flows. Through scaling, we find that the optimum arises because the aerodynamic drag imposed by short eyelashes thickens the boundary layer above the ocular surface, while long lashes channel flow with high kinetic energy towards the ocular surface. As a result, the shear stress at the eye surface scales as the inverse of eyelash length, or ? ? L?1, for short lashes; shear stress scales with eyelash length squared, or ? ? L2, for long lashes. The combination of these two competing effects gives rise to an optimum length for eyelashes that minimizes shear stress, shear rate, evaporation and contamination at the ocular surface. We find the optimal eyelash length to be L/W = 0.35 ± 0.15, following anatomical measurements, aerodynamic scaling analysis, numerical simulation and wind tunnel experiments."-http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/105/20141294-http://www.livescience.com/49934-optimal-length-for-eyelashes-discovered.html-"At this point you might be wondering: Are you telling me I should toss my fake eyelashes? Well, maybe not. But perhaps you should take your beauty cues from the camel.-"'The more dense you could make your eyelashes, the better it would be," Hu said.-"Camels have two rows of dense eyelashes — likely an extra defense against the dry, sand-laden desert air. Eyelashes of high density (or low "porosity" as the researchers say) are better at blocking airflow from the surface of the eye, the experiments showed.-"This benefit might even hold true for humans with unnaturally long lashes. In their paper, Hu and colleagues wrote that "wearing curved false eyelashes of low porosity can potentially provide extra protection to the eye and reduce dry eye.'"-Interesting thought: how did hunt and peck Darwinian evolution get to this exact solution? Eyes first, lashes second? Or both appearing at the same time fortuitously and then perfecting the size and parts of each.

Natures wonders: ideal eyelash length

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, March 02, 2015, 03:31 (3305 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Interesting thought: how did hunt and peck Darwinian evolution get to this exact solution? Eyes first, lashes second? Or both appearing at the same time fortuitously and then perfecting the size and parts of each.-Isn't it obvious? These originated as merely decorative "air foils' used for mating rituals. In the earliest variety, they were located near the sexual organs, but migrated their way north to the newly formed ocular regions, using their sexual appeal to get the males of the species to look them in the eye. I would expect that some time in the distant future they will be replaced in humans as the nipples migrate to the eyes to achieve the same purpose. From a breeding perspective, the males that chose females with nipples on their eyelids will have a longer life expectancy and produce more offspring. -**This is all in jest, not meant to offend anyone of any gender**

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: ideal eyelash length

by David Turell @, Monday, March 02, 2015, 05:23 (3305 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony;**This is all in jest, not meant to offend anyone of any gender**-Funny how evolution always reaches perfect solutions

Natures wonders: ideal eyelash length

by dhw, Tuesday, March 03, 2015, 18:07 (3304 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Interesting thought: how did hunt and peck Darwinian evolution get to this exact solution? Eyes first, lashes second? Or both appearing at the same time fortuitously and then perfecting the size and parts of each. -TONY: Isn't it obvious? These originated as merely decorative "air foils' used for mating rituals. In the earliest variety, they were located near the sexual organs, but migrated their way north to the newly formed ocular regions, using their sexual appeal to get the males of the species to look them in the eye. I would expect that some time in the distant future they will be replaced in humans as the nipples migrate to the eyes to achieve the same purpose. From a breeding perspective, the males that chose females with nipples on their eyelids will have a longer life expectancy and produce more offspring. 
 
 **This is all in jest, not meant to offend anyone of any gender**-Great post, Tony. Thank you. By an amazing coincidence, I have just sent off an application to the Sheer Heaven Institute of Theistic Evolution (SHITE) for a million dollar grant to further my research into the uniquely raisable, knittable, pluckable eyebrow as conclusive evidence that humans are different in kind and not degree. I am hoping David will provide a reference.

Natures wonders: ideal eyelash length

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 03, 2015, 19:37 (3303 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Great post, Tony. Thank you. By an amazing coincidence, I have just sent off an application to the Sheer Heaven Institute of Theistic Evolution (SHITE) for a million dollar grant to further my research into the uniquely raisable, knittable, pluckable eyebrow as conclusive evidence that humans are different in kind and not degree. I am hoping David will provide a reference.-If you have seen my picture, I have the eyebrows for it. No barber is allowed to touch them. I'd rather keep them combable. We are different in kind, because we are the only so-called primates that has its female gender pluck eyebrows to secure a more beauteous look, thereby guaranteeing survival of the species.

Natures wonders: a preferred pollinator

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 03, 2015, 20:17 (3303 days ago) @ David Turell

Only hummingbirds with longer curved beaks are allowed to drink from this plant:-
"Because they have no eyes, or brains to process visual information, it would seem that plants do not have much choice in which sorts of birds or insects transfer pollen to or from them, but in the case of one flowering plant, it appears a way has evolved nonetheless to ignore the pollen deposited by one species of bird, while favoring that from another.-"As part of their study of the plant, the researchers found that it was not very receptive to being artificially pollinated, this got them wondering if the plants were as choosy with natural pollinators, so they captured several of them and released them into an aviary where they could be studied more closely. In tracking which flowers were visited by different types of humming birds and one type of butterfly, the researchers found a pattern—the plants seemed more receptive to the hummingbird species that had long curved beaks. Further testing confirmed their suspicions. But how could the plants demonstrate a preference? Suspecting it had to do with the longer bills, the researchers tried pollinating the plants with a longer pipette and found it a more successful technique. Taking their study further, they found that a longer pipette or bill on a bird allowed for sucking up more of the nectar the plant was offering, and that turned out to be the means by which the plant did its choosing—those that took more nectar were in turn more likely to see their pollen accepted by the plant.-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-species-evolved-pollinator.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Chameleon color change

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 14:04 (3296 days ago) @ David Turell

Shifting onboard crystals size and color reflections:
 
"Chameleon colors aren't just for camouflage. When panther chameleons (Furcifer pardalis) in Madagascar fight over territory, a dazzling display precedes their contests: resting males, typically green and inconspicuous, turn yellow or orange; red patches on their bodies can brighten, and blues can fade to whitish tints. The color changes, which are completely reversible and occur within minutes, are not the result of shifts in pigments alone. Results published today (March 10) in Nature Communications suggest they are the result of quick changes to light-reflecting guanine nanocrystals, which create structural color within chameleon skin.-"Two layers of cells known as iridophores contain these nanocrystals. A superficial layer, known as S-iridophores, actively alters the spacing of these crystals to cause the rapid color changes, while a deeper layer, made up of D-iridophores, reflects a broader spectrum of light near the infrared wavelengths. In addition to camouflage and flashy fights, these cells may play a key part in keeping these lizards cool.-"'The surprising result here is that these animals can actually actively tune the geometry of these crystals in their iridophores, and they can do that reversibly,” Milinkovitch told The Scientist. “They can choose to go from green to yellow and back to green within minutes.”-"Unlike S-iridophores, which are fully developed only in adult males, D-iridophores are common across the species and in other distantly related chameleons. Guanine crystals within the more deeply embedded D-iridophores are larger, more disorganized, and did not appear to rearrange to contribute to color changes. Instead, they reflected approximately 45 percent of radiation in the infrared wavelengths, suggesting the layer acts as a broad-band reflector to protect these animals from extreme heat.-"Although the results indicate that panther chameleons tune their color displays via crystals, precisely how they change the spacing in these crystal lattices is still unknown. The mechanisms may be hormonal, controlled by neurons, or some combination of both, according to the researchers. In future work, Milinkovitch and his colleagues aim to test whether cytoskeletal elements play a part in moving crystals around within S-iridophores."-In this complexity how did chance mutations do it?

Natures wonders: How geckos shed water

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 12, 2015, 14:02 (3295 days ago) @ David Turell

Lots of tiny hairs:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42410/title/Self-Drying-Skin/-"Researchers from the University of the Sunshine Coast, James Cook University, the University of Queensland in Australia, and the University of Oxford examined the skin of ground-dwelling box-patterned geckos (Lucasium steindachneri) under a scanning electron microscope. The scientists found that the skin was covered in densely packed spiny hairs, each a few micrometers in length, which had also been previously identified in other gecko species. By trapping pockets of air, the spines force water on the skin's surface to remain as spherical droplets rather than spreading in an even layer over the reptile's scales. Water droplets the size of a crayon's tip make contact with roughly 100,000 spines.-"Next, the scientists analyzed slow-motion videos to examine how the spiny scales repelled water. The skin's structure encourages the water drops to merge, creating a larger drop that eventually falls off the skin due to gravity, wind, or being hit with a smaller falling droplet that drives it from the surface at high speed, the researchers found. The narrow spines, of which thousands would fit in the width of a human hair, contribute to the phenomenon the authors dubbed “geckovescence,” in which merging drops convert the energy associated with their shrinking surface area into kinetic energy that sends them flying off the animal's skin."

Natures wonders: How hermit crabs size shells

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 12, 2015, 22:17 (3294 days ago) @ David Turell

As the crabs grow they need a larger shell. This video shows how they line up to size up the right new shell:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/03/09/elaborate-hermit-crab-shell-exchanges-aid-in-survival/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DSC_News_150312_Final&utm_content=#5465-A great story in hand-me-downs:-"When a hermit crab spots a new shell, it'll size up the shell for a good fit. If the shell is too big, the prospecting hermit crab will sit back and wait to steal the castoff shell of a larger crab that decides to upgrade. In the meantime, while the first crab waits, other crabs gather around the shell and do the same. When a crab large enough to fit the vacant shell arrives, a bit of orderly chaos ensues."

Natures wonders: Parasite brain control

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 19, 2015, 14:06 (3288 days ago) @ David Turell

Toxoplasma Gondi is a parasite carried by rodents that can only reproduce in a cat's gut. The parasite causes rodents to lose their fear of cats:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150318153918.htm-"Rodents infected with a common parasite lose their fear of cats, resulting in easy meals for the felines. Now IU School of Medicine researchers have identified a new way the parasite may modify brain cells, possibly helping explain changes in the behavior of mice -- and humans.-"Astrocytes are found throughout the brain and are involved in a variety of important brain structures and activities. Dr. Sullivan and his team evaluated the proteins in astrocyte cells and found 529 sites on 324 proteins where compounds called acetyl groups are added to proteins, creating a map called an "acetylome," much like a map of all the genes in a particular species is known as its "genome." In addition, 277 sites on 186 of the proteins had not been reported in previous studies of other types of cells. This process of acetylation can alter the function, location or other aspects of those proteins in the cells, providing new insight into how these cells operate in the brain.-"Having created the first acetylome for astrocytes, the researchers then found a significant number of proteins that were acetylated differently in brain tissue infected with Toxoplasma parasites."

Natures wonders: Fish on land eats!

by David Turell @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 00:28 (3287 days ago) @ David Turell

Climbing up in the mud it spits out water at a prey and sucks it back:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fish-uses-water-tongue-to-grab-prey-on-land/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150319-"In water, fish can use ‘suction feeding' — gulping in water to draw prey into their mouths. But on land, manipulating food near your mouth without a tongue is a trickier proposition.-"To get around this problem, mudskippers come onto land with water in their mouths. The team's videos show that as the fish approaches its prey — in the experiments, a piece of prawn on a Plexiglass plate — this water starts to protrude from the mouth. As the mudskipper's jaws envelop the target, the fish uses its water to manipulate the food.-"'First it spews out the water, then very rapidly… it's sucking the water back up again. They're using the water that is in their mouth as a substitute for a tongue,” says Michel. The results were published on March 18 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B."

Natures wonders: Malaria parasite uses perfume

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 23:39 (3282 days ago) @ David Turell

The malaria parasite lives in mosquitos and attracts them using a perfume compound made by chloroplasts:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/malaria-parasite-attracts-mosquitoes-with-perfume/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150324-"But here's where things get weird. Plasmodium—the malaria parasite—also manufactures those alluring odor molecules, called terpenes. It does so using a chloroplast-like organelle, like the one plants use to capture sunlight. The malaria parasite's version can't trap light, but it can still manufacture plant perfume. The study appears in the journal mBio. [Megan Kelly et al., Malaria Parasites Produce Volatile Mosquito Attractants]-" The parasites produce these scents in the lab, and mosquitoes are attracted to them. The only question left for Odom and her colleagues is whether these chemicals also appear in the breath of infected humans. If they do, she says, the goal is to build a quick breathalyzer test for malaria, instead of the blood test used today—which would attract doctors to a patient in need before the next mosquito comes to bite."

Natures wonders: Frog changes skin texture

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 13:42 (3282 days ago) @ David Turell

To match its surroundings:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150323132854.htm-"Katherine Krynak believes the ability to change skin texture to reflect its surroundings may enable P. mutabilis to help camouflage itself from birds and other predators.-"The Krynaks originally spotted the small, spiny frog, nearly the width of a marble, sitting on a moss-covered leaf about a yard off the ground on a misty July night in 2009. The Krynaks had never seen this animal before, though Tim had surveyed animals on annual trips to Las Gralarias since 2001, and Katherine since 2005.-"They captured the little frog and tucked it into a cup with a lid before resuming their nightly search for wildlife. They nicknamed it "punk rocker" because of the thorn-like spines covering its body.-"The next day, Katherine Krynak pulled the frog from the cup and set it on a smooth white sheet of plastic for Tim to photograph. It wasn't "punk "--it was smooth-skinned. They assumed that, much to her dismay, she must have picked up the wrong frog.-"'I then put the frog back in the cup and added some moss," she said. "The spines came back... we simply couldn't believe our eyes, our frog changed skin texture!-"'I put the frog back on the smooth white background. Its skin became smooth."-"'The spines and coloration help them blend into mossy habitats, making it hard for us to see them," she said. "But whether the texture really helps them elude predators still needs to be tested."-"During the next three years, a team of fellow biologists studied the frogs. They found the animals shift skin texture in a little more than three minutes."

Natures wonders: Sea Horse Tails

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 01:44 (3275 days ago) @ David Turell

Many sea horses have tails which can grip stalks of plants. No other aquatic animal like this:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150331100901.htm-"The research team used thousands of 3D points from the computer model to quantify and map the seahorse's unique armor and the muscular and skeletal system within. They then compared the anatomy of the tail to that of other fish species within the seahorse's family, some of which do not have tails that bend or grasp.-"'We hypothesized that the variation in the grasping species would be much less than non-grasping fish because it would require certain building blocks to construct a tail that is flexible and rigid at the same time," said Adriaens. "To our surprise, we found differences in the ways a grasping tail was made, based on the same skeletal and muscular elements. Although a grasping tail is highly exceptional for a fish, it evolved multiple times independently within the family that seahorses belong to.'"

Natures wonders: Amazing bird migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 01:58 (3275 days ago) @ David Turell

From New England to South America, over 1,500 miles:-"Now, for the first time an international team of biologists report "irrefutable evidence" that the birds complete a nonstop flight ranging from about 1,410 to 1,721 miles (2,270 to 2,770 km) in just two to three days, making landfall somewhere in Puerto Rico, Cuba and the islands known as the Greater Antilles, from there going on to northern Venezuela and Columbia. Details of their study, which used light-level, or solar, geolocators, appear in the current issue of Biology Letters.-"First author Bill DeLuca, an environmental conservation research fellow at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, with colleagues at the University of Guelph, Ontario, the Vermont Center for Ecostudies and other institutions, says, "For small songbirds, we are only just now beginning to understand the migratory routes that connect temperate breeding grounds to tropical wintering areas. We're really excited to report that this is one of the longest nonstop overwater flights ever recorded for a songbird, and finally confirms what has long been believed to be one of the most extraordinary migratory feats on the planet."-"To prepare for the flight, the birds build up their fat stores, explains Canadian team leader Ryan Norris of the University of Guelph. "They eat as much as possible, in some cases doubling their body mass in fat so they can fly without needing food or water. For blackpolls, they don't have the option of failing or coming up a bit short. It's a fly-or-die journey that requires so much energy."-"He adds, "These birds come back every spring very close to the same place they used in the previous breeding season, so with any luck you can catch them again. Of course there is high mortality among migrating songbirds on such a long journey, we believe only about half return.'"-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-tiny-songbird-migrate-non-stop-miles.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Amazing bird migration

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 03:52 (3275 days ago) @ David Turell

I would be interested to know exactly how much of that is fat, and how much is water. I suspect that the former is much more prominent then the latter. My hyposthesis is that that gather water from the air during flight, which gives them that much more room to store face, which is lighter.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Amazing bird migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 14:41 (3275 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I would be interested to know exactly how much of that is fat, and how much is water. I suspect that the former is much more prominent then the latter. My hyposthesis is that that gather water from the air during flight, which gives them that much more room to store face, which is lighter.-These migrations are amazing. Bulking up with fat is necessary to cover the distances over water that are flown. Some species actually bulk up muscles, but do it hormonally, not by extra exercise which would burn the needed fat calories. For those who think migrations developed naturally by imitation of a first attempter, questions arise: how did the bird decide where and how far to go? Over ocean how did the bird know where he islands were? ( Alaska to Hawaii, as an example) How did he recognize the need to prepare with extra fat and muscle? As for your thoughts about water, as fat is burned CO2 is given off and the other product is water. I suspect they can travel several days without dehydrating.

Natures wonders: Fungus lifecycle with blueberries

by David Turell @, Friday, April 03, 2015, 20:26 (3272 days ago) @ David Turell

It involves several amazing steps and processes and mimics blueberries to fool pollinating insects. An amazing inventive story:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/2015/04/03/wonderful-things-the-amazing-mimicry-of-the-mummy-berry-fungus/-"There is a fungus on our planet which is capable of not one, but two audacious and duplicitous acts: it pretends, on separate occasions, to be both to be a flower and a pollen grain, and its acts are so successful that it manages to fool both the bumblebee and the blueberry bush.-"That fungus goes by the tongue-twisting name Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi, but the common name for the disease it causes is mummy berry (which sounds like it should have its own breakfast cereal). That's because it has a third act too: turning blueberries into time bombs.-*****-"Once it reaches that goal, the flower's egg or embryo, it goes wild. The infected ovary — which was probably also fertilized by a pollen grain — matures into a blueberry, but the blueberry is blighted. It shrivels, mummifies and falls to the ground. Inside, as the chill of winter comes, the fungus forms its sclerotium. And there these fungal time bombs tick until next spring, whence they will launch their next blueberry-bound volley.-"Both of these acts of mimicry are extraordinary. It is rare for fungi to infect plants through what amounts to their reproductive tract — only the aforementioned smut fungi and another group called ergot fungi also infect their hosts through the flower's lady bits. At the time the studies on the leaf-based fake flowers were done in 1985, no other example of leaf-based floral mimicry was known. Finding both behaviors in *one* fungus is nothing short of spectacular."

Natures wonders: migrating western grey whales

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 16, 2015, 01:38 (3260 days ago) @ David Turell

A 14,000 mile round trip!-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150415125854.htm-"Ateam of scientists from the United States and Russia has documented the longest migration of a mammal ever recorded -- a round-trip trek of nearly 14,000 miles by a whale identified as a critically endangered species that raises questions about its status.-"The researchers used satellite-monitored tags to track three western North Pacific gray whales from their primary feeding ground off Russia's Sakhalin Island across the Pacific Ocean and down the West Coast of the United States to Baja, Mexico. One of the tagged whales, dubbed Varvara (which is Russian for Barbara), visited the three major breeding areas for eastern gray whales, which are found off North America and are not endangered."

Natures wonders: chimps look both ways

by David Turell @, Friday, April 17, 2015, 19:48 (3259 days ago) @ David Turell

Crossing active roads, they look both ways and help slower ones:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27370-wild-chimps-look-both-ways-before-crossing-roads.html#.VTFaK2B0y1s-"In a 29-month survey, researchers observed and recorded 20 instances of wild chimps crossing a busy road in Sebitoli, in the northern part of Uganda's Kibale National Park. They watched 122 chimps cross the highway used by 90 vehicles an hour, many speeding at 70 to 100 kilometres an hour.-"It's the first report on how chimpanzees behave crossing a very busy asphalt road, says Marie Cibot of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. "We've described chimpanzee behaviour facing a dangerous situation never described before," she says, pointing out that earlier studies looked at narrower, unpaved and less busy roads.-"Chimps are exceptionally cautious when they cross the road. Ninety-two per cent of them looked right, left, or both ways before or during crossing, and 57 per cent ran across - showing that they knew the value of reaching the other side as quickly as possible.-"Alpha males led and organised 83 per cent of the road-crossing posses, compared with only 51 per cent of tree-climbing expeditions in the forest studied in parallel. This implies that they recognised the importance of extra vigilance during road crossings."

Natures wonders: chimps look both ways

by dhw, Sunday, April 19, 2015, 09:21 (3257 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Crossing active roads, they look both ways and help slower ones:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27370-wild-chimps-look-both-ways-before-crossing-...-"In a 29-month survey, researchers observed and recorded 20 instances of wild chimps crossing a busy road in Sebitoli, in the northern part of Uganda's Kibale National Park. They watched 122 chimps cross the highway used by 90 vehicles an hour, many speeding at 70 to 100 kilometres an hour.
"It's the first report on how chimpanzees behave crossing a very busy asphalt road, says Marie Cibot of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. "We've described chimpanzee behaviour facing a dangerous situation never described before," she says, pointing out that earlier studies looked at narrower, unpaved and less busy roads.
"Chimps are exceptionally cautious when they cross the road. Ninety-two per cent of them looked right, left, or both ways before or during crossing, and 57 per cent ran across - showing that they knew the value of reaching the other side as quickly as possible.
"Alpha males led and organised 83 per cent of the road-crossing posses, compared with only 51 per cent of tree-climbing expeditions in the forest studied in parallel. This implies that they recognised the importance of extra vigilance during road crossings."-Sensational! It took researchers two and a half years to watch 122 chimps crossing the road and to deduce that chimps have enough intelligence to know they must look both ways before crossing. The researchers have made the incredible discovery that animals can be aware of dangers and can take precautions to protect themselves. This could have far-reaching consequences. We humans will have to rethink our attitude towards all organisms that manage to survive. Maybe they know how to survive, whereas we thought we were the only ones who'd worked it out. I predict a Nobel Prize for Marie Cibot. Meanwhile, I am applying to the National Museum of Natural History in Paris for a grant to cover a two-and-a-half year expedition to seaside resorts all over the world, so that I can study the survival strategies of bed bugs in five star hotels.

Natures wonders: chimps look both ways

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 19, 2015, 15:18 (3257 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Sensational! It took researchers two and a half years to watch 122 chimps crossing the road and to deduce that chimps have enough intelligence to know they must look both ways before crossing....... Meanwhile, I am applying to the National Museum of Natural History in Paris for a grant to cover a two-and-a-half year expedition to seaside resorts all over the world, so that I can study the survival strategies of bed bugs in five star hotels.-It appears you have learned the lesson that any outlandish suggestion for research can wheedle grant money out of somewhere. With too little grant money available, and grant money needed to pursue one's career, fraud is the next step. May your bed bugs survive. Just don't get bitten.

Natures wonders: singing for sex

by David Turell @, Monday, April 20, 2015, 19:01 (3256 days ago) @ David Turell

Barn beetles do it:-"Bark beetles are perhaps best known for being pests of conifers in North America and coffee plantations around the world. However, despite their destructiveness these little guys have some pretty interesting behaviour. Female beetles construct a ‘gallery', trenches she bores out into wood where she will reside and wait for a male to mate with. Later she also lays eggs in her gallery.-"While building the gallery, the female bark beetle covers it in pheromones that act to attract males to it. She then waits for males to find her. When a male finds a gallery, he will approach, singing as he does through a series of chirps. However, only particular males are permitted access into her gallery; others are barred access at the entrance, and even pushed out completely by the female."-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/2015/04/19/male-bark-beetles-have-to-sing-a-password-to-be-given-access-to-a-females-home/

Natures wonders: spider brains

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 01:50 (3254 days ago) @ David Turell

Turns out they are amazingly bright and with almost 360 degree vision in jumping spiders:-https://www.braindecoder.com/spider-brain-great-mystery-in-a-tiny-head-1094514994.html-"'Spiders are very smart, that's why we're studying them," says Ronald Hoy, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell University. "They use visual cues to steer by, and the kind of mazes that they can solve is considered to be pretty impressive for an invertebrate." -In terms of wiring, however, spiders follow the same sorts of rules found in both vertebrates and invertebrates. -"'If you look at a section of spider brain you'll find that there are clusters of cell bodies with a cabling of the axons going from one part to another part and that's true of insects and that's true of us too," Hoy says. "Things are just more compact in a spider's brain because you're packing a normal head brain into the thoracic ganglion." -"Another amazing feature of some spiders is their sophisticated visual systems. Jumping spiders, for example, have eight eyes, giving them a nearly 360 degree panoramic view, with two front-facing eyes that are as acute as human eyes. The visual combo allows these hunters to pursue and pounce on prey, much like cats do. But an interesting question for scientists is how the spider brain actually processes the visual information.
Hoy is part of one of the first teams to record the activity of neurons in a spider brain, a monumental feat because the insides of spider bodies are under pressure, like air in a balloon, and even the smallest incisions could make everything squirt out, leaving the critter to die. Using a very fine electrode that made a fast-healing hole in the spider's head, Hoy's team successfully punctured the tiny brain of a jumping spider and recorded neuron responses associated with visual cues, such as flies, their natural prey. This gave the team an unprecedented look into the microscopic brain that processes information from the jumping spider's eight eyes."

Natures wonders: Ants control traffic flow

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 15:16 (3254 days ago) @ David Turell

No traffic jams. Moving to the left to pass. As density increases speed increases:-"When food increases in supply, more forager ants are sent out to carry it back to the nest. With this increase in ant density, the number of encounters between outbound and incoming individuals increases. Researchers at the University of Halle-Wittenberg in Germany suggest that the encounters provide an opportunity for ants to swap information and to change their behavior according to conditions.-"The researchers also identified rules of ant etiquette. For example, workers returning to the colony more often moved to the left than to the right to avoid colliding with an oncoming ant. Rather than segregating strictly into lanes like human traffic, the ants used only a degree of segregation, with inbound ants more frequently using the left side of the trail."-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-ants-self-organize-traffic-trails-accommodate.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Ants control fungal infections

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 15:35 (3247 days ago) @ David Turell

They secrete a fungal killer chemical to protect the colony population. They use it sparingly it seems and it has worked continuously. Not like the indiscriminate use of antibiotics by humans which has resulted in resistance to them:-http://phys.org/news/2015-04-leafcutter-ants-chemical-secretions-fungal.html-"To learn more, the team collected several leafcutter ants from sites around Panama and used them to create five individual colonies, (over the years 2004 to 2010) which were subdivided into four sub-colonies each. Colony sizes were allowed to grow to different sizes to see how fungal fighting efforts changed over time. The team also subjected the sub-colonies to various doses of the type of fungus that would typically cause a problem for the ants, and then watched closely as the ants defeated every single one of them.-"As it turns out, as a colony develops, a unique type of worker ant begins to appear, one with an enlarged metapleural gland, which secretes the phenylacetic acid—this worker ants' sole purpose appears to be eradicating fungal infections.-"The team acknowledges that their study did not shed much light on how the insects have managed to keep their antifungal agent working for so long, but suggest that it might have something to do with the way the ants apply their chemical—only when there is an infection and only on infected areas."

Natures wonders: Scorpion's defensive venom spray

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 02, 2015, 01:47 (3244 days ago) @ David Turell

It is apparently done in controlled squirts when seriously threatened:-http://www.livescience.com/50681-venom-squirting-scorpions-blind-enemies.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-05-01-"Some scorpions are able to spray their venom, an ability they use defensively to try to temporarily disable predators, allowing the stinging arachnids to escape the jaws of death, a new study suggests.-"From skunks to bombardier beetles, a wide range of animals spray chemicals defensively. But only a relatively few species are known to squirt highly toxic venom when threatened, most notably spitting cobras.-****-"'The way they squirt it gives it a nice arc, covering a wider area and making it more possible to reach a predator's eyes," Nisani said, adding that the venom also becomes airborne and able to irritate the respiratory system, causing sneezing, runny nose and itchy eyes in humans. "When I milked scorpions, I had to wear a mask," Nisani said. "I developed hypersensitivity to" the venom.-"The results suggest that when faced with highly threatening predators, such as grasshopper mice and shrews, Parabuthus scorpions squirt venom in a way that creates a diffuse spray that maximizes contact with the eyes and respiratory system of their hunters. This potentially causes temporary blindness, pain and irritation that allows the arachnids to get away."-Convergence with cobras.

Natures wonders: Penguin poop makes nursery

by David Turell @, Monday, May 04, 2015, 22:08 (3241 days ago) @ David Turell

Clever guys: -Gentoo penguins have given the term nesting a whole new meaning.-The penguins poop on their frozen landscape in the Antarctic to melt it, creating the ideal location to rear their young when the time comes, new video footage suggests.-Though most humans wouldn't consider poop an appropriate decoration for a child's nursery (although it is certainly a common element in them), poop seems to play a key role in penguins' breeding behavior. This poop "landscaping" is probably unintentional: The birds most likely aren't considering the feng shui of their feces and deliberately pooping to make room for their chicks' nurseries, researchers said. -http://www.livescience.com/50709-penguins-use-poop-for-breeding.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-05-04

Natures wonders: Bombardier beetle spray control

by David Turell @, Monday, May 04, 2015, 22:13 (3241 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 21:28

The beetles spray enemies with a toxic liquid in a controlled fashion:-"The coordinated movements of two chambers within the gland of a species of bombardier beetles (Brachinus elongatulus) allow the insects to effortlessly spray rapid pulses of noxious irritants, according to a study published today (May 1) in Science. The hundreds of species of bombardier beetle are named for their defense mechanism, which involves shooting a boiling stream of toxic p-benzoquinones at up to 10 meters (33 feet) per second from a gland in their rear. Inside the beetles' bodies, the gland consists of two chambers separated by a valve. One is a flexible reservoir containing the raw materials to make the explosive compounds, while the reaction chamber, reinforced with chitin and waxes, contains the enzymes that turn the chemicals into a toxic weapon. When a stressed beetle turns on its defenses, it squeezes the muscles of the reservoir to open the valve and mix the components together. In the Brachinini group of bombardier beetles, to which the Arizona-dwelling B. elongatulus belongs, the spray then erupts in a series of 300 to 700 pulses per second, but it was not known how these pulses were controlled. - See more at: http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42874/title/Beetle-Bomb/#sthash....

Natures wonders: Glowing for protection

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 17:31 (3241 days ago) @ David Turell

These millipedes glow to warn predators they are poisonous with cyanide:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504154952.htm-"The bug, Xystocheir bistipita, had been collected in 1967 and was not seen again until Marek rediscovered it during fieldwork in the foothills of San Luis Obispo, California.-"Diminutive in size compared to other millipedes, the species lives at a lower elevation with few predators and was not thought to belong to the genus of millipedes that glow called Motyxia -- the only genus of bioluminescent millipedes in the Western Hemisphere.-"After sequencing the bug's DNA, he found that it was in fact related to its luminous cousins, and changed its name to Motyxia bistipita.-"Unlike fireflies that glow because of an enzymatic reaction between a luciferase and a luciferin, M. bistipita owes its soft green-blue glow to the reaction of a photoprotein that requires magnesium.-"This process may have initially evolved for its antioxidant properties to cope with the oxidative stress of living in a low-lying, dry environment.
 (my bold. Note the guess-work about an evolutionary story)-"Bioluminescence was then repackaged as a nocturnal warning signal in millipedes that live at a higher elevation and contend with many more predators."-"'After we sequenced them we were able to place the millipede on an evolutionary tree with other bioluminescent species in Motyxia," Marek said. "We demonstrated the faint bioluminescence of the low-lying millipedes represented"

Natures wonders: Moths jam bat sonar!

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 18:30 (3241 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like we do it:-"In the 65-million-year-old arms race between bats and moths, some moth species rub their genitals to jam the calls of bats. Radar jamming is commonly used in human warfare, allowing pilots to render themselves invisible. By unraveling the evolution of hawkmoths' similar defense, authors of a new study appearing online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences aim to better understand nocturnal biodiversity and improve human uses of sonar.-"Study researchers with the University of Florida and Boise State University tracked sonar jamming throughout the evolutionary history of hawkmoths and found that one of the insect world's most sophisticated defense mechanisms is more widespread than originally thought, existing for millennia.-"Until now, the function and evolution of sonar jamming remained largely a mystery, said lead author Akito Kawahara, assistant curator of Lepidoptera at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus.-"'Before now people thought ultrasound usage in insects was very restricted to certain groups, but it looks much more complex than that," Kawahara said. -"Kawahara and collaborators scoured jungles and forests from Borneo to the Amazon observing hawkmoths. They collected specimens at 70 sites in 32 countries and conducted field-based echolocation experiments and lab experiments using more than 700 moths. After testing the response of 124 species of hawkmoths, researchers found nearly half generated ultrasonic sounds with their genitalia.-"Researchers also built an evolutionary tree for hawkmoths based on the fossil record, which revealed that the first ultrasound-producing hawkmoths arose in the late Oligocene period about 26 million years ago. Their ability to produce ultrasound arose soon after the origin of tiger moths, originally thought to be the only major moth group to use sonar against bats, Kawahara said. Tiger moths produce ultrasonic sound using tymbals, a vibrating membrane located on the thorax, rather than their genitals"-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-reveals-evolutionary-history-hawkmoths-sonar.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Bat wing sensors

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 06, 2015, 21:41 (3239 days ago) @ David Turell

Special sensors have developed in the skin of the bat wings to help with flight:-http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124715003769-"The concordance between cortical response profiles to touch and air puffs indicate that these stimuli are processed by the same neuronal pathways in bats. Thus, although the peripheral organization of somatosensory inputs differs in bats and rodents, some cortical encoding mechanisms appear to be conserved. An intriguing question for future study is how these somatosensory signals are integrated with motor circuits to guide behaviors that underlie the bat's diverse repertoire of forelimb-dependent functions.-"Although the evolution of flight has proved to be an advantageous adaptation for Chiroptera, an open question is whether the wing's tactile receptors provide a selective advantage in flight. Chiroptera represents about 20% of all mammalian species, which provides rich material for comparing the behavioral consequences and functional organization of wing sensorimotor circuitry across species and ecological niches. Such future studies are needed to understand the evolutionary benefits of the bat wing's somatosensory specializations."

Natures wonders: Ants escape by snapping jaws!

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 13, 2015, 23:17 (3232 days ago) @ David Turell

Snapping its jaw flings it out of the pit trap:-"When threatened, some trap-jaw ants can use their powerful jaws like a spring to fling themselves out of death pits dug by stealthy predators, a new study finds.-"The ant's acrobatic, springlike feat doubles the insect's survival rate when facing a deadly predator called the antlion, an insect that digs pits in the ground to help it catch and eat prey, the researchers said.-"When small arthropods, such as ants and other insects, fall into a pit, the unstable walls make it hard for the prey to escape. Antlions also throw sand at their potential victims, which can trigger an avalanche and make it even more difficult for the prey to flee. Once the animal falls to the bottom of the pit, the antlion grabs it, pulls it under the sand and injects it with a toxin.-" The ants with jaws glued shut couldn't snap their jaws, and only about 28 percent of these ants survived by running away.The jaw snap, the scientists found, is crucial to the ants' survival.-"'I was certainly surprised that taking away their ability to jump decreased their survival," Larabee said. "It's definitely a story about how very complex traits can originally evolve for one thing, in this case prey capture, but then be co-opted for completely different functions.'"

Natures wonders: Opah, warm-blooded fish

by David Turell @, Friday, May 15, 2015, 14:10 (3231 days ago) @ David Turell

About five degrees Celsius warmer than the water around it; not warm like us:-"All fish have two kinds of blood vessels in their gills: vessels carrying blood in from the body to pick up oxygen, and other vessels carrying oxygenated blood back out again. In the opah, the incoming blood is warm after circulating through the fish's body. This is because the opah swims by quickly flapping its pectoral fins, rather than undulating its body like many other fish do, to propel itself through the water — a process that generates high heat. But outgoing blood, which has just been in contact with water in the gills, is cold. Wegner noticed that in the opah's gills, the two sets of vessels are tightly bundled against each other, so that the incoming blood vessels can warm up the outgoing blood before it goes anywhere else. This set-up, known as “counter-current heat exchange,” allows warm blood to be delivered throughout the body.-"Some other types of fish, such as tuna, have similarly designed blood vessels in certain parts of their bodies, allowing for “regional endothermy” — warm-bloodedness that's limited to certain organs or muscles, such as the eyes, liver or swimming muscles. But the opah is the only fish scientists know of that has this design in its gills, where most fish lose the majority of their body heat to the surrounding cold water. By warming up the blood in the gills before it goes anywhere else, the opah achieves not just regional endothermy, but whole-body endothermy, according to the paper's authors. Testing showed that the opah is able to maintain a core body temperature about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding water."

Natures wonders: Zebra fish make sun screen

by David Turell @, Friday, May 15, 2015, 14:20 (3231 days ago) @ David Turell

Blocks some U-V light:-http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/42979/title/Fish-Make-Their-Own-Sun-Protection/-"Zebrafish (Danio rerio) have two conserved genes encoding enzymes that can make gadusol, an antioxidant and ultraviolet (UV) light-protective compound previously thought to be acquired from food sources, according to a study published this week (May 12) in eLife.-"In the latest study, researchers from Oregon State University (OSU) discovered that zebrafish themselves had the two enzymes necessary to make the molecule. The genes encoding the enzymes are conserved in amphibians, reptiles, and birds, but not mammals or coelacanths, suggesting that they were present in a common ancestor but lost in certain lineages. Although the genes differ from those encoding gadusol-synthesizing enzymes in algae and bacteria, they more closely resembled the algal genes, and may have been acquired in vertebrates via horizontal gene transfer."

Natures wonders: Some ants see color

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 20, 2015, 14:40 (3226 days ago) @ David Turell

Australian bull ants forage at night and see color:-"In a paper published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers Dr Yuri Ogawa and Dr Jan Hemmi from UWA's School of Animal Biology show for the first time that the Australian bull ants (like humans) have three types of photoreceptors that are sensitive to different colours (UV, Blue and Green) and therefore the potential for trichromatic colour vision.-"Photoreceptors are the cells in the eye that are sensitive to light. This means that their colour vision is likely to be as good as that of humans and old world primates and significantly better than that of other mammals such as dogs, cats or wallabies."-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-ants-vision-robot-technology.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Snow flea insect poison

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 13:19 (3219 days ago) @ David Turell

It uses a polychlorinated compound to kill other bugs:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/snow-fleas-pack-a-chemical-weapon/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20150525-"It's easy to overlook the snow flea: The millimeter-long insect could be mistaken for a flake of pepper on a white wintery landscape. But the little organism packs some powerful chemistry. Researchers led by Stefan Schulz at the Technical University, Braunschweig, in Germany, report that the snow flea, or Ceratophysella sigillata, produces polychlorinated compounds to repel predators (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed, 2015, DOI: 10.1002/anie.201501719). The family of defense compounds, including Sigillin A, is unique in that it is a new class of natural products that features a chemical scaffold that could find application in insect control.-“'It's a very surprising discovery,” comments John A. Pickett, a chemical ecologist at Rothamsted Research Station, in Harpenden, England. It's not often that scientists find any halogens in natural products made by terrestrial organisms, he says. And “here, there's not just one chlorine, but five chlorines.'”

Natures wonders: Octopus skin senses light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 13:26 (3219 days ago) @ David Turell

Especially blue, which makes perfect sense:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/octopus-skin-senses-light-no-eyes-or-brain-needed/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20150525- "But new research reveals that, for one octopus species at least, the skin itself can sense light and react, with no input from the eyes or brain.-"Researchers from the University of California Santa Barbara worked with skin removed from the California two-spot octopus. Not only did the skin respond to bright light, but the scientists found that the skin possesses the same family of light-sensitive proteins, called opsins, typically found in its eyes—which implies that, in the course of evolutionary history, the same molecular mechanism that the eyes employ for light detection got co-opted for use in the skin. The study is in the Journal of Experimental Biology. [M. Desmond Ramirez and Todd H. Oakley, Eye-independent, light-activated chromatophore expansion (LACE) and expression of phototransduction genes in the skin of Octopus bimaculoides]-"Octopus integument was quickest to respond to blue light—which is the color best suited to travel far in water."

Natures wonders: Octopus skin senses light

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 14:59 (3219 days ago) @ David Turell

I would guess this is tied into their camouflage system.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Octopus skin senses light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 16:38 (3219 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony:I would guess this is tied into their camouflage system.-If you follow the article, yes.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 20:03 (3218 days ago) @ David Turell

Quite amazing what has been discovered:-http://www.nature.com/news/animal-behaviour-inside-the-cunning-caring-and-greedy-minds-of-fish-1.17614?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150528-"As two of the region's top predators, groupers and morays might be expected to compete for their food and even avoid each other — but Bshary saw them team up to hunt. First, the grouper signalled to the eel with its head, and then the two swam side by side, with the eel dipping into crevices, flushing out fish beyond the grouper's reach and getting a chance to feed alongside. Bshary was astonished by the unexpected cooperation; if he hadn't had a snorkel in his mouth, he would have gasped.-"This underwater observation was the first in a series of surprising discoveries that Bshary has gone on to make about the social behaviour of fish. Not only can they signal to each other and cooperate across species, but they can also cheat, deceive, console or punish one another — even show concern about their personal reputations. “I have always had a lot of respect for fish,” says Bshary. “But one after the other, these behaviours took me by surprise.”-***-"The fish, meanwhile, were already aceing a more advanced test. When Bshary and Brosnan switched the coloured plates so that the permanent one suddenly became temporary and vice versa, the fish again understood the switch faster than the apes did (and equally as fast as the capuchins)8. This is known as reversal learning — and when the primatologists read that result, they took note. “Reversal learning has often been touted as the gold standard of general cognitive abilities,” says van Schaik — a sophisticated skill that correlates with brain size. “Since small-brained fish do it quite well, maybe we'll have to abandon this idea.”-“'The ball is in our court,” says evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford, UK, who developed the social brain theory. Dunbar now accepts that the evolution of large brains was not driven by the need to carry out single 'smart' behaviours such as cooperation or deception. But that doesn't mean the social brain theory has to be abandoned, he says — just refined. He and other primatologists now propose that primates evolved bigger brains because they needed an all-round high level of general intelligence to survive the pressures of living in tight social groups — for example, to recognize large numbers of individuals and remember their complicated genetic and hierarchical relationships."

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, May 28, 2015, 09:52 (3218 days ago) @ David Turell

“'The ball is in our court,” says evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford, UK, who developed the social brain theory. Dunbar now accepts that the evolution of large brains was not driven by the need to carry out single 'smart' behaviours such as cooperation or deception. But that doesn't mean the social brain theory has to be abandoned, he says — just refined. He and other primatologists now propose that primates evolved bigger brains because they needed an all-round high level of general intelligence to survive the pressures of living in tight social groups — for example, to recognize large numbers of individuals and remember their complicated genetic and hierarchical relationships."-Is it just me, or is this a case of a hypothesis being disproven, and instead of being abandoned, it was made so general that it can no longer be disproven.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 28, 2015, 14:44 (3218 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David quote: primatologists now propose that primates evolved bigger brains because they needed an all-round high level of general intelligence to survive the pressures of living in tight social groups[/b] — for example, to recognize large numbers of individuals and remember their complicated genetic and hierarchical relationships."
> 
> Tony:Is it just me, or is this a case of a hypothesis being disproven, and instead of being abandoned, it was made so general that it can no longer be disproven.-These Darwinian just-so stories imply teleology without saying it. And they fit the old analogy of making up proposed theories, throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. Did the big brain grow and then folks learned how to use it, or as their hands achieved a form that allowed more complex usefulness, brain plasticity and manual dexterity mutually work together to create brain neuronal complexity?-Very early hunter gatherer groups had a very simple social structure, not the complexity implied by the theory above. Not much more complex then chimps.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, May 28, 2015, 17:33 (3218 days ago) @ David Turell

David quote: primatologists now propose that primates evolved bigger brains because they needed an all-round high level of general intelligence to survive the pressures of living in tight social groups[/b] — for example, to recognize large numbers of individuals and remember their complicated genetic and hierarchical relationships."
> > 
> > Tony:Is it just me, or is this a case of a hypothesis being disproven, and instead of being abandoned, it was made so general that it can no longer be disproven.
> 
>David: These Darwinian just-so stories imply teleology without saying it. And they fit the old analogy of making up proposed theories, throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. Did the big brain grow and then folks learned how to use it, or as their hands achieved a form that allowed more complex usefulness, brain plasticity and manual dexterity mutually work together to create brain neuronal complexity?
> 
> Very early hunter gatherer groups had a very simple social structure, not the complexity implied by the theory above. Not much more complex then chimps.-
This is also a VERY large assumption on your part(or on the part of those that believe their social structure was not complex). Research into aboriginal social structures show them to be far more complex than our own, even though on the surface they appear simple.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 28, 2015, 19:04 (3218 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > David Very early hunter gatherer groups had a very simple social structure, not the complexity implied by the theory above. Not much more complex then chimps.
> 
> 
> Tony: This is also a VERY large assumption on your part(or on the part of those that believe their social structure was not complex). Research into aboriginal social structures show them to be far more complex than our own, even though on the surface they appear simple.-Quote some research please.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, May 28, 2015, 21:34 (3217 days ago) @ David Turell


> > > David Very early hunter gatherer groups had a very simple social structure, not the complexity implied by the theory above. Not much more complex then chimps.
> > 
> > 
> > Tony: This is also a VERY large assumption on your part(or on the part of those that believe their social structure was not complex). Research into aboriginal social structures show them to be far more complex than our own, even though on the surface they appear simple.
> 
> Quote some research please.-http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
http://lib.oup.com.au/he/health/samples/hampton_indigenousaushealth_sample.pdf
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca25.pdf

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by David Turell @, Friday, May 29, 2015, 02:02 (3217 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: 
> http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
> http://lib.oup.com.au/he/health/samples/hampton_indigenousaushealth_sample.pdf
... https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca25.pdf-I'm very aware of the Aboriginal Dreamtime religion and its complexities as it related to the different small tribes. But what I was referring to were the African tribes described in Robert Wright's books, Non-Zero and The Moral Animal, simpler groups than what was developed in Australia. I'm not aware of how complex the Amazon tribes are. I also remember reading some of Margaret Mead's descriptions of South Pacific cultures many years ago which she described as rather simple, but there was the scandal when it was discovered that the young girls had made up stories about their sex lives which she had believed and described in great detail. My point is one set of people does not make your point that they were all complex.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, May 29, 2015, 08:39 (3217 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: 
> > http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
> > http://lib.oup.com.au/he/health/samples/hampton_indigenousaushealth_sample.pdf
... > https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/cfca25.pdf
&... 
> David: My point is one set of people does not make your point that they were all complex.-And my point is that our assumptions about them does not mean that they were NOT complex. Assumptions about the sophistication of a certain peoples, modern or ancient, are just that, assumptions.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Social behavior of fish

by David Turell @, Friday, May 29, 2015, 14:36 (3217 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: And my point is that our assumptions about them does not mean that they were NOT complex. Assumptions about the sophistication of a certain peoples, modern or ancient, are just that, assumptions.-Fair enough, but: small fractionated groups of hunter-gatherers with up to 35 folks in the tribe, without the dream time overlay in Australia, are mainly survivalists in forest or jungle or desert, with certain assigned roles. These groups have been studied and I don't see much complexity being present in what is described.

Natures wonders: Jellyfish lures

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 03, 2015, 15:38 (3212 days ago) @ David Turell

It is tiny but extends long filaments that look like pearls to lure fish, but the jelly fish doesn't have a brain!-"'This species is small, less than two centimeters (three-quarters of an inch) across the bell, they're 96% water, they lack a defined brain or central nervous system, and yet they're using their tentacles and nematocyst clusters like experienced fishers use their lines and lures," lead author Robert Courtney said.-"'They're not opportunistically grazing - they're deliberately fishing. They're targeting and catching fish that are at times as big as they are, and are far more complex animals. This is a really neat animal that is displaying a surprisingly complex prey capture strategy.-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-jellyfish-fish.html#jCp-"'The nematocyst clusters look like a series of bright pearls, which the jellyfish twitches to attract the attention of its prey, like a series of fishing lures," Mr Courtney said. "It's a very deliberate and selective form of prey capture."-"Once a fish makes contact with the nematocyst clusters it is quickly paralyzed by Carukia barnesi's powerful venom.-"'It's a highly successful fishing strategy, and the only account of a box jellyfish using aggressive mimicry to capture prey," Mr Courtney said."

Natures wonders: Plant 'intelligence'

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 03, 2015, 20:10 (3211 days ago) @ David Turell

Two new books describe how plants communicate, respond to change, and have a type of intelligence somewhat different than we have:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630230.300-intelligent-life-why-dont-we-consider-plants-to-be-smart.html#.VWxQaN-"Now microelectronics and the analysis of volatile compounds at picogram concentrations are revealing the complexities of plant behaviour as never before. So much so that Mancuso can write: "Plant lives unfold in another dimension of time" and that they are "considerably less passive than they appear, and are in fact wily protagonists in the drama of their own lives".-"Plants, say the authors, are highly responsive, attuned to gravity, grains of sand, sunlight, starlight, the footfalls of tiny insects and to slow rhythms outside our range. They are subtle, aware, strategic beings whose lives involve an environmental sensitivity very distant from the simple flower and seed factories of popular imagination.-"Brilliant Green and Plant Sensing and Communication are timely, highly accessible summaries of fast-developing fields. The former is a popular account (co-written with a science journalist), the latter a more technical take. Both combine a passion for plants and a desire to illustrate their largely unsung complexities with an appreciation of the burden of proof needed to persuade us of a world that contains chlorophyllic sentience."

Natures wonders: Tiger shark migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 10, 2015, 15:34 (3205 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, June 10, 2015, 15:52

Atlantic sharks travel north in summer thousands of miles and return to the same Caribbean islands in winter:- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609213349.htm-"The researchers were able to show that adult male tiger sharks in the Atlantic repeatedly spend their winters in Caribbean island locales including the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Anguilla. Then, during summers, they travel far into the North Atlantic, often more than 3,500 kilometers and as far north as Connecticut, though well offshore in nearly the middle of the ocean.-"'These repeated journeys were very unexpected,' said Lea, who also works out of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 'The tiger shark has traditionally been considered a coastal species, and it is rare among sharks to so easily and habitually switch between the two vastly different environments.'-"Remarkably, the sharks followed the same pattern each year and returned to almost the same small area in the Caribbean each time.-"'Even though they've got a whole range of islands to choose from, it seems like each animal has its favorite winter spot,' said Shivji.-"For the tiger sharks, the migrations are something like a 'highway road trip,' on their way to definite destinations. Bermuda is a handy spot for tiger shark tagging because it is the equivalent of a popular highway exit -- lots of animals stop off there for a break while heading north or south. But for the most part the animals travelled directly between their migration destinations, meandering around only after arriving.-"What makes the tiger sharks so committed to particular areas is still an open question. At the south end, the story may be fairly simple. Female tiger sharks are common in the Caribbean in the winter, so the Caribbean may just be the best place for male tiger sharks to find dates, although this is just an educated guess."

Natures wonders: Cuckoo disguise

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 10, 2015, 15:51 (3205 days ago) @ David Turell

Looking totally like a harmless bird allows cuckoos to sneak their own eggs into a host's nest:-
"'Our findings suggest that female cuckoo finches are aggressive mimics of female bishops, and that prinia hosts have responded to this successful deception with generalised defences against cuckoo finches and harmless bishops alike. This suggests these prinias have decided that it's best to 'play it safe' when the risk of parasitism is high because they can't distinguish between the two species" said Dr William Feeney from Cambridge University's Department of Zoology, who led the research.-"'While other brood-parasite species monitor host behaviour from concealed perches in nearby trees, cuckoo finches must seek host nests in open grasslands and savannahs. In such exposed circumstances, resembling an abundant and harmless model may allow female cuckoo finches to remain unnoticed when monitoring hosts nests at a medium range," he said.-"To investigate the cuckoo finch's disguise, the research team conducted plumage and pattern analysis using cuckoo skins from the Natural History Museum in Tring. They compared plumage to the cuckoo finches closest evolutionary relatives (Vidua finches), as well as with the skins of similar-looking birds (bishops) that share the same habitat.-"In both human and bird visual systems, they found that the plumage of a female cuckoo finch is far closer to the bishops and other species in the weaver family than to those of its closest relative, the Vidua finches."-
 Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cuckoos-mimic-harmless-species-disguise.html#jCp

Natures wonders: kangaroos are lefft handed

by David Turell @, Friday, June 19, 2015, 15:31 (3196 days ago) @ David Turell

Generally true, and raises the question of why are primates mostly right handed. Handedness must have some origin in evolution, but as a southpaw I can tell you that the inheritance of handedness, if any, in humans is unknown and seemingly not present.-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150618134235.htm-"Kangaroos prefer to use one of their hands over the other for everyday tasks in much the same way that humans do, with one notable difference: generally speaking, kangaroos are lefties. The finding, reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on June 18--the first to consider handedness in wild kangaroos--challenges the notion that "true" handedness among mammals is a feature unique to primates.-"'According to a special-assessment scale of handedness adopted for primates, kangaroos pulled down the highest grades," says Yegor Malashichev of Saint Petersburg State University in Russia. "We observed a remarkable consistency in responses across bipedal species in that they all prefer to use the left, not the right, hand.'"

Natures wonders: bat hunting navigation

by David Turell @, Friday, June 19, 2015, 15:38 (3196 days ago) @ David Turell

Bats are night time hunters and use radar (echolocation) to find insects flying at high speed:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150619084612.htm-"Every night a bat puts in 600-700 kilometres of airtime. Flying low, the animals catch insects at speeds of around 40 metres per second. At night the bat uses its hearing to navigate its way to prey. Bats catch insects continuously using echolocation, an advanced navigation system.-"The bat emits ultrasonic waves with very high frequencies. Its calls are pitched at 20-100 kilohertz, a frequency that is too high-pitched for humans to hear naturally. Their sounds are reflected in the environment, hitting various objects and returning to the bat as echoes. The echo signals enable the bat to form a mental map of its surroundings.-"Different daytime flying pattern When bats on rare occasions fly during the day, they use their vision to navigate and fly in a straight line to their destination.-"Night-time flights are more elaborate than daytime ones. Bats continuously rise and dip in curved flight trajectories, using large movements to propel themselves.-"Noise from rain, wind and snow disrupts echo signals, making it harder for the bat to form a picture of its surroundings. The bat's big night-time movements also generate sound that disturbs the echo signals.-"But bats manage to catch their targeted prey despite poor weather conditions. Bar has recently researched how this is possible.-"'Bats are able to filter out the ambient noise around them using low-pass filtering. Useless sounds are cleared out, which makes conditions more transparent. The bat also has a highly developed sensorimotor system, which controls the mammal's movements. These characteristics enable the bat to move quickly and with incredible precision," says Bar."

Natures wonders: Saharan ants survive heat

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 20, 2015, 15:17 (3195 days ago) @ David Turell

They have very specialized hairs that reflect heat and infrared radiation:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-saharan-silver-ants-electromagnetic-extremely.html-"The project was initially triggered by wondering whether the ants' conspicuous silvery coat was important in keeping them cool in blistering heat. Yu's team found that the answer to this question was much broader once they realized the important role of infrared light. Their discovery that that there is a biological solution to a thermoregulatory problem could lead to the development of novel flat optical components that exhibit optimal cooling properties.-"Saharan silver ants (Cataglyphis bombycina) forage in the Saharan Desert in the full midday sun when surface temperatures reach up to 70°C (158°F), and they must keep their body temperature below their critical thermal maximum of 53.6°C (128.48°F) most of the time. In their wide-ranging foraging journeys, the ants search for corpses of insects and other arthropods that have succumbed to the thermally harsh desert conditions, which they are able to endure more successfully. Being most active during the hottest moment of the day also allows these ants to avoid predatory desert lizards. Researchers have long wondered how these tiny insects (about 10 mm, or 3/8" long) can survive under such thermally extreme and stressful conditions.-"Using electron microscopy and ion beam milling, Yu's group discovered that the ants are covered on the top and sides of their bodies with a coating of uniquely shaped hairs with triangular cross-sections that keep them cool in two ways. These hairs are highly reflective under the visible and near-infrared light, i.e., in the region of maximal solar radiation (the ants run at a speed of up to 0.7 meters per second and look like droplets of mercury on the desert surface). The hairs are also highly emissive in the mid-infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, where they serve as an antireflection layer that enhances the ants' ability to offload excess heat via thermal radiation, which is emitted from the hot body of the ants to the cold sky. This passive cooling effect works under the full sun whenever the insects are exposed to the clear sky. "-WOW!

Natures wonders: survival of the feces

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 01:36 (3190 days ago) @ David Turell

Caterpillar larvae look like bird poop, so birds skip the meal:-http://www.livescience.com/51316-caterpillar-bird-poop.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-06-24-"Curling up to look like a pile of poop might not sound appealing, but it's a useful strategy that some species of caterpillars use to hide from hungry birds, a new study finds.-"The moment the caterpillar uncurls, birds are more likely to realize that it's not a pile of excrement but rather a tasty snack, said study researcher Toshitaka Suzuki, a postdoctoral fellow of evolutionary studies at the Graduate University for Advanced Studies in Kanagawa, Japan.-"The bird-poop disguise is a type of camouflage called "masquerade," a defense that helps animals look like inedible objects, such as twigs, stones or bird droppings. Suzuki noticed that certain caterpillars curled up their bodies to masquerade as poop, but it wasn't clear whether this disguise increased their rate of survival, he said.-"Masquerading as bird poop is so advantageous that it isn't limited to A. juglansiaria. Other moth caterpillars, such as Macrauzata maxima and Acronicta alni,also bend themselves to look like bird droppings, the researchers said. Swallowtail butterfly caterpillars masquerade as bird excrement as well, but they're short and thick, so they likely don't have to bend to look like the real thing, the researchers said. Orb web spiders have also figured out the bird-poop camouflage trick."

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 20:37 (3189 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Friday, June 26, 2015, 08:04

Lots of different varieties of animals use the Earth's magnetic field:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mouse-senses-magnetic-fields-possibly-via-quantum-processes/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150625-"Quantum mechanics governs the quirky, counterintuitive way the world works at the small scales of atoms and subatomic particles. It might also be important for helping animals understand their place in their surroundings. New research suggests that wood mice, commonly found in Europe, have a built-in compass that exploits quantum processes, the first seen in a wild mammal.-"According to a study in Scientific Reports published on April 29, wood mice placed in a container prefer to build their nests in the parts of the container closest to magnetic north and south. When researchers created an artificial magnetic field, the mice nested in line with the new north-south orientation. Scientists suspect that this compass sense comes from electrons dancing around in the mice's eyes.-***-"Researchers aren't completely sure how sensing magnetic fields benefits mice, but John Phillips, a biologist at Virginia Tech and one of the study's coauthors, thinks it helps the mice assemble their everyday movements into "a coherent map of the world they know," he said. "Nothing that we know about spatial processing in rodents has provided the global reference system [they] need," he said, suggesting that the poorly understood magnetic sense might be involved.-"The discovery underscores that animals' compasses aren't just used for large-scale navigation. Unlike migratory birds and sea turtles -- which seemingly use their magnetic senses to migrate thousands of miles -- the average wood mouse lives in a home range about 500 feet across."

Natures wonders: climbing bears

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 21:27 (3189 days ago) @ David Turell

Both make it:-https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 14:49 (3184 days ago) @ David Turell

C. elegans, the nematode worm uses the magnetic field to burrow vertically into the ground, oppositely as expected in the Northern and Southern hemispheres:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/to_discover_irr097171.html-"It turns out, however, that the worms don't migrate exactly along the field lines. The earth's magnetic field can be understood mathematically as a vector that points in different directions at different positions on the surface of the earth. Since it is a vector, one can calculate the component of the field that aligns with the horizontal surface of the earth, or the component that is perpendicular to the earth's surface. C. elegans seems able to detect this vertical component of the field that is perpendicular to the earth's surface, because they orient themselves vertically while burrowing.-***-"Then, they performed an experiment using genetically fluorescent AFD neurons, which light up when activated. When the neurons were in the presence of a magnetic field, the researchers could visually detect activity. It's still not completely understood how exactly the process works, but this work allowed the investigators to identify some of the precise cell-types and ion channels responsible for magneto-sensitivity. -"So what is necessary for this behavior? According to the paper:-"The AFD sensory neuron pair is necessary for magnetic orientation and for vertical migrations. Similarly, a cGMP-gated ion channel in the AFD neurons, TAX-4, is also necessary and sufficient for these behaviors.
But it's not enough to have these cells and ion channels, which are able to sense the magnetic field. The worms also need the proper response behavior encoded in their neurons, enabling them to burrow downward when feeding. Because worms in different hemispheres respond differently to the field, the team proposed that this response behavior is genetically encoded."-Comment: When this research is finished it will show, I predict, an entire automatic system for behaviour that appears 'sentient'. But does the worm have a degree of mentation, or a degree of unrestricted or independent mentation? Note the worm repeats the same behaviour over and over consistently.

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 17:55 (3184 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Comment: When this research is finished it will show, I predict, an entire automatic system for behaviour that appears 'sentient'. But does the worm have a degree of mentation, or a degree of unrestricted or independent mentation? Note the worm repeats the same behaviour over and over consistently.-As we have agreed ad nauseam, humans also have systems for behaviour which act automatically once they have been invented. They still have to be "sentient" in the sense that they must respond to their environment, but the question of mentation will only arise if that environment changes. Then cell communities must adapt, might possibly innovate, or perish. The only way one could test whether the worms are capable of mentation would be if they were confronted with obstacles outside the normal range of their experience. Even that, however, may not offer conclusive proof either way, since there is no guarantee that their level of "intelligence" will be high enough to cope. However, so many organisms have now been tested in this way and found to be capable of mentation that I certainly wouldn't put my money on your powers of prediction!

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 19:23 (3184 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: As we have agreed ad nauseam, humans also have systems for behaviour which act automatically once they have been invented. They still have to be "sentient" in the sense that they must respond to their environment, but the question of mentation will only arise if that environment changes. Then cell communities must adapt, might possibly innovate, or perish.-Agreed-> dhw: However, so many organisms have now been tested in this way and found to be capable of mentation that I certainly wouldn't put my money on your powers of prediction!-Which organisms are these?

Natures wonders: Single celled organism with eye?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 20:41 (3183 days ago) @ David Turell

A plankton with a nucleus and an eyelike structure. Fascinating:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150701133348.htm-"Canadian Institute for Advanced Research senior fellows Brian Leander and Patrick Keeling supervised lead author Greg Gavelis at the University of British Columbia and, in collaboration with senior fellow Curtis Suttle, showed that this eye-like structure contains a collection of sub-cellular organelles that look very much like the lens, cornea, iris and retina of multicellular eyes that can detect objects -- known as camera eyes -- that are found in humans and other larger animals.-"The researchers gathered single cells of warnowiids off the coasts of B.C. and Japan, sequenced their genomes, and analyzed how the eyes are built using new methods in electron microscopy that allow the reconstruction of three dimensional structures at the subcellular level.-"They found that a layer of interconnected mitochondria, organelles that supply energy to cells, surrounds a robust lens and makes up the warnowiids's equivalent of a cornea. In addition, a network of interconnected plastids that originated from an ancient symbiosis with red alga radiate from the retinal body.-"Plastids have their own genome and are responsible for harvesting energy from light in photosynthetic plants and algae. The scientists determined that the retinal body contains a plastid genome suggesting components of the light-harvesting machinery may have been adapted to use in detecting light for sensory functions rather than to acquire energy.-"Scientists still don't know exactly how warnowiids use the eye-like structure, but clues about the way they live have fuelled compelling speculation. warnowiids hunt other dinoflagellates, many of which are transparent. They have large nematocysts, which Leander describes as "little harpoons," for catching prey. And some have a piston -- a tentacle that can extend and retract very quickly -- with an unknown function that might be used for escape or feeding.-"The team speculates that the eye-like structures help warnowiids detect their dinoflagellate prey and send chemical messages to communicate with other parts of the cell. Dinoflagellates have a uniquely large nucleus with tightly packed chromosomes that can change the polarization of light passing through them. One possibility could be that warnowiids can detect the light's orientation change as it passes through their transparent prey, showing them in which direction to hunt.-"'The internal organization of the retinal body is reminiscent of the polarizing filters on the lenses of cameras and sunglasses," Leander says. "Hundreds of closely packed membranes lined up in parallel.'"

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by dhw, Thursday, July 02, 2015, 17:35 (3183 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: However, so many organisms have now been tested in this way and found to be capable of mentation that I certainly wouldn't put my money on your powers of prediction!-DAVID: Which organisms are these?-All the way “down” from chimps to corvids to rats to ants, and here is an absolute gem, which would appeal to your creationist heart if only your stubborn brain hadn't blocked the way.-Can Bacteria Think? | Creation Momentswww.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/can-bacteria-thinkCached-QUOTE: 1 Corinthians 1:25 
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." -It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant.- Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup.-This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. We often tolerate the unpleasant to arrive at the pleasant. As a result of this research, scientists today talk about bacteria actually making decisions.
These conclusions amaze most people. That's because we have been trained to think of intelligence in an evolutionary context. The "higher" or more evolved a creature is, the smarter we expect it to be. However, if we recognize, as the Bible says, that all life is the product of an intelligent Creator, we should not be surprised to find that intelligence has nothing to do with evolution. Every creature has been given as much intelligence as it needs by a Creator Who truly cares for every living creature - even bacteria!

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 02, 2015, 21:51 (3182 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Which organisms are these?
> 
> dhw: All the way “down” from chimps to corvids to rats to ants, and here is an absolute gem, which would appeal to your creationist heart if only your stubborn brain hadn't blocked the way.
> 
> Can Bacteria Think? | Creation Momentswww.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/can-bacteria-thinkCached-> It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. -> Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions.-> This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. -You are again describing automatic reactions based on biochemical processes, given to the bacteria by God.

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by dhw, Friday, July 03, 2015, 16:55 (3182 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "It sounds silly to ask whether bacteria can think. However, science has known for more than 100 years that the little guys can indeed think. Experiments in 1883 conducted by Wilhelm Pfeffer showed that bacteria will swim toward good food like chicken soup and away from poisons such as mop disinfectant. 
Pfeffer also learned that bacteria can make decisions. He made sure that his bacteria knew the location of chicken soup. Then he separated them from it with a mild mixture of disinfectant. He found that the little fellows would swim as fast as they could through the disinfectant to get to the soup.
This is the same type of decision-making process you and I go through every day. We often tolerate the unpleasant to arrive at the pleasant. As a result of this research, scientists today talk about bacteria actually making decisions."-DAVID: You are again describing automatic reactions based on biochemical processes, given to the bacteria by God.
 
I had suggested that in order to prove mentation, the worms you described should be subjected to tests in which they were confronted by problems outside their normal range of experience, as had been done with many other organisms. You asked which organisms had been subjected to such tests. I have answered your question at various levels. In the case of bacteria, my name is not Pfeffer (or Margulis, or McClintock, or Albrecht-Bühler, or Shapiro), who would certainly dispute your opinion that bacterial decision-making is automatic. I'm sure, though, that he (and they) would agree that the information on which the autonomous decisions are based is indeed provided by biological processes, and the actions resulting from those decisions would also set in motion more biochemical processes - as is the case with us humans. The question is what processes take place in us and in all other organisms between perception of the problem and decisions regarding the actions needed in order to resolve it.

Natures wonders: using the magnetic field (dhw note)

by David Turell @, Friday, July 03, 2015, 19:59 (3181 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The question is what processes take place in us and in all other organisms between perception of the problem and decisions regarding the actions needed in order to resolve it.-As far as I am concerned, at the single-cell level it is all automatic.

Natures wonders: spiders balloon and sail!

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 04, 2015, 21:35 (3180 days ago) @ David Turell

This is the way they can travel long distances, using silk as a sail and silk as an anchor:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150703072620.htm-"Spiders travel across water like ships, using their legs as sails and their silk as an anchor, according to research published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. The study helps explain how spiders are able to migrate across vast distances and why they are quick to colonise new areas.-
"Common spiders are frequently observed to fly using a technique called 'ballooning'. This involves using their silk to catch the wind which then lifts them up into the air. Ballooning spiders are estimated to move up to 30 km per day when wind conditions are suitable, helping in their quest for new habitats and resources.-***-"Many of the spider species adopted elaborate postures, such as lifting up a pair of legs, to seemingly take advantage of the wind current whilst on the water surface. This allowed them to 'sail' in turbulent, still, fresh, and salt water conditions.-"By releasing silk on water, the sailing spiders also seemed to act like ships dropping their anchors to slow down or stop their movement. This suggests that the silk may sometimes work as a dragline for the water-trapped spider to attach to floating objects or to the shore. These behavioral adaptations could allow spiders to survive encounters with aquatic environments.-"The research team also found that the spiders that adopted 'ballooning' behavior for airborne dispersal were also the most eager and able 'sailors'. The association between the two behaviors may indicate the importance of ballooners also being able to sail, which could be invaluable when landing on water."

Natures wonders: Saharan ants survive heat

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 22:20 (2896 days ago) @ David Turell

Another study on these ants, showing why the shape of their hairs reflect heat:-"The body hairs of the Saharan silver ant cause total internal reflection of light to make the ants almost ten times more reflective, preventing overheating and yielding their silver sheen...-***-"The Saharan silver ant is one of the terrestrial living organisms best-adapted for high temperatures, and can forage in the desert even when temperatures exceed 50 degrees Celsius. It has previously been shown that its dorsal body hairs are responsible for its silver color and help prevent overheating. However, the details of the hairs' optical properties had not been elucidated.-"The authors of the present study used a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to examine the ant hairs and trace the path of incoming light rays. They also compared normal 'hairy' ant samples with ants that had been shaved, measuring how light was reflected and how quickly ants heated under simulated sunlight.-"The researchers found that hairy ants were almost ten times more reflective than shaved ants, and were able to stay up to 2 C cooler under simulated sunlight. They also confirmed that the triangular cross-section and corrugated surface of each hair act like a prism to reflect light, where the light rays entering each ant hair undergo total internal reflection, bouncing back off the bottom plane of the hair instead of transmitting through it. This mirror effect gives the ant its bright silver sheen and reduces heat absorption from sunlight, preventing the ant from overheating.-"Most arthropods have cylindrical or plate-like body bristles, so these results may be specific to this ant species. However, the authors state that this study improves our understanding of the Saharan silver ant's unusual color and ability to survive in the desert heat."-Comment: My usual question. If the hairs did not develop their shape quickly, how did the ants survive the heat to conduct their lives, while the shape was refined?

Natures wonders: Saharan ants survive heat

by dhw, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 15:53 (2896 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: My usual question. If the hairs did not develop their shape quickly, how did the ants survive the heat to conduct their lives, while the shape was refined?-I'm not sure if you wouldn't regard this as adaptation rather than innovation, but in the wider context, the same “usual question” arises: do the cell communities take their own decisions? I agree that the ants would have had to develop their shape quickly. What does that mean for you? That God intervened and did a twiddle? God had preprogrammed the hairs 3.8 billion years ago? All for the sake of humans? Or is it possible that God did not do any “guiding”, but invented a mechanism that enabled some organisms to make changes to themselves in response to changing environmental conditions? -Another revealing post. Thank you.

Natures wonders: Saharan ants survive heat

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 17:47 (2896 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Or is it possible that God did not do any “guiding”, but invented a mechanism that enabled some organisms to make changes to themselves in response to changing environmental conditions? 
> 
> Another revealing post. Thank you.-All to show Darwin doesn't work.

Natures wonders: Plant communication

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 05, 2015, 05:13 (3057 days ago) @ David Turell

Automatic responses:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151104130046.htm-"Plants react to stimuli from their environment by specific responses: If available water becomes limiting, they curb evaporation from their leaves. If a pathogen attacks, they arm themselves with chemical weapons. If a soil fungus wishes to collaborate with a plant root for mutual benefit, both partners discuss their duties. "All of these fine adjustments require a great deal of communication between the individual compartments of the plant cell," says Dr. Markus Schwarzlaender, principle investigator of an Emmy Noether group at the Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation at the University of Bonn.-"When the various components of plant cells communicate with another, they do not use words but calcium ions, i.e. positively charged calcium atoms, instead. "The information is encoded in the fluctuations of the calcium concentration of the various cell compartments," explains Dr. Schwarzlaender. How can a single ion contain and transduce so much information? This is the question scientists have been asking themselves since it became known how various cell compartments 'chat' with each other.-"The team of Dr. Schwarzlaender, together with scientists from Italy, France, England, Australia and the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne and the University of Muenster, have now shed light on this question. Investigating the cellular power stations (mitochondria) of thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), the scientists discovered that the 'MICU' protein fulfills a central role in the control of the calcium ion concentration in the mitochondria.-"'In mammals, there is a very similar protein which also regulates the concentration of calcium ions," says Dr. Stephan Wagner from the team working with Dr. Schwarzlaender. Like a turbocharger, it prompts the mitochondria of mammals to provide more energy. The scientists speculated that this could be an interesting candidate, but they were taken by surprise when they found the closely related plant-based 'MICU' to be a central relay station in the communication system of Arabidopsis. "The two, similar proteins in animals and plants have evidently arisen from a common ancestor but over the course of millennia, they have developed distinct characteristics," says Dr. Schwarzlaender."-Comment: these automatic responses are what I always see in the way cells and plants react. It is the way the cells in my body react.

Natures wonders: Plant 'intelligence'

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 25, 2016, 01:13 (2945 days ago) @ David Turell

Another book explains plant intelligence. Note the author helpfully makes the point, lost on some, that we are here discussing intelligence as the use of information, not intelligence as a synonym for consciousness. dhw note! - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160221-plant-science-botany-evolution-mabey-... - "What the new botany is suggesting is that plants are sensitive and problem-solving but bypass the need for self-consciousness and brain activity that we assume is necessary for intelligence. People who think this are often accused of being anthropocentric, believing that plants are behaving like humans. The philosopher Daniel Dennett marvelously riposted that critics of this theory are "cerebrocentric," believing intelligent behavior is not possible without the infinitely superior human brain. What the new work shows is that plants, by means we do not yet fully understand, are capable of behaving like intelligent beings. They are capable of storing—and learning from—memories of what happens to them. - *** - "What Gagliano did was simulate the touch action by dropping these potted mimosas a fixed distance to the ground, so they received a mild physical shock. To start with, all of them closed their leaves in the proscribed fashion. On the second and third drop, rather less did. And by the end of a large number of drops, none of them were closing up. - "Conventional botanists who saw the experiment said, “They're just tired!” [Laughs] But she repeated the experiment with the same plants a week, and then a month, later. They all responded in the same way: They didn't react to being dropped by folding up their leaves. But when they were simulated in the conventional way, like being grasped by a hand, they all immediately closed up. - "By comparison, bees can only retain memories of places to find honey for three days. But the mimosa plants appeared to be able to "remember" the difference between an apparent and a real threat, and retained this discrimination in their memory. - *** - "Messages about predators are also being sent. If a tree is attacked by insects, pheromonic chemicals are distributed through the mycorrhizal fibers beneath the soil, as well as being blown through the air by the trees, to warn other trees that an insect attack is imminent and to prepare themselves by producing more tannin in their leaves. - *** - "One of the discoveries being made is that Lamarck's theory, which was discredited for a century, is now being shown to be true. Acquired characteristics can be inherited. The new science of epigenetics is finding that a number of changes produced in organisms during their own lifetime are passed on to their offspring. So far, it's a limited number. But stresses due to climate, virus invasion or changes in soil can actually change the genome of the organism. - "The automatic assumption that plants are victims, incapable of learning how to cope with new conditions, is an insult and runs contrary to the new evidence." - Comment: Note. Per Dennett, the plants are not thinking.

Natures wonders: animals sense magnetic fields

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 25, 2016, 01:24 (2945 days ago) @ David Turell

A small number of animals have eyes with a special molecule that senses magnetic fields, but isn't known as yet whether the animals are using that molecule for that purpose:-http://www.sciencealert.com/dogs-and-some-primates-might-be-able-to-see-magnetic-fields?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-2-24-"Birds are able to navigate their way across thousands of kilometres to precisely the same spot year after year, thanks to their ability to perceive Earth's magnetic fields - a sense known as magnetoreception. Now researchers have shown that the eyes of dogs, certain primates, and bears contain the same molecule thought to be responsible for this ability in birds, suggesting that these mammals might be able to do the same thing. -"The molecule believed to be responsible for this 'sixth sense' - one that humans have unfortunately lost - is known as cryptochrome 1a, and it's part of the group of light-sensing molecules that help bacteria, plants, and mammals to regulate their circadian rhythms.-***-"Now a team of researchers led by the Max Planck Institute in Germany has shown for the first time that a mammalian version of this molecule, which they're simply calling cryptochrome 1, is present in the retinas of dog-like carnivores, such as dogs, wolves, bears, foxes, and badgers. -"It was also present in the retinas of certain primates, including orangutans and some macaque species. -"To be clear, simply having cryptochrome 1 doesn't necessarily mean that these animals are able to perceive magnetic fields like birds do - the molecule could be playing some other type of role in their eyes.-*** -"Secondly, based on its location at the edge of the mammals' cone cells, it was unlikely that it controls the circadian rhythm or acts as a visual pigment for colour perception, the researchers report. "Therefore, it is possible that these animals also have a magnetic sense that is linked to their visual system," the researchers conclude in Nature Scientific Reports. -"So assuming that's true, what are these species using the ability for? That's not clear just yet, but it's well known that dogs prefer to poop along a north-south axis, and they're not the only ones that show some magnetic preference. -"'When hunting, foxes are more successful at catching mice when they pounce on them in a northeast direction," George Dvorsky adds over at Gizmodo. "For primates, this built-in compass may help with bodily orientation, or it could be a vestigial evolutionary trait that's largely unused.'" -***-"The researchers now need to work out whether or not dogs, bears, and the primate species really are using the magnetoreception powers of cyrptochrome 1, or whether the molecule serves some other purpose in their eyes."-Comment: Interesting find.

Natures wonders: Plant 'intelligence'

by dhw, Thursday, February 25, 2016, 13:52 (2945 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Another book explains plant intelligence. Note the author helpfully makes the point, lost on some, that we are here discussing intelligence as the use of information, not intelligence as a synonym for consciousness. dhw note! - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160221-plant-science-botany-evolution-mabey-... - I'm afraid my understanding of this whole article is diametrically opposite to yours. First, though, I have emphasized over and over again that intelligence is NOT a synonym for consciousness, let alone for self-consciousness (see below). Consciousness is awareness of the information, and intelligence is not “the use of information” but the ability to use the information. Please reread very carefully the passage you have quoted here: - QUOTE: "What the new botany is suggesting is that plants are sensitive and problem-solving but bypass the need for self-consciousness and brain activity that we assume is necessary for intelligence. People who think this are often accused of being anthropocentric, believing that plants are behaving like humans. The philosopher Daniel Dennett marvelously riposted that critics of this theory are "cerebrocentric," believing intelligent behavior is not possible without the infinitely superior human brain. What the new work shows is that plants, by means we do not yet fully understand, are capable of behaving like intelligent beings. They are capable of storing—and learning from—memories of what happens to them." - David's comment: Note. Per Dennett, the plants are not thinking. - Dennett is attacking people who argue that plants are not intelligent. But as usual you are equating intelligence with consciousness, and consciousness with self-consciousness, and you are misled by your own constantly repeated conviction that organisms without a brain cannot “think”. Nobody here is claiming that plants “think” in the sense of questioning themselves or the universe, but thinking is not confined to philosophy. It is not possible to behave intelligently if (a) you are not conscious of your environment, and (b) you do not have a means of processing the information that comes from your environment. The message derived from Gagliano's experiment is summed up as follows: "The automatic assumption that plants are victims, incapable of learning how to cope with new conditions, is an insult and runs contrary to the new evidence." If plants are sentient, able to remember past experiences, able to solve problems and able to learn how to cope with new conditions, they are intelligent, and their behaviour is the consequence of their intelligent processing of information, which makes you into one of the “cerebrocentric critics” who insult them with your automatic assumptions. You are of course free to do so, but I do not see how you can possibly believe that these researchers are on your side.

Natures wonders: Plant 'intelligence'

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 25, 2016, 15:15 (2945 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If plants are sentient, able to remember past experiences, able to solve problems and able to learn how to cope with new conditions, they are intelligent, and their behaviour is the consequence of their intelligent processing of information, which makes you into one of the “cerebrocentric critics” who insult them with your automatic assumptions. You are of course free to do so, but I do not see how you can possibly believe that these researchers are on your side.-You forget I believe the plants, like single-celled organisms look intelligent but they are following intelligent instructions to respond to stimuli and the 'memory' responses are also automatic. Sentience has a two part definition: to receive stimuli and also to consciously react. The second part is always open to interpretation, and I have mine. I've re-read Dennett's point from the article and I still feel the same way in my interpretation, because of my existing viewpoint. I start from a different ground of reasoning than you do.

Natures wonders: Plant 'intelligence'

by dhw, Friday, February 26, 2016, 13:01 (2944 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If plants are sentient, able to remember past experiences, able to solve problems and able to learn how to cope with new conditions, they are intelligent, and their behaviour is the consequence of their intelligent processing of information, which makes you into one of the “cerebrocentric critics” who insult them with your automatic assumptions. You are of course free to do so, but I do not see how you can possibly believe that these researchers are on your side.-DAVID: You forget I believe the plants, like single-celled organisms look intelligent but they are following intelligent instructions to respond to stimuli and the 'memory' responses are also automatic. Sentience has a two part definition: to receive stimuli and also to consciously react. The second part is always open to interpretation, and I have mine. I've re-read Dennett's point from the article and I still feel the same way in my interpretation, because of my existing viewpoint. I start from a different ground of reasoning than you do.-It is impossible for me to forget your views. I was merely pointing out that you had misinterpreted the whole article, including Dennett's point, when you claimed that both it and he supported you, e.g. “Note, per Dennett, the plants are not thinking”, which is not what he said at all. You are in fact one of those whom Dennett criticizes as being a “cerebrocentric critic”, and whose automatic assumptions the researchers regard as an insult which “runs contrary to the new evidence.” But I appreciate your supplying this evidence against your opinion, to which of course you are entitled!:-)

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 23:20 (2617 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 23:37

Plants can respond to sounds, can sense chemicals in the atmosphere, respond to light other than the process of photosynthesis:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

"Plants perceive the world without eyes, ears or brains. Understanding how can teach us a lot about them, and potentially a lot about us as well.

***

"To see this, you just need to make a fast movie of a growing plant – then it will behave like an animal," enthuses Olivier Hamant, a plant scientist at the University of Lyon, France.

***

"These plants are moving with purpose, which means they must be aware of what is going on around them. "To respond correctly, plants also need sophisticated sensing devices tuned to varying conditions," says Schultz.

***

"Appel and Cocroft found that recordings of the munching noises produced by caterpillars caused plants to flood their leaves with chemical defences designed to ward off attackers. "We showed that plants responded to an ecologically-relevant 'sound' with an ecologically-relevant response," says Cocroft.

***

"Ecological relevance is key. Consuelo De Moraes of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, along with collaborators, has shown that as well as being able to hear approaching insects, some plants can either smell them, or else smell volatile signals released by neighbouring plants in response to them.

"More ominously, back in 2006 she demonstrated how a parasitic plant known as the dodder vine sniffs out a potential host. The dodder vine then wriggles through the air, before coiling itself around the luckless host and extracting its nutrients.
Conceptually, there is nothing much distinguishing these plants from us. They smell or hear something and then act accordingly, just as we do.

***

"the photoreceptors that plants use to "see", for example, are fairly well-studied – but it is certainly an area that merits further investigation.

***

"For their part, Appel and Cocroft are hoping to track down the part or parts of a plant that respond to sound.

"Likely candidates are mechanoreceptor proteins found in all plant cells. These convert micro-deformations of the kind that sound waves can generate as they wash over an object into electrical or chemical signals.

Another ability we share with plants is proprioception: the "sixth sense" that enables (some of) us to touch type, juggle, and generally know where various bits of our body are in space.

"Because this is a sense that is not intrinsically tied with one organ in animals, but rather relies on a feedback loop between mechanoreceptors in muscles and the brain, the comparison with plants is neater. While the molecular details are a little different, plants also have mechanoreceptors that detect changes in their surroundings and respond accordingly.

***

"So far, what we know is that in plants it is more to do with microtubules [structural components of the cell], responding to stretch and mechanical deformation."

***

"when a caterpillar attacks an Arabidopsis plant, it triggers a wave of electrical activity. The presence of electrical signalling in plants is not a new idea – physiologist John Burdon-Sanderson proposed it as a mechanism for the action of the Venus flytrap as early as 1874 – but what is surprising is the role played by molecules called glutamate receptors.

***

"Glutamate is the most important neurotransmitter in our central nervous system, and it plays exactly the same role in plants, except with one crucial difference: plants do not have nervous systems.

"'Molecular biology and genomics tell us that plants and animals are composed of a surprisingly limited set of molecular 'building blocks' that are very much alike," says Fatima Cvrčková,.....Electrical communication has evolved in two distinct ways, each time employing a set of building blocks that presumably pre-dates the split between animals and plants around 1.5 billion years ago.

***

"And while many consider terms like "plant intelligence" and "plant neurobiology" to be metaphorical, they have still been met with a lot of criticism, not least from Chamovitz. "Do I think plants are smart? I think plants are complex," he says. Complexity, he says, should not be confused with intelligence. (my bold)

***

"For example, despite lacking eyes, plants such as Arabidopsis possess at least 11 types of photoreceptor, compared to our measly four. This means that, in a way, their vision is more complex than ours.

Comment: Plants need these senses. With danger they cannot run and hide. Their reactions are automatic, not intelligent, as stated in the bolded statement above. Since they split off from the original animals, it is not surprising they use the same original proteins. All evolution is based on the same starting proteins.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by dhw, Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 13:09 (2617 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Plants can respond to sounds, can sense chemicals in the atmosphere, respond to light other than the process of photosynthesis:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

QUOTES: "Plants perceive the world without eyes, ears or brains. Understanding how can teach us a lot about them, and potentially a lot about us as well".

"And while many consider terms like "plant intelligence" and "plant neurobiology" to be metaphorical, they have still been met with a lot of criticism, not least from Chamovitz. "Do I think plants are smart? I think plants are complex," he says. Complexity, he says, should not be confused with intelligence. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Plants need these senses. With danger they cannot run and hide. Their reactions are automatic, not intelligent, as stated in the bolded statement above. Since they split off from the original animals, it is not surprising they use the same original proteins. All evolution is based on the same starting proteins.

As usual, it comes down to definitions. Nobody is arguing that plants philosophize. But if they are sentient and communicate and take decisions, instead of saying plants are not intelligent, one could say plants display a rudimentary form of intelligence.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 18:31 (2617 days ago) @ dhw


Quote: "And while many consider terms like "plant intelligence" and "plant neurobiology" to be metaphorical, they have still been met with a lot of criticism, not least from Chamovitz. "Do I think plants are smart? I think plants are complex," he says. Complexity, he says, should not be confused with intelligence. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Plants need these senses. With danger they cannot run and hide. Their reactions are automatic, not intelligent, as stated in the bolded statement above. Since they split off from the original animals, it is not surprising they use the same original proteins. All evolution is based on the same starting proteins.

dhw: As usual, it comes down to definitions. Nobody is arguing that plants philosophize. But if they are sentient and communicate and take decisions, instead of saying plants are not intelligent, one could say plants display a rudimentary form of intelligence.

Once again they present intelligently proved responses. Our difference remains.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by dhw, Thursday, January 19, 2017, 13:38 (2616 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "And while many consider terms like "plant intelligence" and "plant neurobiology" to be metaphorical, they have still been met with a lot of criticism, not least from Chamovitz. "Do I think plants are smart? I think plants are complex," he says. Complexity, he says, should not be confused with intelligence. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Plants need these senses. With danger they cannot run and hide. Their reactions are automatic, not intelligent, as stated in the bolded statement above. Since they split off from the original animals, it is not surprising they use the same original proteins. All evolution is based on the same starting proteins.

dhw: As usual, it comes down to definitions. Nobody is arguing that plants philosophize. But if they are sentient and communicate and take decisions, instead of saying plants are not intelligent, one could say plants display a rudimentary form of intelligence.

DAVID: Once again they present intelligently proved responses. Our difference remains.

Not sure what “intelligently proved” means. If a response is intelligent, why argue that it is not intelligent?

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 19, 2017, 14:47 (2616 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: As usual, it comes down to definitions. Nobody is arguing that plants philosophize. But if they are sentient and communicate and take decisions, instead of saying plants are not intelligent, one could say plants display a rudimentary form of intelligence.

DAVID: Once again they present intelligently proved responses. Our difference remains.

dhw: Not sure what “intelligently proved” means. If a response is intelligent, why argue that it is not intelligent?

My error: mistyped answer should be intelligently 'provided'

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 20, 2018, 17:55 (2250 days ago) @ dhw

A new study of how plants are aware of the world and what might affect them:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180119190358.htm

"Plants lack eyes and ears, but they can still see, hear, smell and respond to environmental cues and dangers. They do this with the aid of hundreds of membrane proteins that sense microbes or other stresses. Researchers now have created the first network map for 200 of these proteins. The map shows how a few key proteins act as master nodes critical for network integrity, and the map also reveals unknown interactions.

"Now, an international team of researchers from four nations... has created the first network map for 200 of these proteins. The map shows how a few key proteins act as master nodes critical for network integrity, and the map also reveals unknown interactions.

***

"The novel comprehensive interaction network map focused on one of the most important classes of these sensing proteins -- the leucine-rich repeat receptor kinases, or LRR-receptor kinases, which are structurally similar to human toll-like receptors.

"The LRR-receptor kinases are a family of proteins in both plants and animals that are largely responsible for sensing the environment. In plants, they have an extracellular domain of the protein, extending beyond the cell membrane, which can recognize chemical signals, such as growth hormones or portions of proteins from pathogens. The receptor kinases then initiate responses to these signals inside the cell, using an intracellular domain of the protein.

"The model plant Arabidopsis thaliana contains more than 600 different receptor kinases -- 50 times more than humans -- that are critical for plant growth, development, immunity and stress response. Until now, only a handful had known functions, and little was known about how the receptors might interact with each to coordinate responses to often-conflicting signals.

***

"The Nature study included two major surprises, says Adam Mott, Ph.D., University of Toronto. LRR-receptor kinases that have small extracellular domains interacted with other LRR-receptor kinases more often than those that have large domains. This suggests that the small receptor kinases evolved to coordinate actions of the other receptors. Second, researchers identified several unknown LRR-receptor kinases that appear critical for network integrity.

"The most important one, dubbed APEX, was predicted to cause severe disruptions to the rest of the network if removed. Researchers found that removal of APEX, and several other known LRR-receptor kinases, indeed did impair plant development and immune responses, even though those responses are controlled by receptor kinases several network steps away from the APEX node."

Comment: It is not surprising plants have these automatic molecular mechanisms to sense the outside world. They must be able to defend themselves to survive. That some plants have more kinases than humans is that we have other methods of sensation at our command. Note that kinases are giant enzymes, which always raises the question of how did chance evolution discover such complex molecules? Supplied by God.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness with glutamate

by David Turell @, Friday, April 12, 2019, 22:31 (1802 days ago) @ dhw

Just as in animals glutamate is used in plant responses:

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/researchers-yes-plants-have-nervous-systems-too/

"Recently, a research team observed the outcome of wounding a plant called Arabidopsis thaliana, a mustard often used in experiments. The really remarkable part is that “these channels are activated by extracellular glutamate, a well-known mammalian neurotransmitter”:

"This study combines genetic and imaging approaches to reveal a rapid and long-distance signaling pathway that communicates leaf damage to intact leaves that are spatially and developmentally distant from the wounded leaf. Toyota et al. detect increased calcium signals at the site of both herbivore and mechanical wounding within 2 s and in distant leaves within 2 min after damage. This signal moves through the plant vasculature at rates of ~1 mm/s, which is faster than can be explained by diffusion.

“'Faster than can be explained by diffusion” means that the transmission appears to be a signal rather than simply the normal course of diffusion in plants. Muday and Brown-Harding explain that in mammals, glutamate receptors speed neurotransmission and in plants they may enable quicker signals to distant parts of the plant. Many details remain to be filled in, of course:

"Future experiments are needed to resolve whether glutamate is moving long distances rather than acting via the localized release and long-distance propagation of ionic signals.

***

"Abstract: Animals require rapid, long-range molecular signaling networks to integrate sensing and response throughout their bodies. The amino acid glutamate acts as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the vertebrate central nervous system, facilitating long-range information exchange via activation of glutamate receptor channels. Similarly, plants sense local signals, such as herbivore attack, and transmit this information throughout the plant body to rapidly activate defense responses in undamaged parts. Here we show that glutamate is a wound signal in plants. Ion channels of the GLUTAMATE RECEPTOR–LIKE family act as sensors that convert this signal into an increase in intracellular calcium ion concentration that propagates to distant organs, where defense responses are then induced."

Comment: It is not surprising that both plants and animals use the same signaling molecule.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 20, 2019, 18:47 (1704 days ago) @ dhw

This article says plants have a sort of cognition and memory:

https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-the-animal-brain-plants-have-cognitive-capacities-too?utm...

"Plants are not simply organic, passive automata. We now know that they can sense and integrate information about dozens of different environmental variables, and that they use this knowledge to guide flexible, adaptive behaviour.

"For example, plants can recognise whether nearby plants are kin or unrelated, and adjust their foraging strategies accordingly. The flower Impatiens pallida, also known as pale jewelweed, is one of several species that tends to devote a greater share of resources to growing leaves rather than roots when put with strangers – a tactic apparently geared towards competing for sunlight, an imperative that is diminished when you are growing next to your siblings. Plants also mount complex, targeted defences in response to recognising specific predators. The small, flowering Arabidopsis thaliana, also known as thale or mouse-ear cress, can detect the vibrations caused by caterpillars munching on it and so release oils and chemicals to repel the insects.

"Plants also communicate with one another and other organisms, such as parasites and microbes, using a variety of channels – including ‘mycorrhizal networks’ of fungus that link up the root systems of multiple plants, like some kind of subterranean internet. Perhaps it’s not really so surprising, then, that plants learn and use memories for prediction and decision-making.

***

"In the biologists’ favourite experimental plant, A thaliana, a gene called FLC produces a chemical that stops its little white blooms from opening. However, when the plant is exposed to a long winter, the by-products of other genes measure the length of time it has been cold, and close down or repress the FLC in an increasing number of cells as the cold persists. When spring comes and the days start to lengthen, the plant, primed by the cold to have low FLC, can now flower. But to be effective, the anti-FLC mechanism needs an extended chilly spell, rather than shorter periods of fluctuating temperatures.

"This involves what’s called epigenetic memory. Even after vernalised plants are returned to warm conditions, FLC is kept low via the remodelling of what are called chromatin marks. These are proteins and small chemical groups that attach to DNA within cells and influence gene activity. Chromatin remodelling can even be transmitted to subsequent generations of divided cells, such that these later produced cells ‘remember’ past winters. If the cold period has been long enough, plants with some cells that never went through a cold period can still flower in spring, because the chromatin modification continues to inhibit the action of FLC. (my bold)

***

"Both epigenetic and ‘brainy’ memories have one thing in common: a persistent change in the behaviour or state of a system, caused by an environmental stimulus that’s no longer present.

***

"Furthermore, plant behaviour frequently involves chemical and structural changes that are simply too small, too fast or too slow for us to perceive without equipment.

***

"Some theorists worry that concepts such as ‘plant memory’ are nothing but obfuscating metaphors. When we try to apply cognitive theory to plants in a less vague way, they say, it seems that plants are doing something quite unlike animals. Plant mechanisms are complex and fascinating, they agree, but not cognitive. There’s a concern that we’re defining memory so broadly as to be meaningless, or that things such as habituation are not, in themselves, cognitive mechanisms. (my bold)

***

"Of course, it’s a stretch of the imagination to try to think about what thinking might even mean for these organisms, lacking as they do the brain(mind)/body(motor) divide. However, by pushing ourselves, we might end up expanding the concepts – such as ‘memory’, ‘learning’ and ‘thought’ – that initially motivated our enquiry. Having done so, we see that in many cases, talk of plant learning and memory is not just metaphorical, but also matter-of-fact."

Comment: Metaphor or fact? Note my bolds. As the reader might suspect, I view the epigenetic aspects of this issue as indication that all of this is automatic and built into the genetic instructions in plants, as with cell responses in animals. For me it is all one pattern, since with plants we are the outside looking in as with animal cells. The reason: life was designed by a mind that could plan for the necessary responses. For the interested reader this is a huge article, and I have not included descriptions of plant responses to stimuli.

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by dhw, Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 07:25 (1694 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This article says plants have a sort of cognition and memory:
https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-the-animal-brain-plants-have-cognitive-capacities-too?utm...

QUOTES: "Plants are not simply organic, passive automata. We now know that they can sense and integrate information about dozens of different environmental variables, and that they use this knowledge to guide flexible, adaptive behaviour.” (dhw’s bold)

"Some theorists worry that concepts such as ‘plant memory’ are nothing but obfuscating metaphors. When we try to apply cognitive theory to plants in a less vague way, they say, it seems that plants are doing something quite unlike animals. Plant mechanisms are complex and fascinating, they agree, but not cognitive. There’s a concern that we’re defining memory so broadly as to be meaningless, or that things such as habituation are not, in themselves, cognitive mechanisms.(DAVID’s bold)

"Of course, it’s a stretch of the imagination to try to think about what thinking might even mean for these organisms, lacking as they do the brain(mind)/body(motor) divide. However, by pushing ourselves, we might end up expanding the concepts – such as ‘memory’, ‘learning’ and ‘thought’ – that initially motivated our enquiry. Having done so, we see that in many cases, talk of plant learning and memory is not just metaphorical, but also matter-of-fact." (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Metaphor or fact? Note my bolds. As the reader might suspect, I view the epigenetic aspects of this issue as indication that all of this is automatic and built into the genetic instructions in plants, as with cell responses in animals. For me it is all one pattern, since with plants we are the outside looking in as with animal cells. The reason: life was designed by a mind that could plan for the necessary responses.

It’s always good to hear that there are some experts who disagree with you. (Note my bolds). Thank you. And one can’t help wondering why your always-in-control God “had to” preprogramme or dabble all the different (and especially the extinct) plant and animal responses and adaptations and means of communication for the sole purpose of filling in 3.5 billion years until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design…

Natures wonders: Plant awareness

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 18:20 (1694 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This article says plants have a sort of cognition and memory:
https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-the-animal-brain-plants-have-cognitive-capacities-too?utm...

QUOTES: "Plants are not simply organic, passive automata. We now know that they can sense and integrate information about dozens of different environmental variables, and that they use this knowledge to guide flexible, adaptive behaviour.” (dhw’s bold)

"Some theorists worry that concepts such as ‘plant memory’ are nothing but obfuscating metaphors. When we try to apply cognitive theory to plants in a less vague way, they say, it seems that plants are doing something quite unlike animals. Plant mechanisms are complex and fascinating, they agree, but not cognitive. There’s a concern that we’re defining memory so broadly as to be meaningless, or that things such as habituation are not, in themselves, cognitive mechanisms.(DAVID’s bold)

"Of course, it’s a stretch of the imagination to try to think about what thinking might even mean for these organisms, lacking as they do the brain(mind)/body(motor) divide. However, by pushing ourselves, we might end up expanding the concepts – such as ‘memory’, ‘learning’ and ‘thought’ – that initially motivated our enquiry. Having done so, we see that in many cases, talk of plant learning and memory is not just metaphorical, but also matter-of-fact." (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Metaphor or fact? Note my bolds. As the reader might suspect, I view the epigenetic aspects of this issue as indication that all of this is automatic and built into the genetic instructions in plants, as with cell responses in animals. For me it is all one pattern, since with plants we are the outside looking in as with animal cells. The reason: life was designed by a mind that could plan for the necessary responses.

dhw: It’s always good to hear that there are some experts who disagree with you. (Note my bolds). Thank you. And one can’t help wondering why your always-in-control God “had to” preprogramme or dabble all the different (and especially the extinct) plant and animal responses and adaptations and means of communication for the sole purpose of filling in 3.5 billion years until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design…

Same old mantra. My view is God in-control chose to evolve and you can't understand why He should be so patient. Since He is eternal, He has all the time He wants. My God has no resemblance to what you imagine as you attempt at non-believing theism

Natures wonders: Amazing bird migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 05, 2016, 02:14 (2875 days ago) @ David Turell

More study which feels it is magnetic field sense plus quantum activity:-http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-cph022715.php-"Each year, the Arctic Tern travels over 40,000 miles, migrating nearly from pole to pole and back again. Other birds make similar (though shorter) journeys in search of warmer climes. How do these birds manage to traverse such great distances when we need a map just to make our way to the next town over?-"Researchers have established that birds can sense the earth's magnetic field and use it to orient themselves. How this internal compass works, though, remains poorly understood. -"Physicists at the University of Oxford are exploring one possible explanation: a magnetically sensitive protein called cryptochrome that mediates circadian rhythms in plants and animals. Blue or green light triggers electrons in the protein to produce pairs of radicals whose electron spins respond to magnetic fields. "As we vary the strength of the magnetic field, we can alter the progress of these photochemical reactions inside the protein," said lead researcher Peter Hore.-***-"Behavioral experiments have shown that even subtle disruptions to the magnetic field can impact birds' ability to navigate. In a study led by Henrik Mouritsen, in collaboration with Hore, robins were placed in wooden huts on campus at the University of Oldenburg in Germany. Without supplementary visual cues like the sun's position in the sky, the birds struggled to navigate. They only regained their ability to orient themselves when the huts were covered in aluminum sheeting and electrically grounded, blocking external oscillating electromagnetic noise but not the earth's static magnetic field. -"The researchers concluded that even low-level electromagnetic noise in the frequency range blocked by the aluminum screens -- probably coming from AM radio signals and electronic equipment running in buildings --somehow interfered with the urban robins' magnetic orientation ability.-"Hore hopes that the behavioral findings in the field can inform his molecular-level work in the laboratory. -"'We would like to know how such extraordinarily weak radiofrequency fields could disrupt the function of an entire sensory system in a higher vertebrate. Our feeling is that this is likely to provide key insights into the mechanism either of the magnetic compass sense or of some important process that interferes with the birds' orientation behavior," said Hore.-"One explanation is that the electromagnetic noise has quantum-level effects on cryptochrome's performance. This would suggest that the radical pairs in cryptochrome preserve their quantum coherence for much longer than previously believed possible. Such a finding could have broader implications for physicists hoping to extend coherence for more efficient quantum computing.-*** -"the spike discussed here is undeniably a quantum effect, arising from the mixing of states associated with avoided energy-level crossings, and is not captured by the semiclassical theory. In this sense, radical pair magnetoreception may be more of a quantum phenomenon than hitherto realized." (from the paper)-***-"Physicists are excited by the idea that quantum coherence could not just occur in a living cell, but could also have been optimized by evolution. There's a possibility that lessons could be learned about how to preserve coherence for long periods of time," said Hore.-Comment: Closer to a full explanation. An amazing facility, since we need GPS guidance to go anywhere.

Natures wonders: Cockroach GPS

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 16, 2016, 01:15 (2803 days ago) @ David Turell

Research on them shows they have a sense of direction, and it isguessedthaat most animals have it:-http://www.livescience.com/55410-cockroaches-navigate-with-internal-gps.html?utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160715-ls-"When navigating your kitchen, cockroaches likely don't need to stop for directions. Turns out, the pesky insects have an internal GPS.-"That navigation system, which relies on head direction and contextual cues, is similar to one that's used by rats and even humans, the researchers said.-"The mechanism is likely an example of convergent evolution — when distinct animals develop similar systems independently to manage the same problems, the researchers said.-***-"The cell activity in the roaches' brains signaled the direction they turned, similar to humans, the researchers found.-***-"'The fact we found these cell activities that are very similar to those in mice and rats, and us, strongly indicates insects rely on the same sensory inputs we need to orient ourselves, and their brains process these inputs in a similar manner," Varga said in a statement.-"Tests also included placing a foil cover over the heads of the cockroaches to block any visual clues. Brain activity in the blinded roaches indicated that some brain cells do not need visual cues. When the foil was removed, the cell activity reflected the roaches' heads shifting toward the visual reference point. This suggests that their internal GPS was remapping to include the new visual information, according to the researchers.-"'Each animal has receptors that take in critical information in order to navigate a complex environment," study researcher Roy Ritzmann, a biology professor at Case Western Reserve University, said in the statement.-"Ritzmann predicts that almost all animals have a similarly structured internal GPS, which may have become more specialized and sophisticated in some species over time."-Comment: This is another example of convergence in evolution and that underlying patterns may have been set from the beginning of brain development.

Natures wonders: Cats control mice with urine

by David Turell @, Monday, July 06, 2015, 22:27 (3178 days ago) @ David Turell

Toxoplasma Gondi is a parasite carried by rodents that can only reproduce in a cat's gut. The parasite causes rodents to lose their fear of cats:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150318153918.htm
> 
> "Rodents infected with a common parasite lose their fear of cats, resulting in easy meals for the felines. Now IU School of Medicine researchers have identified a new way the parasite may modify brain cells, possibly helping explain changes in the behavior of mice -- and humans."-Toxoplasma are dangerous to humans during human pregnancy, but not oterwise.-
And now this: The cats can affect mouse behaviour in the way that cat urine will change the way baby mice react to cats:-http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33380669-"Researchers found that when very young mice were exposed to a chemical in cat urine, they were less likely to avoid the scent of cats later in life. -"This new study revealed that baby mice exposed to the compound during a "critical period" in their development would, as adults, react quite differently to their arch enemy's smell.-"The team exposed one-month-old mice to the chemical over two weeks. When they were tested later for their reaction, they were much less likely to flee the same scent.-"'Their physical sensitivity [to the chemical] was actually actually much higher," Dr Voznessenskaya explained. "More of their receptors detect the compound and they produce higher levels of stress hormone."-"Despite this though, mice raised around the unmistakable scent of cat pee are less inclined to show signs of fear, or to flee when they sniff it out. -"'You get a higher response, but less behaviour," said Dr Voznessenskaya, "and habituating like this is probably useful for the mice; they can't run away, because they need to live around humans and food. And cats [also] live around humans."-"As for the cats: "They seem to be able to keep the number of mice around that they need," she added."

Natures wonders: dolphin echolocation

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 08, 2015, 15:53 (3177 days ago) @ David Turell

Dolphins use sonar better than any other animal for hunting and perhaps communicating:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150707082344.htm-"The data from the DTI scans allowed the researchers to map out the white matter pathways, essentially the wiring diagram for the dolphin brain, in high detail. The results show that the dolphin auditory nerve enters the brain stem region and connects both to the temporal lobe (the auditory region of many terrestrial mammals) and to another part of the brain near the apex known as the primary visual region.-"The researchers hypothesize that dolphins have more than one neural area associated with sound because they are using sound for different purposes.-"Dolphins emit clicks, squawks, whistles and burst-pulse sounds to communicate, navigate and hunt. Echolocation allows them to perceive objects by bouncing sound off surfaces.-"'Dolphins are the most sophisticated users of biological sonar in the animal kingdom," Marino says. "They can find fish hidden from sight in sand with ease."-"Experiments have shown that dolphins can echolocate on a hidden, complex 3-D shape and then pick out that shape by sight. "They can rapidly move back and forth between their senses of sight and sound," Marino says.-"One dolphin's echolocation signals and echoes may be picked up by another dolphin, she adds. "They have a complex communication system and a unique ability to emit different types of sounds, like a click and a whistle, simultaneously.'"

Natures wonders: legume bacteria symbiosis

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 09, 2015, 15:39 (3176 days ago) @ David Turell

Legumes allow bacterial infection of their roots to fix nitrogen from the air into the soil:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092733.htm-"Legumes form a unique symbiotic relationship with bacteria known as rhizobia, which they allow to infect their roots. This leads to root nodules being formed in which the bacteria convert nitrogen from the air into ammonia that the plant can use for growth.-"Exactly how these plants are able to distinguish and welcome compatible rhizobia for this self-fertilising activity -- while halting infection by incompatible bacteria -- has been a mystery.-"Now the researchers at the Centre for Carbohydrate Recognition and Signalling (CARB) from Denmark and New Zealand and their collaborators from the Centre for Complex Carbohydrate Research in Georgia, USA, have determined how legumes perceive and distinguish compatible bacteria based on the exopolysaccharides featuring on the invading cells' surfaces.-"Using an interdisciplinary approach involving plant and microbial genetics, biochemistry and carbohydrate chemistry, the researchers have identified the first known exopolysaccharide receptor gene, called Epr3.-"They found that a membrane-bound receptor kinase encoded by the Epr3 gene binds directly with exopolysaccharides and regulates beneficial bacteria's passage through the plant's epidermal cell layer.-***-"Microbiome studies in plants, animals and humans are some of the areas that will benefit from the new discovery. The mechanism governing microbiota colonisation of hosts is poorly understood and the identification of an exopolysaccharide receptor is likely to inspire new approaches to understand the interaction between multicellular organisms and microbes."

Natures wonders: dolphin lungs avoid the 'bends'

by David Turell @, Friday, July 10, 2015, 18:43 (3175 days ago) @ David Turell

When human deep dive the lungs are kept under pressure, and they have to decompress slowly to avoid the 'bends' upon coming to the surface. Dolphins have fully compressible lungs and avoid the bends problem. They can inhale and exhale much more volume of lungs than humans:-http://www.livescience.com/51504-dolphins-compressible-lungs.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-07-10-"Unlike humans, dolphins do not need to be strapped to an oxygen tank to achieve their impressive diving feats. This is because dolphins have compressible lungs that help them withstand high pressures deep in the ocean.-"'The deeper [dolphins] go into the ocean, the smaller the volume of gas or air in the lungs gets," said study lead author Andreas Fahlman, a professor of biology at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. Fahlman found that dolphins can replace as much as 95 percent of the air in their lungs in a single breath. For comparison, humans are capable of replacing only as much as 65 percent. Dolphins exhale and then inhale above water before diving back down with lungs filled with air — each breath consumes and releases a certain amount of oxygen that energizes the animals as they swim the ocean.-"When trainers had dolphins breathe as hard as they could, in breaths researchers called "chuffs," the animals could inhale 8 gallons (30 liters) of air in one second, and exhale 34 gallons (130 liters) of air per second. A human's strongest exhale moves at a rate of 4 gallons (15 liters) per second, and human coughs range from about 10 to 16 gallons (40 to 60 liters) per second. In other words, dolphins move air two to three times faster than humans could ever do, Fahlman said."

Natures wonders: pitcher plants as bat motels

by David Turell @, Monday, July 13, 2015, 14:55 (3172 days ago) @ David Turell

Great system. The plant reflects sonar to invite the bat, who gets a good nights sleep while the plant is paid in guano, a great fertilizer:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43500/title/Mammal-Carnivorous-Flower-Mutualism/-"Some bats in Borneo have living sleeping bags thanks to carnivorous pitcher plants that can snuggly accommodate one of the sleeping mammals in their vase-shaped flowers. And researchers working in peat swap forests on the tropical island have discovered that the plants have evolved a unique way of advertising the cozy roost: by reflecting back the bats' sonar in a unique way. The scientists reported their findings last week (July 9) in Current Biology. The pitcher plants—which constitute the first known example of a plant using a sonic method of attracting a mutualistic partner for fertilization rather than pollination—benefit from serving as bat hotels because the slumbering mammals deposit guano into the flower, fertilizing the plant.-"The researchers determined that the pitcher plant, Nepenthes hemsleyana, advertises itself as a roost to Hardwicke's woolly bats, Kerivoula hardwickii, by reflecting back the bats' high-frequency sonar calls in a way that distinguishes it from other, less accommodating, plants in the ecosystem. The slender, vase-like shape of N. hemsleyana's flowers, which shares the habitat with hundreds of other pitcher plant species, appears to be crucial to this reflective communication."

Natures wonders: water striders say afloat

by David Turell @, Monday, July 20, 2015, 17:27 (3165 days ago) @ David Turell

The hairs on their legs collect droplets through their shape and the drops fall off:-http://phys.org/news/2015-07-legs-striders-repel.html-"Water striders are bugs with the ability to run on water, bioengineered by nature to distribute their weight to long outer legs so that they are supported by water surface tension. They thrive in climates of high humidity, thus confronting an environment of both liquid water and vapor, and evolved superhydrophobic legs in order to remove the risk of saturation affecting their weight dynamics.-" A water strider's leg is a one-centimeter cylinder covered by an array of inclined, tapered hairs of conical shape, which the researchers imaged using X-ray computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy. The surfaces of the individual hairs have longitudinal and quasi-helicoidal nanogroves, which the researchers note increase their hydrophobicity by enhancing the mobility of drops. "Without any external force, tiny condensed droplets get removed from striders' legs, owing to the presence of oriented conical setae," the authors write. When exposed to mist, micrometric drops of water condense at the surface of the hairs, moving away from the tip and sinking down into the texture."

Natures wonders: ant foraging algorithims

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 16:04 (3163 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants follow patterns with individual interactions when a colony is foraging:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/decoding-the-remarkable-algorithms-of-ants/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150721-"Ants in particular excel at collective search, automatically tailoring their search strategy to efficiently cover large areas of ground. Gordon has found parallels between the algorithms ant colonies use for foraging and the man-made ones that underlie the Internet. Given how long ants have been solving these kinds of problems, Gordon hopes that she will uncover new algorithms that will ultimately make large-scale computing networks cheaper and more efficient.-"For example, ants are really good at collective search; a group of ants can cover the search area thoroughly without any central control. They do it through simple interactions, just touching antennae. When many ants are in a small space, they meet often and tend to take a convoluted path that keeps them stuck in one place. When few ants are in a large space, they don't meet that often. They stretch out their paths and cover more ground."

Natures wonders: ant teams carry insects

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 22:45 (3156 days ago) @ David Turell

The team is guided by another ant that comes to direct traffic back to the ant hill:-http://phys.org/news/2015-07-ants-brawn-brains-haul-heavy.html-"In experiments, researchers showed how a dozen or more ants working in unison to haul, say, a large insect can adjust their course based on intelligence provided by a single ant joining the effort.-"Realising somehow that the group is off-course or headed for trouble, the "scout" subtly signalled a needed change in direction by tugging at a different angle. -"Rather than resisting, the others fell into line. -"The individual ant has the idea of how to pass an obstacle but lacks the muscle power to move the load," explained Ofer Feinerman, the study's main architect and a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel.-"'The group is there to amplify the leader's strength so that she can actually implement her idea," he told AFP.-"'Just as surprising, the same ant that took the lead will, 10 to 20 seconds later, yield that role to another new arrival with more up-to-date information.-"'As far as we can tell, the scout is no different than the other ants," Feinerman said by email."-Comment:Ant scouts who bring new information is well known, and this shows how the cooperation works. The scout points out the proper direction. The ants cooperate automatically. It is obviously unknown how much 'thinking' a scout does.

Natures wonders: ant teams carry insects

by dhw, Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 20:52 (3155 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The team is guided by another ant that comes to direct traffic back to the ant hill:-http://phys.org/news/2015-07-ants-brawn-brains-haul-heavy.html-QUOTES: "In experiments, researchers showed how a dozen or more ants working in unison to haul, say, a large insect can adjust their course based on intelligence provided by a single ant joining the effort.
"Realising somehow that the group is off-course or headed for trouble, the "scout" subtly signalled a needed change in direction by tugging at a different angle. 
"Rather than resisting, the others fell into line.” -DAVID: Ant scouts who bring new information is well known, and this shows how the cooperation works. The scout points out the proper direction. The ants cooperate automatically. It is obviously unknown how much 'thinking' a scout does.-Thank you for another delightful example of ant intelligence. Please note that the ant scout appears to be “no different than the other ants”, which suggests they could all perform the same task. This demands setting up an intelligent scouting system in the first place, processing information, deciding on the best course of action, and communicating that decision to others, who are obviously not stupid enough to argue with the ant who knows the problem and has worked out the solution. Of course it is unknown “how much” they think. What measuring rod can be used to quantify the thoughts of any organism? Just face the fact that ants think. Once more, thank you for providing yet more evidence of something you are so reluctant to acknowledge.

Natures wonders: how bombardier beetle spray works

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 21:14 (3155 days ago) @ dhw

Two mixing chambers:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42874/title/Beetle-Bomb/-"The coordinated movements of two chambers within the gland of a species of bombardier beetles (Brachinus elongatulus) allow the insects to effortlessly spray rapid pulses of noxious irritants, according to a study published today (May 1) in Science.-"The hundreds of species of bombardier beetle are named for their defense mechanism, which involves shooting a boiling stream of toxic p-benzoquinones at up to 10 meters (33 feet) per second from a gland in their rear. Inside the beetles' bodies, the gland consists of two chambers separated by a valve. One is a flexible reservoir containing the raw materials to make the explosive compounds, while the reaction chamber, reinforced with chitin and waxes, contains the enzymes that turn the chemicals into a toxic weapon. When a stressed beetle turns on its defenses, it squeezes the muscles of the reservoir to open the valve and mix the components together. In the Brachinini group of bombardier beetles, to which the Arizona-dwelling B. elongatulus belongs, the spray then erupts in a series of 300 to 700 pulses per second, but it was not known how these pulses were controlled.-***-"In the video of 30 blasts in 14 individuals, the initial muscle contraction releases tiny droplets of chemicals from the reservoir into the reaction chamber. As the explosive chemicals form, water in the chamber boils, creating vapor pressure that closes the valve between the two chambers and expels the toxic substances out of the beetle's body at high speed. The pulses are thus controlled by the pressure-driven opening and closing of the valve, not by the beetle's muscles."-Comment: This is a prime example of irreducible complexity, something had had to be put together all at once. How can this be built in stages?

Natures wonders: how parasitic plants pounce

by David Turell @, Friday, July 31, 2015, 14:46 (3154 days ago) @ David Turell

Many parasitic plants leave seeds in the soil that will germinate and attach to host plant roots for a free ride. A genetic change accomplished this method:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150730162838.htm-"'In the simplest terms, these are plants that eat other plants," said David Nelson, co-author of the paper and assistant professor of genetics in UGA's Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. "The seeds of some parasitic plants, like witchweed for example, can lie dormant in soil for more than a decade, waiting to grow until they detect the presence of a host. We wanted to understand how the parasites know other plants are nearby so we could develop new ways of combating them."-"As plant roots grow, they release hormones called strigolactones into the soil. This is a signal that normally helps fungi form a beneficial connection to the plant, in which they each trade nutrients. But the seeds of parasitic plants also possess the ability to sense strigolactones, which prompt them to germinate, attach to the host root and syphon off nutrients.-"'It's kind of like root radar," said Nelson, who is also a member of UGA's Plant Center. "But the incredible thing is that this strigolactone detection system seems to have evolved from plant genes that normally control a seed's ability to detect fire."-"When a forest burns, compounds in the smoke and ash leach into the soil. Many plants have evolved the ability to detect these compounds, which signal that their competition--large shady trees or dense ground cover--has been destroyed and it might be an opportune time to grow.-"Nelson and his colleagues found that during the evolution of parasitic plants, the smoke detector gene duplicated and some copies switched to become strigolactone detectors. This critical switch is what allows the parasites to recognize and attack nearby hosts."

Natures wonders: bees vaccinate their babies

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 01, 2015, 14:50 (3153 days ago) @ David Turell

the queen's eggs carry pathogenic material which develop resistance in baby bees:-http://phys.org/news/2015-07-bees-naturally-vaccinate-babies.html-"In a honey bee colony, the queen rarely leaves the nest, so worker bees must bring food to her. Forager bees can pick up pathogens in the environment while gathering pollen and nectar. Back in the hive, worker bees use this same pollen to create "royal jelly"—a food made just for the queen that incidentally contains bacteria from the outside environment.-"After eating these bacteria, the pathogens are digested in the gut and transferred to the body cavity; there they are stored in the queen's 'fat body'—an organ similar to a liver. Pieces of the bacteria are then bound to vitellogenin—a protein—and carried via blood to the developing eggs. Because of this, bee babies are 'vaccinated' and their immune systems better prepared to fight diseases found in their environment once they are born.-Vitellogenin is the carrier of these immune-priming signals, something researchers did not know until now.

Natures wonders: lighting fireflies

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 19:12 (3150 days ago) @ David Turell

A superoxide ion and luciferin:-http://phys.org/news/2015-08-firefly.html-"Researchers at Yale, Connecticut College, and the University of Buffalo have determined the chemical processes at play when a firefly converts the chemicals in its body into a backyard light show. It's a scientific riddle that has taken some 60 years to explain.-"The key is an oxygen intermediate—called a superoxide anion—that has an extra electron and allows oxygen to interact with the chemical luciferin inside a firefly. The result is bioluminescence."-Abstract: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.5b03820

Natures wonders: earthworm digestion

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 19:19 (3150 days ago) @ David Turell

They digest fallen plant leaves despite polyphenols plants use to protect themselves:-http://phys.org/news/2015-08-scientists-mystery-earthworm-digestion.html-"Earthworms are responsible for returning the carbon locked inside dead plant material back into the ground. They drag fallen leaves and other plant material down from the surface and eat them, enriching the soil, and they do this in spite of toxic chemicals produced by plants to deter herbivores.-"The scientists, led by Dr Jake Bundy and Dr Manuel Liebeke from Imperial College London, have identified molecules in the earthworm gut that counteract the plant's natural defences and enable digestion.-"Plants make polyphenols, which act as antioxidants and give the plants their colour; they also inhibit the digestion of many herbivores. Earthworms, however, are able to digest fallen leaves and other plant material, thanks to the ability of drilodefensins to counteract polyphenols. Dr Bundy and his team found that the more polyphenols present in the earthworm diet, the more drilodefensins they produce in their guts."

Natures wonders: anglerfish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 17:12 (3149 days ago) @ David Turell

Another example from the deep ocean:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150805110337.htm-"This new fish, which was found between 1,000-1,500 meters depth, is a new species of Ceratioid anglerfish (Genus Lasiognathus Regan [Lophiiformes: Oneirodidae]). The three females specimens found ranged in size from 30-95 mm in length. Looking at a photo of the fish, one quickly understands how anglerfishes get their common name.-"At the ocean depths this fish lives in, there is no sunlight. The only light is that from creatures that produce bioluminescence, which means they generate their own light source. Also, at these depths, the pressure is immense -- over one ton (2,200 pounds) per square inch. And the fight for food is never-ending. That's why these fish have developed their unique way of attracting prey -- from the appendage at the top of their head, which resembles a fishing pole of sorts. And, like its human counterparts, this fish dangles the appendage until an unsuspecting fish swims up thinking they found a meal, only to quickly learn that they are, in fact, a meal themselves."-Comment: the bioluminescence is due to onboard luminescent bacteria.

Natures wonders: nematodes ride slugs to next meal

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 06, 2015, 19:13 (3148 days ago) @ David Turell

Outside or inside, it is easy transportation across dry areas to next mealsite:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/nematodes-use-slugs-like-buses-and-maybe-cruise-ships/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150806-"Few things are less sexy than a slug (unless, that is, you've seen the immortal slug love scene in Life in the Undergrowth). But to a tiny worm called a nematode, slugs may be the ultimate sexy ride: moist, secure, and maybe even pre-loaded with snacks. Why wriggle painstakingly toward your next meal, risking death by dessication and starvation, when you could travel in style in the Ultimate Invertebrate Commuting Machine?-"Animals have long been suspected of providing the necessary transport. Dauer larvae - a special developmental stage of nematodes that has attracted much interest among aging researchers because entering this phase vastly extends worms' lifespans - seem to be specially equipped to ride on animals. They even stand straight up on their tails and wave back and forth in an apparent attempt to thumb a ride. But which animals? No one knew for certain.-"Nematodes are extraordinarily abundant small invertebrate animals that live in soil and water (I wrote about them before here). Many are parasitic, but many like C. elegans are predators or scavengers.-"C. elegans have a particular dilemma because they live in ephemeral environments like rotting fruit, where they feed on the microbes decaying the plant. But when you've finished with your moldy peach, how do you get to the next rotten apple, particularly when it is located a daunting distance away? Without enough food or moisture, C. elegans shrivels up or starves, so hot, dry, food-free environments would seem to present insurmountable barriers to these little worms.-"So the team of scientists tested 373 different invertebrates—isopods, flies, centipedes, spiders, beetles, slugs, locusts, true bugs, and others—for nematodes. Of those groups they examined, only slugs, isopods (also called pill-bugs or roly-polys), and centipedes (also called chilopods) carried nematodes. 
 
"Slugs may be a particularly preferred carrier because, unlike many insects and arthropods, they exude humidity from their slime. Where the slugs carried the nematodes is revealing too. Although some nematodes have been found clinging to slug exteriors, many were found inside slugs - specifically, in the intestines. Significantly more nematodes were found in the intestine of dissected slugs than in any other region."

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Friday, August 07, 2015, 14:00 (3147 days ago) @ David Turell

Put your larvae on a spider, have him weave a cocoon for you and be the food source. The perfect total protection plan:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/06/these-parasitic-wasps-turn-spiders-into-web-building-zombies/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1-"The zombie enslavement begins when a wasp lays eggs on the back of a spider. The resulting larva feeds off of the living spider's body fluid. About 10 days after hatching, the larva essentially turns the spider into a zombie that constructs a tough cocoon web to protect the baby wasp as it matures.-"These cocoon webs were found to be similar to the resting webs but stronger; the periphery of the cocoon web is three times stronger and the center is 30 times stronger. They also had decorative elements that reflect light, presumably to deter flying creatures from getting caught up in the web."-Comment: How to explain this arrangement in Darwin terms? I can't.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by dhw, Saturday, August 08, 2015, 08:47 (3146 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Saturday, August 08, 2015, 08:54

DAVID: Put your larvae on a spider, have him weave a cocoon for you and be the food source. The perfect total protection plan:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/06/these-parasitic-wasps-turn-spiders-into-web-building-zombies/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
 
"The zombie enslavement begins when a wasp lays eggs on the back of a spider. The resulting larva feeds off of the living spider's body fluid. About 10 days after hatching, the larva essentially turns the spider into a zombie that constructs a tough cocoon web to protect the baby wasp as it matures.
 
"These cocoon webs were found to be similar to the resting webs but stronger; the periphery of the cocoon web is three times stronger and the center is 30 times stronger. They also had decorative elements that reflect light, presumably to deter flying creatures from getting caught up in the web."
 
Comment: How to explain this arrangement in Darwin terms? I can't.-How to explain this arrangement in Turellian terms? God, whose purpose in designing the universe was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells so that their descendants would produce wasps and spiders a few billion years later, and one particular type of wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider etc.
Alternatively, God saw a wasp and a spider, and dabbled with the wasp to make it lay its eggs on the back of the spider etc.-How to explain this arrangement in dhw terms? A particularly intelligent and observant wasp worked out an ingenious way to provide its larvae with food and protection. It laid its eggs on the back of a spider etc. The method worked, and so it was passed on to subsequent generations.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 08, 2015, 14:32 (3146 days ago) @ dhw


> David: Comment: How to explain this arrangement in Darwin terms? I can't.[/i]
> 
> dhw: How to explain this arrangement in dhw terms? A particularly intelligent and observant wasp worked out an ingenious way to provide its larvae with food and protection. It laid its eggs on the back of a spider etc. The method worked, and so it was passed on to subsequent generations.-You want us to believe the wasp knew in advance how to re-program the spider brain and change its instinctual behavior to fit the larva's requirements? Again chicken and egg. One lone wasp tried this, got it right the first time and now all wasps of its type do this? Incredible.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by dhw, Sunday, August 09, 2015, 11:45 (3145 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Comment: How to explain this arrangement in Darwin terms? I can't.-Dhw: How to explain this arrangement in dhw terms? A particularly intelligent and observant wasp worked out an ingenious way to provide its larvae with food and protection. It laid its eggs on the back of a spider etc. The method worked, and so it was passed on to subsequent generations.-DAVID: You want us to believe the wasp knew in advance how to re-program the spider brain and change its instinctual behavior to fit the larva's requirements? Again chicken and egg. One lone wasp tried this, got it right the first time and now all wasps of its type do this? Incredible.-I have no idea how much the wasp knew in advance. Maybe it just decided to lay its eggs on the spider's back to see what would happen. Intelligent humans often follow the same procedure and come up with amazing results. I notice you have not commented on the scenarios I extrapolated from your own hypotheses, so I will repeat them: -“How to explain this arrangement in Turellian terms? God, whose purpose in designing the universe was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells so that their descendants would produce wasps and spiders a few billion years later, and one particular type of wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider etc.
Alternatively, God saw a wasp and a spider, and dabbled with the wasp to make it lay its eggs on the back of the spider etc.” 
(I forgot to mention that God also preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on instructions for the spider's brain to be reprogrammed etc. Thank you for reminding me.)-Can you honestly say you don't find this "incredible"? I'd love to know what Tony and BBella think of it too!

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 09, 2015, 17:47 (3145 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I have no idea how much the wasp knew in advance. Maybe it just decided to lay its eggs on the spider's back to see what would happen. Intelligent humans often follow the same procedure and come up with amazing results. -What would happen is larval death. The relationship involves re-programming the spiders brain. Would that develop out of thin air?-> 
> dhw: Can you honestly say you don't find this "incredible"? I'd love to know what Tony and BBella think of it too!-Not if God did it. This is a carefully coordinated relationship as are so many similar relationships that are found in life, again a pattern for development.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by BBella @, Sunday, August 09, 2015, 18:51 (3145 days ago) @ dhw

I notice you have not commented on the scenarios I extrapolated from your own hypotheses, so I will repeat them: 
> 
> “How to explain this arrangement in Turellian terms? God, whose purpose in designing the universe was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells so that their descendants would produce wasps and spiders a few billion years later, and one particular type of wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider etc.
> Alternatively, God saw a wasp and a spider, and dabbled with the wasp to make it lay its eggs on the back of the spider etc.” 
> (I forgot to mention that God also preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on instructions for the spider's brain to be reprogrammed etc. Thank you for reminding me.)
> 
> Can you honestly say you don't find this "incredible"? I'd love to know what Tony and BBella think of it too!-I do not see the All That Is as a ("a" being the operative word) person like entity (as in he) that chooses to do things. I see All That Is (some call God) as creation itself, whatever that entails, and not separate from it. But, I also do believe in the possibility of god like beings (only god like by human standards) that has created us (in a technological sense), interfered and possibly even continues to dabble with earth and it's inhabitants to this day. For me, that explains a lot. I chose to put stock in this possibility because for me, it answers more questions than it creates.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 09, 2015, 19:44 (3145 days ago) @ BBella


> BBella: I do not see the All That Is as a ("a" being the operative word) person like entity (as in he) that chooses to do things. I see All That Is (some call God) as creation itself, whatever that entails, and not separate from it. But, I also do believe in the possibility of god like beings (only god like by human standards) that has created us (in a technological sense), interfered and possibly even continues to dabble with earth and it's inhabitants to this day. For me, that explains a lot. I chose to put stock in this possibility because for me, it answers more questions than it creates.-To me your concept of All That Is could include my universal consciousness.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by dhw, Monday, August 10, 2015, 14:31 (3144 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Put your larvae on a spider, have him weave a cocoon for you and be the food source. The perfect total protection plan:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/06/these-parasitic-wa...-DAVID: Comment: How to explain this arrangement in Darwin terms? I can't.Dhw: “How to explain this arrangement in Turellian terms? God, whose purpose in designing the universe was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells so that their descendants would produce wasps and spiders a few billion years later, and one particular type of wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider etc.
Alternatively, God saw a wasp and a spider, and dabbled with the wasp to make it lay its eggs on the back of the spider etc.”
Can you honestly say you don't find this incredible? I'd love to know what Tony and BBella think of this too!-TONY: Of course I find it incredible! One could almost say that I find it virtually impossible to explain by chance precisely because it is so incredible. As far as the pre-programming goes, I think there may be some pre-programming for the parasitic action itself....in each case, the process is done differently, with different chemicals, behaviors, and results. So, same building block but different expression. -What's the same building block when the organisms, species, processes, chemicals, behaviours and results are all so different? “Some” preprogramming “may” have been done in the prototype wasp and the prototype spider. Aw shucks, come on, Tony, take the plunge. There is symbiosis between all kinds of organisms, animal and vegetable. Either it was all preprogrammed, God “stepped in”, or (theistic version) God gave these organisms the ability to work it out for themselves. Which of these three do you consider more likely?
 
BBELLA: I do not see the All That Is as a ("a" being the operative word) person like entity (as in he) that chooses to do things. I see All That Is (some call God) as creation itself, whatever that entails, and not separate from it. But, I also do believe in the possibility of god like beings (only god like by human standards) that has created us (in a technological sense), interfered and possibly even continues to dabble with earth and it's inhabitants to this day. For me, that explains a lot. I chose to put stock in this possibility because for me, it answers more questions than it creates.-DAVID: To me your concept of All That Is could include my universal consciousness.-The problem with godlike beings is that instead of asking how we got here, we find ourselves asking how they got here (or there). It just puts the question of origins back one step. David's concept of a universal consciousness entails a mind and a purpose. As I understand it, BBella's All That Is does not have “a” mind (“a” being the operative word). An alternative, if the All That Is is creation itself, might be my hypothesis of eternal energy constantly but unconsciously transforming itself into matter - which is a form of creation - and some matter “somehow” (as nebulous as the “somehow” by which David's version of eternal energy acquired or always had consciousness) evolving consciousness within itself. Consciousness would therefore exist not as a single universal unit but as countless individual units which themselves, through matter, create more units. Evolution results in different forms of consciousness, and these may be able to communicate not only with their own kind but also with other forms. -This ties in neatly with symbiotic relationships, though perhaps less straightforwardly with parasitic behaviour (our friends the wasp and the spider). However, I presume from your answer, BBella, that you are not keen on the idea that a universal consciousness preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on the whole wasp/spider process to their descendants a few thousand million years later. (David has ridiculed my intelligent wasp theory, and I am simply trying to get my own back. But of course you are not obliged to respond!)

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Monday, August 10, 2015, 17:18 (3144 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:An alternative, if the All That Is is creation itself, might be my hypothesis of eternal energy constantly but unconsciously transforming itself into matter - which is a form of creation - and some matter “somehow” (as nebulous as the “somehow” by which David's version of eternal energy acquired or always had consciousness) evolving consciousness within itself. Consciousness would therefore exist not as a single universal unit but as countless individual units which themselves, through matter, create more units. Evolution results in different forms of consciousness, and these may be able to communicate not only with their own kind but also with other forms.-You've answered Nagel's dilemma in Mind and Cosmos because he thinks our current theories of evolution do not explain consciousness at all.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 10, 2015, 19:31 (3144 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Of course I find it incredible! One could almost say that I find it virtually impossible to explain by chance precisely because it is so incredible. As far as the pre-programming goes, I think there may be some pre-programming for the parasitic action itself....in each case, the process is done differently, with different chemicals, behaviors, and results. So, same building block but different expression. 
> 
>DHW: What's the same building block when the organisms, species, processes, chemicals, behaviours and results are all so different? “Some” preprogramming “may” have been done in the prototype wasp and the prototype spider. Aw shucks, come on, Tony, take the plunge. There is symbiosis between all kinds of organisms, animal and vegetable. Either it was all preprogrammed, God “stepped in”, or (theistic version) God gave these organisms the ability to work it out for themselves. Which of these three do you consider more likely?
> -The wasp isn't the only organism that uses this type of method, though. By that, I mean the turning another creature into a zombie and feeding off of it. Hence, common building blocks with different expressions. I use the word "may' not because I am afraid to take a lunge, but as a simple acknowledgement that we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by David Turell @, Monday, August 10, 2015, 19:53 (3144 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> 
> Tony:The wasp isn't the only organism that uses this type of method, though. By that, I mean the turning another creature into a zombie and feeding off of it. Hence, common building blocks with different expressions. I use the word "may' not because I am afraid to take a lunge, but as a simple acknowledgement that we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.-
Ants and fungus for example

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by dhw, Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 14:21 (3143 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: What's the same building block when the organisms, species, processes, chemicals, behaviours and results are all so different? “Some” preprogramming “may” have been done in the prototype wasp and the prototype spider. Aw shucks, come on, Tony, take the plunge. There is symbiosis between all kinds of organisms, animal and vegetable. Either it was all preprogrammed, God “stepped in”, or (theistic version) God gave these organisms the ability to work it out for themselves. Which of these three do you consider more likely? -TONY: The wasp isn't the only organism that uses this type of method, though. By that, I mean the turning another creature into a zombie and feeding off of it. Hence, common building blocks with different expressions. I use the word "may' not because I am afraid to take a lunge, but as a simple acknowledgement that we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.-At least your answer denotes an open mind towards the question of whether organisms such as wasps have an autonomous intelligence of their own, which might be powerful enough to enable them to design their own homes and lifestyles. Who knows, it may even extend to innovation. If we understood the mechanisms, there would be no room for different hypotheses. The same applies to the origin of the universe, life and consciousness: my agnosticism is also “a simple acknowledgement that we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.”

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by BBella @, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 04:20 (3142 days ago) @ dhw

The problem with godlike beings is that instead of asking how we got here, we find ourselves asking how they got here (or there). It just puts the question of origins back one step. -I agree it does put the question of origins back a step or two, but it could be one answer as to why many species (including our own) suddenly showed up on earth throughout earth's history. I believe in the possibility, as I've said before here, there are much older species more technologically advanced than us, who could have brought different species here at different times. ->David's concept of a universal consciousness entails a mind and a purpose. As I understand it, BBella's All That Is does not have “a” mind (“a” being the operative word). An alternative, if the All That Is is creation itself, might be my hypothesis of eternal energy constantly but unconsciously transforming itself into matter - which is a form of creation - and some matter “somehow” (as nebulous as the “somehow” by which David's version of eternal energy acquired or always had consciousness) evolving consciousness within itself. Consciousness would therefore exist not as a single universal unit but as countless individual units which themselves, through matter, create more units. Evolution results in different forms of consciousness, and these may be able to communicate not only with their own kind but also with other forms.-Your above scenario, dhw, is very close to how I see the All That Is (creation itself), with possibly one exception - the "may be able to communicate". I believe all things definitely do communicate - through vibration which is the universal connection between all things as Sheldrake has brought to light with his findings. This universal connection could be called a universal consciousness in a similar way creation could be called God. -Everything, even the mind or consciousness, has it's basis or fabric of foundation rooted in the reactionary process engendered by and through vibration. Therefore all of existence is changed by change itself. When one thing changes it influences change in all that is. -> 
> This ties in neatly with symbiotic relationships, though perhaps less straightforwardly with parasitic behaviour (our friends the wasp and the spider). However, I presume from your answer, BBella, that you are not keen on the idea that a universal consciousness preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on the whole wasp/spider process to their descendants a few thousand million years later. (David has ridiculed my intelligent wasp theory, and I am simply trying to get my own back. But of course you are not obliged to respond!)-No. I don't believe a first or special person or being programmed everything at the beginning of creation to be what it is now. As I see it, all activity within creation, on any and every level, is always at work within the moment, being what it is, reacting to it's present stimuli of vibration within and without affecting all that is.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by dhw, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 18:38 (3142 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: The problem with godlike beings is that instead of asking how we got here, we find ourselves asking how they got here (or there). It just puts the question of origins back one step. 
BBELLA: I agree it does put the question of origins back a step or two, but it could be one answer as to why many species (including our own) suddenly showed up on earth throughout earth's history. I believe in the possibility, as I've said before here, there are much older species more technologically advanced than us, who could have brought different species here at different times.-One wonders why they would all have come, left some animals, and then gone away again. As for theories that we ourselves are descendants of species that came from elsewhere in the universe, if they were advanced enough to get here, one can't help wondering why the technology was lost and had to be reinvented. But there are usually answers to such questions, and I haven't delved.-Dhw: [...]Consciousness would therefore exist not as a single universal unit but as countless individual units which themselves, through matter, create more units. Evolution results in different forms of consciousness, and these may be able to communicate not only with their own kind but also with other forms.
BBELLA: Your above scenario, dhw, is very close to how I see the All That Is (creation itself), with possibly one exception - the "may be able to communicate". I believe all things definitely do communicate - through vibration which is the universal connection between all things as Sheldrake has brought to light with his findings. This universal connection could be called a universal consciousness in a similar way creation could be called God. -I can't say I actually believe that all things communicate, perhaps because my mind is far too limited to reach out so far beyond itself, but the idea is appealing. Where we run into trouble is with terminology. Once we talk in terms of a universal consciousness and God, we drag in all kinds of associations, not least that of a conscious being which has deliberately created us (a concept you yourself disapprove of, as you repeat below).
 
BBELLA: No. I don't believe a first or special person or being programmed everything at the beginning of creation to be what it is now. As I see it, all activity within creation, on any and every level, is always at work within the moment, being what it is, reacting to it's present stimuli of vibration within and without affecting all that is.-Thank you for this, which seems to me to fit in very well with the constantly changing history of life, as it develops through the needs and actions of individual organisms in cooperation or in conflict with one another and with an ever changing environment. Again my mind is too limited to envisage the connections on a cosmic scale, beyond the obvious ones that relate to our dependence on our solar system, but the concept makes perfect sense in the context of life on Earth, as well as with many “mystic” experiences that I think should be taken seriously.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie spiders

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 09, 2015, 19:39 (3145 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I have no idea how much the wasp knew in advance. Maybe it just decided to lay its eggs on the spider's back to see what would happen. Intelligent humans often follow the same procedure and come up with amazing results. I notice you have not commented on the scenarios I extrapolated from your own hypotheses, so I will repeat them: 
> 
> “How to explain this arrangement in Turellian terms? God, whose purpose in designing the universe was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells so that their descendants would produce wasps and spiders a few billion years later, and one particular type of wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider etc.
> Alternatively, God saw a wasp and a spider, and dabbled with the wasp to make it lay its eggs on the back of the spider etc.” 
> (I forgot to mention that God also preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on instructions for the spider's brain to be reprogrammed etc. Thank you for reminding me.)
> 
> Can you honestly say you don't find this "incredible"? I'd love to know what Tony and BBella think of it too!-Of course I find it incredible! One could almost say that I find it virtually impossible to explain by chance precisely because it is so incredible. As far as the pre-programming goes, I think there may be some pre-programming for the parasitic action itself. Interestingly enough, we see this type of parasitic action more and more, and across multiple species, and the same with the zombie like re-programming. Yet, in each case, the process is done differently, with different chemicals, behaviors, and results. So, same building block but different expression.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: venomous frogs

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 13, 2015, 21:58 (3140 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by dhw, Friday, August 14, 2015, 08:05

In Brazil two types have spikes on their head to deliver the powerful poison to enemies:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/08/06/spiky-skulled-frogs-head-butt-enemies-to-deliver-deadly-toxins/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DSC_News_150813_FInal&utm_content=-"Corythomantis greeningi and Aparasphenodon brunois frogs, native to Brazil, have skin secretions that are more deadly than the venom of pit vipers. A single gram of A. brunois secretions could kill 80 humans. But unlike poisonous amphibians, these frogs have an additional trick up their sleeve: They have spikes growing on their skulls, and when danger is near, they head-butt predators to ensure the toxic payload hits its mark. -" They found that both species use skull spines to pierce their own epidermis to expose spike in areas of the skin packed with poison glands - kind of like retractable claws. For these frogs, the poison glands are concentrated near the nose and lips. So when the frogs are restrained, they release a thick secretion, flex their heads and jab their faces into the skin of their captor."

Natures wonders: Bacteria make amoebas farmers

by David Turell @, Monday, August 24, 2015, 23:27 (3129 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain bacteria when inhabiting amoebas make them into farmers. it is a complex three-way symbiosis:-http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/24/the-bacteria-that-turn-amoebas-into-farmers/ --The amoeba in question is Dictyostelium discoideum, or Dicty to its friends. It mostly lives as a single cell that engulfs and eats bacteria. But when food is scarce, these solitary cells congregate and merge into a many-celled slug. The slug oozes about until it finds a good spot, whereupon it stretches skywards to form a ball at the end of a stalk. The ball is full of spores, which eventually blow off, seeding some far-off (and hopefully more bountiful) area with new amoebas.-Back in 2011, Debra Brock and her colleagues showed that Dicty sometimes packs several species of edible bacteria in its slugs and spores. When the spores land somewhere new, their bacteria cargo multiples, creating a ready supply of food. Brock described these bacteria-carrying amoebas as “farmers”. They lugged their ‘crops' around and ‘planted' them to provide bountiful meals in unfamiliar terrain.- The same team of scientists, led by Joan Strassmann and David Queller at the Washington University in St Louis, have now found that some bacteria can turn Dicty into farmers in the first place!-The team already knew that the farming strains of Dicty carry diverse communities of bacteria. These include species like Klebsiella which serve as food, and other inedible microbes that just go along for the ride. And though these inedible bacteria varied from one amoeba to the next, postdoc Suzanne DiSalvo found that one species—Burkholderia—was universal. It turned up in all the farmers.-Burkholderia has a penchant for symbiosis—that is, for forming associations with other organisms. There are strains that cause opportunistic infections in people, that allow bugs to instantly resist insecticides, that donate antibiotic-producing genes to animals, and that provide various benefits to plants. What do the ones in Dicty do?-DiSalvo eventually figured out that they are largely (maybe even entirely) responsible for Dicty's farming lifestyle. She could turn non-farming amoebas into bacteria-carrying farmers by giving them the right Burkholderia strains. And she could permanently “cure” these farmers of their ability to transport bacteria by treating them with antibiotics. “This was very exciting and amazing,” says Strassmann.-It's not clear how Burkholderia does this, but the fact that the amoebas can't eat it is probably important. “I think the Burkholderia are infecting Dicty and disrupting some process whereby it digests its bacterial food,” DiSalvo speculates. Inadvertently, this also means that Dicty can now carry around other bacteria that it would normally digest. That's the core of its farming behaviour: the ability to harbour microbes without harming them, rather than immediately destroying them for food. Burkholderia, by selfishly protecting itself from digestion, also gives the amoebas the basis of their agriculture.-
These results illustrate one of the most important aspects of symbiosis, and one that is often overlooked: it is contextual. The same microbe can be harmful to its host in one setting but beneficial in another. In one context, it's a parasite; in another, it's a mutualist. “This work highlights the fragility of incipient symbioses,” says John McCutcheon from the University of Montana, who reviewed the paper. “It shows how pathogenic and mutualistic outcomes can teeter along a rather thin edge, tipping one way or the other in a manner dependent on complex environmental factors.”-It's also a great example of how bacteria can directly influence the behaviour of more complex hosts, McCutcheon adds. While many scientists are studying the microbes of the human body, and their effects on our health and behaviour, these studies are almost entirely correlative. That is, they simply compare the microbial communities in different groups of people. But with simple organisms, like Dicty, Strassmann's team isn't so limited. They can do experiments.

Natures wonders: Dung beetle navigation:

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 25, 2015, 18:45 (3129 days ago) @ David Turell

Using sun, moon and polarized light:-http://phys.org/news/2015-08-dung-beetles-celestial-cues-species.html-"Dung beetles quite often are the butt of jokes, collecting as they do, pieces of excrement from other animals, forming it into a ball and then rolling it across the ground to a private destination. But, they have pretty sophisticated navigation skills—they can roll their ball of dung in a straight line, despite uneven terrain, ending up in a spot they pick some distance from where the dung was found. Prior research has shown that the beetles use celestial cues to help keep themselves oriented, but just how they do that has been a mystery—until now.-"In this new effort, the researchers studied specimens from two species of dung beetles, diurnal (those that operate mainly during the day) and nocturnal. They did so by collecting specimens, putting them in an artificial environment where celestial cues could be modified and then watching how the beetles performed—that allowed for identifying which celestial cues were at play. They found that as expected, diurnal beetles depended on the sun's location during the day, and on the moon's location at night. But the nocturnal beetles depended on polarized light from the moon at night and the sun during the day.-"Next, the research group took a closer look by making electrophysiological recordings of the beetles' brain cells as they were exposed to sun and moon light. That showed that the nocturnal species had neurons that would switch between responding to polarized light and light from the sun, whereas the neurons in the brains of the diurnal species switched between responding to light from the sun or the moon.-"The team also theorized that the nocturnal species' navigate at night when there is no polarized light from the moon available, by using light from the Milky Way."

Natures wonders: eels migrate 5,000 kilometers to mate

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 26, 2015, 01:00 (3128 days ago) @ David Turell

A very strange story of speciation and travelling go mate:-http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-solve-riddle-eel-evolution-"The eel's life story is difficult to understand from an evolutionary perspective.-"Take an eel in a Danish stream -- when it is time to mate, they do not choose the easy option and find an eel in the same river to breed with.-"Instead, they embark on a perilous 5,000 kilometre journey to spawn in the Sargasso Sea.-"The same goes for eels from all across Europe, and in this way they comprise a single population of European eels that all go to breed on the other side of the Atlantic.-"After the breeding season is over, the new eel larvae float all the way back to Europe, following the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents. A few years later, they settle in coastal waters, rivers, and lakes. They can be found in Iceland and Norway in the north, all the way down to Morocco in the south, and this epic life cycle begins all over again.-"But the Sargasso Sea is not the reserve of European eels -- American eels also breed there, and the two breeding areas overlap. Sometimes the two species also breed with each other, which has been difficult to explain.-***-"In another study, scientists looked at the genetic differences between American and European eels that could mark them out as two separate species.-"They analysed more than 300,000 genetic markers throughout the entire genome of European and American eels.-"The genomes were virtually the same, except for a couple of differences in a few very specific parts -- those affecting growth and metabolism.-"An illustration to show how the American eels grow (starting at 10 mm and growing up to 45 mm) whilst floating north from their breeding grounds in the Sargasso Sea. (Illustration: Uwe Kils)-"This makes sense, says Hansen, as the American eel only exists as larvae for six to nine months, while the European eel's larval stage can last for a few years.-“'American eel larvae only float with the Gulf Stream 1,500 kilometres to reach the nursery areas along the North American coast. European eels, on the other hand, make a journey of more than 5,000 kilometres,” he says.-***-"Although the American eel and the European eel are two different species, they can still breed with one and other, which they do from time to time.-"Curiously, these offspring do not end up in mainland Europe or North America, but in Iceland where they make up over ten per cent of the Icelandic eel population.-"Hansen and his team believe they know why.-"'We believe that the larval phase of these hybrid offspring is somewhere between that of the European eel and the American eel. They come out of the larval stage as they float along with the Gulf Stream in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. So there is only one place they can settle down and survive, and that is Iceland,” says Hansen."

Natures wonders: the brilliant octopus

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 27, 2015, 01:06 (3127 days ago) @ David Turell

They have half a billion neurons, many in each leg, a big brain, camera eyes and a strangely evolved DNA with 33,000 genes:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150812134251.htm-"While the octopus genome resembles those of other marine invertebrates in many respects, it also revealed unexpected features that are key to understanding the origin and function of its unique nervous system. Cephalopod brains are elaborations of the basic invertebrate brain, and have a completely different organization than what is found in humans and other vertebrates. Cephalopods emerged as predators in the ancient oceans over three hundred million years ago. “They were the first intelligent beings on the planet,” quipped Nobel Laureate Dr. Sydney Brenner, founding President and Distinguished Professor of OIST. Prof. Brenner was fascinated with the great sophistication of their nervous system and initiated the octopus Genome Project as the first of several important genome projects that have become a hallmark of OIST. The complexity of the octopus genome presented a major challenge.-"The octopus genome encodes several large gene families that may hold the key to how the animal wires up its complex brain - these gene families are involved in regulation brain development in other animals, but they are vastly expanded in octopus. Their detailed role, however, remains unknown. Hundreds of other genes that are common in cephalopods but unknown in other animals were also found. Some of these are implicated in the dynamic skin of cephalopods that enables spectacular camouflage. Some of the team's findings raise questions about our understanding of genomic reorganization through evolution.-***
"Besides recognizable genes, vast swathes of the genome consist of regulatory networks that control how genes are expressed in cells. In the octopus, nearly half of the genome was found to be composed of mobile elements called transposons, one of the highest proportions in the animal kingdom. Transposons replicate and move around with a life of their own, disrupting or enhancing gene expression and facilitating reshufflings of gene order. The researchers found many of them to be particularly active in the octopus nervous system.-"Genes that are grouped together on chromosomes in other animals were dispersed in the octopus genome, likely as a result of transposon activity. The “Hox” genes, involved in embryonic development in all animals, are a particularly dramatic example. Although clustered together in most animals, including other mollusks, they are scattered in snippets in the octopus, presumably enabling the evolution of the versatile cephalopod body plan.-***-"As humans, we like to think we are unique in evolutionary terms, but the octopus could reveal that this is not the case. One reason the octopus fascinates scientists is that its brain became organized to be able to carry out such incredible, complex tasks without adopting the principles of the vertebrate brain. Further examination will tell if the building blocks of its nervous system are as radically different from those of vertebrate landlubbers like us, as the octopus's abilities suggest.'

Natures wonders: diet makes queen bees

by David Turell @, Monday, August 31, 2015, 14:15 (3123 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain plant substances in diet suppress genes that make ovaries, limiting the females who become queens:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43864/title/Phytochemical-Helps-Differentiate-Workers-from-Queen-Bees/-"The result supports the idea that consumption of p-coumaric acid, along with other phenolic compounds found in honey and beebread, leads to “a form of chemical castration” of future worker bees, the authors wrote in their report. But p-coumaric acid is probably only part of the caste-determination story, Berenbaum added.-“'Royal jelly is important for producing queens,” she said, “but, apparently, plant products are important for producing workers.'”

Natures wonders: termite mound ventilation system

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 06, 2015, 14:21 (3117 days ago) @ David Turell

Using vertical chimneys and a thin outer layer for the mound whiule utilizing temperature change over 24 hours:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150902155635.htm-"The mounds are built around a large central "chimneys," which reach from gallery -- the underground vault where the bulk of the colony lives -- to the top of the mound. While the interior of the mound features larger, structural walls, the exterior is far thinner, with wall that, while impermeable to wind, do allow for the exchange of gases.-"During the day, Mahadevan explained, as sunlight either directly or indirectly warms the mound's outer walls, the air inside warms, causing it to rise.-"'What you get is a convection cell," Mahadevan explained. "The warm air can't move through the walls quickly enough, but it has to go somewhere, and the only possibility is for it to go down into the interior through the central chimney. At night, as the exterior cools, the airflow reverses, and it pulls the air up from the central part of the mound."-"The end result, Mahadevan said, is that while CO2 concentrations during the day can reach up to four or five percent in the center of the mound, the airflow at night pulls the gas to the exterior walls, where it can escape by diffusing through the wall. "But what's remarkable here is how the termites are using transients. The temperature outside the mound is oscillating, and they have developed a method to harness that to ventilate their mounds." Mahadevan said."

Natures wonders: triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 09, 2015, 14:21 (3114 days ago) @ David Turell

Mealy bugs survive because they have onboard two bacteria, one inside the other, to produce the necessary amino acids to survive and to share genes:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620142954.htm-"Mealybugs only eat plant sap, but sap doesn't contain all the essential amino acids the insects need to survive. Luckily, the bugs have a symbiotic relationship with two species of bacteria -- one living inside the other in a situation unique to known biology -- to manufacture the nutrients sap doesn't provide.-"The net result: The bacteria get a comfy mealybug home, and the bugs get the nutrition they need to live.-"University of Montana microbiologist John McCutcheon describes such mutually beneficial relationships used to solve life's little problems as "almost hilariously complicated. But animal-bacterial relationships are extremely common in nature, and it's my goal in life to help people understand that it's normal."-"McCutcheon and his research partners recently delved deeper into the genes involved in the "tripartite nested mealybug symbiosis," and their work was published in the June 20 issue of Cell, a scientific journal. The researchers discovered the already complex three-way symbiosis actually depends on genes from six different organisms -- three more than the number of species that currently exist in the symbiosis.-"Tremblaya princeps is the larger of the two bacteria species living within special organs inside mealybugs. Tremblaya houses the smaller bacterial species, Moranella endobia, within its cytoplasm. But what makes Tremblaya truly odd is the size of its genome, or genetic code. With only 120 genes, its genome is the smallest known and smaller than many scientists consider necessary for life. By comparison, common E. coli bacteria have about 4,200 genes and humans have about 21,000.-"'We wanted to discover how this genome got so small," McCutcheon said. "We suspected Tremblaya's genome may have gotten smaller by transferring genes to the host animal, which is called horizontal transfer."-"The researchers looked for genes in the mealybug genome that resemble bacteria genes. However, after extensive analysis they only found one weak possibility for horizontal transfer from Tremblaya.-"'Our hypothesis that Tremblaya was transferring genes to the host was dead wrong," said McCutcheon. They did, however, find 22 other bacterial genes mixed in with the mealybug code -- genes that seem to support activities missing in Tremblaya, Moranella and the mealybug.-"'The genes are probably from historical bacterial infections," McCutcheon said. "These bacteria are no longer present in the mealybugs we work with, but their horizontally transferred genes are, and these genes allow the symbiosis to work.'"

Natures wonders: doubly helpful symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, September 21, 2015, 14:07 (3102 days ago) @ David Turell

There are bacteria living in mussels that both feed the mussels and produce toxins that probably protect them from parasites:-http://phys.org/news/2015-09-symbiosis-bacteria-variety-toxins-mussels.html-"Mussels of the genus Bathymodiolus, related to the well-known blue mussel, are among the most dominant inhabitants of hot vents in the deep ocean. In their gills, they house so-called chemoautrotrophic symbionts. These symbionts include sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which convert substances normally not used by the mussels into tasty sugars.-"Jillian Petersen and her colleagues have now taken a closer look at the genes that some of the symbiotic tenants of deep-sea mussels contain in their genomes. To their surprise, what they found was a vast array of hazardous substances. The symbiotic bacteria command an arsenal of genes that are responsible for the production of toxins. The number of toxins is impressive: With up to 60 toxins, the microorganism's arsenal is better stocked than many nasty germs such as those that cause pest and cholera. However, down in the deep sea, the bacteria leave their host unharmed. In fact, they promote the health of their mussel hosts. How is this possible?-"'We suspect that they bacteria have tamed these toxins", explains Petersen. "Thus, they can now take advantage of them for the benefit their host." Two kinds of beneficial effects of the toxins are possible: On the one hand, they might help mussels and bacteria to find and to recognize each other, essential steps to establishing a successful symbiosis. On the other hand, the toxins may help the mussel to defend itself against parasites."-Explanatory just-so story: Humans are loaded with helpful bacterial, and it appears that all organisms have their helpers. One day the bacteria got into some mussels by accident. But they make tasty sugars so they were welcomed. However, incidentally the bacteria carried with them some antibiotic materials to protect themselves, but didn't bother the mussels, just as antibiotics are fine with us. Gradually the bacteria improved their toxins with a mutation or two and led to the current findings. No dabble for God needed.

Natures wonders: Camelion color change

by David Turell @, Monday, September 21, 2015, 18:52 (3102 days ago) @ David Turell

They use skin prisms to break light into various colors:-http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/science/how-do-chameleons-change-color-"When the biologists looked at the chameleon's skin under the microscope, they found that while there were pigments capable of producing some of the warmer tones like the dark greens, there were none to explain the bright reds and yellows seen in those reptiles.Instead they found two layers of cells called iridophores made up of hundreds of thousands of guanine crystals: the first layer showed the crystals in a very ordered, grid-like arrangement while crystals were placed much more at random in the lower layer.The physicists were able to show in a computer simulation that changing the distance between the crystals would effectively act like a prism to reflect different colors of light. When the crystals were close together, they reflected short wavelengths, or blue, light, while the rest of the colors passed through. When the crystals moved farther apart, the longer wavelength or red light was reflected instead. -"These gridded crystals in the chameleons' skin cells thus appear to act as a “selective mirror” to reflect only certain wavelengths of light, thus changing the chameleon's color. These different crystal arrangements could, in theory, also work with the chameleon's pigments to create even more colors, for example, combining a pigmented yellow with a reflected blue to make a bright green.The biologists took this theory beyond the computer simulation by changing the distance between the crystals in skin cells in the lab. Cells dipped in salt water of varying concentrations swelled to varying degrees thus changing the spacing between the crystals. Their lab results reflected the predictions of the simulations.Further bolstering the connection between the crystal spacing and the skin color changes is the fact that the female and young panther chameleons, which are not able to change color, do not have the special iridophore cells.Now what about that second lower layer of cells with bigger, more disorganized crystals? The scientists believe this layer may act to reflect near-infrared light. While reflecting optical light can produce different observed colors, reflecting near-infrared light can act as a cooling mechanism by deflecting the sun's rays."

Natures wonders: Insects pass Turing test

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Monday, September 21, 2015, 21:12 (3101 days ago) @ David Turell

Insects pass "the Turing test"-http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/lmsu-ip092115.php-This is about Turing's mathematical explanation of the design of the tiger's coat and other such natural patterns in terms of diffusion and chemical reactions, but applied to the patterns seen in insect eyes!

--
GPJ

Natures wonders: Insects pass Turing test

by David Turell @, Monday, September 21, 2015, 22:41 (3101 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: Insects pass "the Turing test"
> 
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/lmsu-ip092115.php
> 
> This is about Turing's mathematical explanation of the design of the tiger's coat and other such natural patterns in terms of diffusion and chemical reactions, but applied to the patterns seen in insect eyes!-Thanks for another fascinating entry. The title 'Turing test' here is a misnomer as that refers to computers, but the article shows how much of a genius Turing was!

Natures wonders: Orchid seeks one type of wasp

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 24, 2015, 20:48 (3098 days ago) @ David Turell

This poor orchid exudes a chemical to attract one type of male wasp, and because of habitat mismatch is in trouble:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/sexually-deceptive-orchid/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150923- "You see, this particular orchid species uses a series of chemical and visual cues to deceive males of a specific wasp species (Macrothynnus insignis) into thinking they are visiting a female wasp, not the flowering plant itself. But the orchid, it turns out, doesn't aim to attract just any males. According to the new paper, it's only luring in an unusually small form of M. insignis. DNA tests showed that these smaller wasps are reproductively isolated from the rest of their species, so they breed small and stay small.-"The ranges of the orchid and the small wasps overlap, but not ideally. The small wasps have a larger total range than the orchid does, so they're doing fine. The orchid, however, is suffering from extreme habitat loss and fragmentation due to human development, so it has a much smaller, more restricted range (basically just a few dots on the map of Western Australia). The wasp is not present in much of that territory. That leaves many orchids pining for pollinators they can't find.-***-"Of course this orchid has one additional pollinator waiting in the wings. As the authors wrote, a species called Homo sapiens can—and will probably have to—fill in for the wasps and hand-pollinate the orchids to help prevent their extinction."-Comment: Evolving into too small a niche.

Natures wonders: Rabbitfish partner up

by David Turell @, Monday, September 28, 2015, 15:09 (3095 days ago) @ David Turell

They guard each other while feeding:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150925085344.htm-"New research from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University has found that pairs of rabbitfishes will cooperate and support each other while feeding.-"While such behaviour has been documented for highly social birds and mammals, it has previously been believed to be impossible for fishes.-"'We found that rabbitfish pairs coordinate their vigilance activity quite strictly, thereby providing safety for their foraging partner," says Dr Simon Brandl from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.-"'In other words, one partner stays 'on guard' while the other feeds -- these fishes literally watch each others' back," Dr Brandl says.-"'This behaviour is so far unique among fishes and appears to be based on reciprocal cooperation between pair members."-"Reciprocal cooperation, which requires an investment in a partner, which is later reciprocated, is assumed to require complex cognitive and social skills. Skills that fishes have been deemed not to have.-"Yet, Dr Brandl says their research shows clear coordination and presents intriguing evidence for reciprocal cooperation between the rabbitfish pairs.-"'There has been a long standing debate about whether reciprocal cooperation can exit in animals that lack the highly developed cognitive and social skills found in humans and a few species of birds and primates." Dr Brandl says.-"'By showing that fishes, which are commonly considered to be cold, unsocial, and unintelligent, are capable of negotiating reciprocal cooperative systems, we provide evidence that cooperation may not be as exclusive as previously assumed.'"

Natures wonders: Bat tongue pump

by David Turell @, Monday, September 28, 2015, 18:46 (3095 days ago) @ David Turell

Nectar runs up the tongue in waves:- http://phys.org/news/2015-09-species-tongue-nectar.html-"Intrigued as to how Costa Rican Orange Nectar Bats pull nectar from plants, the team set up a high-speed video camera next to a test tube with a clear liquid meant to serve as nectar and recorded several of them in action. In studying the video, the researchers discovered that the bat lowered its tongue into the liquid and then simply held it there while the liquid miraculously made its way up the tongue and into the mouth. Closer examination showed that the tongue had two grooves (which were open to the air) along its length and that tiny muscles appeared to be undulating along the sides of the groves as the liquid was pulled up—serving as a pumping mechanism of some sort.-"The researchers cannot say for sure what is going on, but suspect two forces are at work: capillary action and muscle force. They believe it is likely the liquid is held in the grooves by capillary action, and that the tiny muscles somehow force the liquid to move upwards, against gravity—sort of like allowing one end of a sponge to rest in water while continuously wringing out the water that is pulled into other parts. The result is an odd, unique and efficient means for drawing nectar from a flower. They note that the unique physiology of the mouth suggests that the bats evolved their way of eating independently of other species."

Natures wonders: Rabbitfish partner up

by dhw, Tuesday, September 29, 2015, 15:19 (3094 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "Reciprocal cooperation, which requires an investment in a partner, which is later reciprocated, is assumed to require complex cognitive and social skills. Skills that fishes have been deemed not to have."-"'By showing that fishes, which are commonly considered to be cold, unsocial, and unintelligent, are capable of negotiating reciprocal cooperative systems, we provide evidence that cooperation may not be as exclusive as previously assumed.'"-As you may know, some people believe that bacteria are also cold, unsocial and unintelligent, without any cognitive social skills. But modern science seems gradually to be dispelling such myths, and who knows, one day we may even come to the conclusion that all those forms of life from which we have evolved have actually passed on many of the characteristics that humans like to imagine are unique to themselves.-I genuinely appreciate the generosity of spirit which motivates your posting of such articles. This is intellectual cooperation at its very best. Thank you.

Natures wonders: Rabbitfish partner up

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 29, 2015, 20:43 (3093 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I genuinely appreciate the generosity of spirit which motivates your posting of such articles. This is intellectual cooperation at its very best. Thank you.-Thank you. I do this to help all of us understand how various characteristics developed during evolution, although you and I may debate just how evolution progresses. Each of us is always free for individual interpretations.

Natures wonders: problems in penguin migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 01, 2015, 18:11 (3092 days ago) @ David Turell

Travelling 4,000 kilometers has problems for young penguins:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44087/title/Ocean-Sentinels/-"Each year around April, as the Southern Hemisphere winter approaches, the Magellanic penguins, also known as Patagonian penguins, leave their breeding grounds in southern Argentina. They migrate northward to wintering grounds in the coastal waters of northern Argentina, Uruguay, and southern Brazil in search of food. (Some southernmost breeders also head along Chile's Pacific shores, but that route is less well studied.) It's a monumental journey: a round-trip of up to 4,000 kilometers that coincides with the seasonal spawning of anchovies, a staple of the penguins' diets. The birds face many challenges along the way, and some run out of strength, winding up on Brazil's beaches in serious need of help.-"Birds like these appear every year, while others continue their travels even farther north. Researchers are still trying to understand exactly why some birds end up farther from home than ever before.-***-“'Most of them are juveniles that we think cannot eat as well as the adults, so they beach,” she says. “And some are caught by nets.” But for the most part, the circumstances that lead to the penguins' arrival on Brazilian beaches are still mysterious.-"Recent years have been tough for Magellanic penguins along the Atlantic coast of South America. In 2008, more than 3,000 birds were found stranded along the coast of Brazil—almost all of them juveniles. Nearly 15 percent of the birds were smothered in oil, and about a third were dead.-"Pablo García Borboroglu, a researcher at Argentina's National Research Council and president of the Global Penguin Society, and collaborators studied what happened with the penguins in 2008 and reported their findings in a 2010 Marine Pollution Bulletin article: the penguins had strayed far north of their normal winter migration path (60:1652-57). A few nearly reached the Equator. Most of the birds that went as far as northern Brazil were juveniles. Many were dehydrated, anemic, hypothermic, and emaciated, García Borboroglu says. He notes one factor that may have contributed to the anomalous migration is that year's unusually cold sea-surface temperatures around the time that the anchovy were spawning, which may have depleted the penguins' key prey base.-***-"P. Dee Boersma, a collaborator of García Borboroglu who heads the University of Washington's Center for Penguins as Ocean Sentinels, says that temperate-zone penguins, even while pairs are incubating eggs and taking turns feeding at sea, are swimming 60 km farther north from their nests than they did a decade ago. This change likely reflects “shifts in prey in response to climate change and reductions in prey abundance caused by commercial fishing,” she says. “These temperate penguin species, marine sentinels for southern oceans, demonstrate that new challenges are confronting their populations.'”-Comment: following shifting food supply. But an amazing journey for swimming birds.

Natures wonders: symbiosis bacteria and bees

by David Turell @, Monday, October 05, 2015, 19:16 (3088 days ago) @ David Turell

the article points out all sorts of relationships like this:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bee-symbiosis-reveals-life-s-deepest-partnerships-q-a/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151005-"In the last few years, you've moved from studying aphids and endosymbionts to bees and their microbes. What inspired the change?
 It's very difficult to perform experiments on endosymbionts because the organisms need them to survive. You can't remove the symbiont and see what happens.-"What drew you to bees?
 Bees are social insects, which gives microbes the opportunity to be transferred from animal to animal. In this way, the bee microbiome is a lot like the human microbiome.-"How can the bee microbiome help us understand the human version?
 Different bee colonies have different strains with different gene collections, just as people have their own unique collection of microbes.-"In human microbiome studies, the links between the microbiome and health are correlative. We rarely have causative data. In bees, we can do more direct experiments. We can do something to the colony and see if it thrives or fails. For example, we isolate pupae in the lab and inoculate the emerging adult bees with specific bacteria. It's a simpler system but still complex.-"What do you hope to learn about bee health?
 Clean bees, those with no microbes, may be worse at dealing with environmental challenges, such as food shortages, stress and pathogens. There's some evidence that certain bacterial strains can protect honeybees against an RNA virus that is the species' most common and deadly pathogen. The virus is widespread in bees, and it kills some colonies but seems innocuous in others. Why? It probably has to do with the microbiome and how resilient the colony is.-"Will your work identify potential causes of colony collapse disorder?
 It's only speculation at this point. But you can imagine that a naturally occurring bee colony has little exposure to other colonies. A microbe will survive only if its host colony survives. But commercial bees are raised closer together than in the wild, so there's more opportunity for microbes to spread among colonies. If you take a lot of colonies and put them a few feet apart, you could create conditions where there's greater advantage [from the microbe's perspective] to invading other colonies rather than relying on a single host. That could select for bacteria that are harmful to the colony — for example those that cause the bees to develop diarrhea and spread the microbe. Modeling studies based on human pathogens suggest that lots of social contact could create more-harmful microbes."-Comment: the human biome is now under intense study. We contain many more bacteria than the sum of our own cells.

Natures wonders: frog skin microbiome

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 11, 2015, 21:54 (3081 days ago) @ David Turell

The population of bacteria living on frog skin protects the skin:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007144842.htm-"However, naturally occurring skin bacteria can respond to infection and adjust structure and function to compensate for it, according to the team.-"'It turned out that in this experiment, it wasn't about a single bacterium being protective, but rather the structure of the whole community was important in infection and frog health," said Jeni Walke, a postdoctoral associate in Biological Sciences at Virginia Tech-***-"For this latest experiment, Belden's team collected bullfrogs from a pond in Giles County, Virginia. About half of the frogs were already infected with the fungus that can cause disease in some amphibian species.-"The team divided them into six experimental groups to explore the infection rate differences between those treated with antibiotics, which reduced the normal bacteria, those treated with an anti-chytrid probiotic bacterium and those not treated at all. These treatments resulted in differences in microbial structure on the frogs' skin, which in turn influenced infection levels and frog growth.-"Because some frogs were infected with the fungus and others weren't, the scientists were also able to demonstrate that the fungus affects the microbial structure of the bacteria living on frog skin.-"In this experiment, it wasn't a single probiotic bacterium that was protective, but rather the structure of the whole community that was important for frog health."-Humans just like all other animals have a helpful biome.

Natures wonders: fruit fly pheromones and odors

by David Turell @, Monday, October 12, 2015, 17:05 (3081 days ago) @ David Turell

Male fruit flies can identify certain food odors and mark the spot with pheromones, hoping to attract females and stat a family in a food rich area:-http://phys.org/news/2015-10-fruit-pheromone-flags-great-real.html-"The team then tested different combinations of flies during the apple cider vinegar phase and the clean air phase, and found that males alone were the ones depositing the pheromone, and that it was attractive to both males and females.-"To learn whether the flies were indeed smelling the pheromone or just tasting it, the researchers used a series of mutant flies that lacked one set of sensory detectors—taste or smell—or the other. It turned out that the fruit flies' aggregation behavior depended on their sense of smell.-"Potter says identifying the specific pheromone itself was "a bit trickier," but the team relied on what was known about pheromones generally and guessed that they could dissolve it off the plates using a solvent called hexane. The researchers then made sure that the hexane wash contained the pheromone by painting an E on the bottom of the enclosure with it and watching the flies' behavior. They then captured on video the flies recreating the E by spending more time along that letter-shaped "paint" than anywhere else in their enclosure.-"Potter says that a recent study showed that male fruit flies make four different airborne pheromones whose chemical makeup dissolves in hexane. To pinpoint which one was responsible for the phenomenon they were seeing, the research team used a technology called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to figure out the molecular makeup of the hexane wash. The result was 9-tricosene, whose fruit fly function was unknown at the time. But when they painted 9-tricosene in an E shape on the enclosure's floor, the flies aggregated in a similarly patterned way to what the researchers had seen with the hexane wash.-"Intrigued by the finding, Potter says, the research team wondered if 9-tricosene could be stimulating more than just fly get-togethers, since other critical behaviors—such as courtship and egg laying—also occur at food sources.-"To find out, the researchers modified their fly enclosure slightly by adding a thin layer of gel to the bottom so that females could lay eggs. After males laid down 9-tricosene in response to food odors, females laid five times more eggs in the same quadrant.-"Further experiments found that 9-tricosene activates the receptor protein Or7a that is found on about 20 olfactory (smell) neurons in the fly's antennae. "The activated receptor sends a signal to the brain, which can trigger behavioral responses," says Potter. "What's interesting is that these olfactory neurons, because of where they are found on the fly's 'nose,' were previously considered unlikely suspects to respond to pheromones, so this finding opens up a whole new set of questions about how animals behave and react to their environments."-Comment: This looks like a learned behaviour that became an instinct. Family planning with food source.

Natures wonders: magnetic field migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 18:27 (3079 days ago) @ David Turell

That is all that is needed for migratory birds to fly home:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/magnetic-field-may-be-a-map-for-migratory-birds/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20151014-"If you're lost, you need a map and a compass. The map pinpoints where you are, and the compass orients you in the right direction. Migratory birds, on the other hand, can traverse entire hemispheres and end up just a couple miles from where they bred last year, using their senses alone. Their compass is the sun, the stars and the Earth's magnetic field. But their map is a little more mysterious. One theory goes that they use olfactory cues—how a place smells. Another is that they rely on their sense of magnetism.-"Researchers in Russia investigated the map issue in a past study by capturing Eurasian reed warblers on the Baltic Sea as they flew northeast towards their breeding grounds near Saint Petersburg. They moved the birds 600 miles east, near Moscow. And the birds just reoriented themselves to the northwest—correctly determining their new position.-"Now the same scientists have repeated that experiment—only this time, they didn't move the birds at all. They just put them in cages that simulated the magnetic field of Moscow, while still allowing the birds to experience the sun, stars and smells of the Baltic. Once again, the birds re-oriented themselves to the northwest—suggesting that the magnetic field alone—regardless of smells or other cues, is enough to alter the birds' mental map."-Comment: And we need GPS!

Natures wonders: ant colony complexity

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 21, 2015, 01:17 (3072 days ago) @ David Turell

The more tunnel connections, the more food they gather:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151020144834.htm-"A UC San Diego study of the underground "architecture" of harvester ant nests has found that the more connected the chambers an ant colony builds near the surface entrance, the faster the ants are able to collect nearby sources of food.-
"The reason is simple: Increased connectivity among chambers leads to more social interactions among the ants within the nest. So when one group of ants within a colony--comprised of individuals working toward a common goal--finds a particularly good source of food, it's able to more quickly communicate that finding to the rest of the colony.-"'The volume of the chambers has little influence on the speed of recruitment, suggesting that the spatial organization of a nest has a greater impact on collective behavior than the number of workers it can hold," said Noa Pinter-Wollman, a biologist at UC San Diego who conducted the study.-***-"Pinter-Wollman said her study was the first to find a link between a "naturally occurring nest architecture and the collective actions of the colony that resides in it." While more interconnected chambers near the entrance to the nest provides an advantage to food recruitment, she noted that there is also a downside to having too many chambers near the surface. Such an architecture could introduce structural instabilities that would cause the chambers to collapse during rains when the ground is softened, she noted.-"'After a prolonged drought like the one we're experiencing in California, severe storms, such as those anticipated later this year, could cause flooding and destroy these upper structures," she said. "It would be interesting to see if, after the predicted El Niño, harvester ants build deeper chambers than they have in previous years.'"-Comment: Great societal cooperation.

Natures wonders: ant colony complexity

by dhw, Wednesday, October 21, 2015, 10:07 (3072 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The more tunnel connections, the more food they gather:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151020144834.htm-QUOTE: "A UC San Diego study of the underground "architecture" of harvester ant nests has found that the more connected the chambers an ant colony builds near the surface entrance, the faster the ants are able to collect nearby sources of food.-DAVID: Great societal cooperation-Indeed, and yet another example of the astonishing intelligence exhibited by these tiny creatures. And perhaps yet another analogy for how cells may cooperate intelligently to create intricate complexities.-QUOTE: 'After a prolonged drought like the one we're experiencing in California, severe storms, such as those anticipated later this year, could cause flooding and destroy these upper structures," she said. "It would be interesting to see if, after the predicted El Niño, harvester ants build deeper chambers than they have in previous years."'-That will be a good test. I predict that they will go deeper, thus illustrating how organisms of all shapes and sizes learn from experience, store information and process it prior to taking their decisions: all characteristics of autonomous intelligence.

Natures wonders: ant colony complexity

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 21, 2015, 14:07 (3072 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Indeed, and yet another example of the astonishing intelligence exhibited by these tiny creatures. And perhaps yet another analogy for how cells may cooperate intelligently to create intricate complexities.-Yes, 'perhaps' an analogy.
> 
> QUOTE: "It would be interesting to see if, after the predicted El Niño, harvester ants build deeper chambers than they have in previous years[/i]."'
> 
> dhw: That will be a good test. I predict that they will go deeper, thus illustrating how organisms of all shapes and sizes learn from experience, store information and process it prior to taking their decisions: all characteristics of autonomous intelligence.-Ants have brains and can learn I'm sure, just as my dog learns. Of course, 'autonomous intelligence'. Does that explain development of instinct?

Natures wonders: ant colony complexity

by dhw, Thursday, October 22, 2015, 10:30 (3071 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "It would be interesting to see if, after the predicted El Niño, harvester ants build deeper chambers than they have in previous years."'-dhw: That will be a good test. I predict that they will go deeper, thus illustrating how organisms of all shapes and sizes learn from experience, store information and process it prior to taking their decisions: all characteristics of autonomous intelligence.-DAVID: Ants have brains and can learn I'm sure, just as my dog learns. Of course, 'autonomous intelligence'. Does that explain development of instinct?
-When does learned behaviour become instinct? Once behaviour is established as beneficial, no doubt it does become instinctive, but instinct gives way to learning when there are problems to be solved or new opportunities to be exploited. This ability to absorb and process new information, and adjust behaviour accordingly (possibly even to the extent of inventing new behaviours that lead to new structures), may well extend from ourselves right down to the molecular level. This is in line with the ideas of thinkers such as Shapiro, Talbott and Barham among many others, though alas they do not include Dr. D. Turell!

Natures wonders: electric eels special sense

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 22, 2015, 13:43 (3071 days ago) @ dhw

They strike with high voltage and then have an 'electrosense' to capture the prey:-http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151020/ncomms9638/full/ncomms9638.html-"Electric eels (Electrophorus electricus) are legendary for their ability to incapacitate fish, humans, and horses with hundreds of volts of electricity. The function of this output as a weapon has been obvious for centuries but its potential role for electroreception has been overlooked. Here it is shown that electric eels use high-voltage simultaneously as a weapon and for precise and rapid electrolocation of fast-moving prey and conductors. Their speed, accuracy, and high-frequency pulse rate are reminiscent of bats using a ‘terminal feeding buzz' to track insects. Eel's exhibit ‘sensory conflict' when mechanosensory and electrosensory cues are separated, striking first toward mechanosensory cues and later toward conductors. Strikes initiated in the absence of conductors are aborted. In addition to providing new insights into the evolution of strongly electric fish and showing electric eels to be far more sophisticated than previously described, these findings reveal a trait with markedly dichotomous functions.-"High-voltage onset and head translation toward a water disturbance likely allows the eel to ‘acquire' the conductive prey with its longer range, high-temporal resolution electrosensory system. This suggestion is supported by the artificial separation of mechanosensory and conductance cues during experiments (Fig. 2). Eels started towards the water movement, but used active electrosensory feedback to guide the final strike towards the conductor. Although the separation of cues was artificial in the laboratory, a water movement cue in nature could emanate most strongly from the former position of an escaping fish27 making electrolocation the most accurate sensory modality for guiding pursuit. And unlike mechanoreception, active electroreception is presumably unaffected by the eel's own movement through the water. Finally, the ability to simultaneously immobilize and track prey with high voltage is an unusual combination of dichotomous functions. These results cast the electric eel in a new light, as both a formidable predator and unique sensory specialist."-Comment: Like Darwin, I wonder how this evolved.

Natures wonders: electric eels jump out of water

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 07, 2016, 14:34 (2842 days ago) @ David Turell

They can jump out of water to give a Taser-like jolt: - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/science/like-a-slimy-taser-electric-eels-can-leap-out... - "In 2014, he reported on how the eels freeze their prey. They use rapid pulses of more than 600 volts generated by modified muscle cells and sent through the water. These volleys of shocks cause the muscles of prey to tense at once, stopping all movement. The eels' bodies function like Tasers, Dr. Catania wrote. - *** - "But they can also project high-voltage pulses in the water in isolated couplets rather than full volleys for a different effect. The pairs of shocks don't freeze the prey, but cause their bodies to twitch. That movement reveals the prey's location, and then the eels send out a rapid volley to immobilize then swallow it. - "Dr. Catania noticed another kind of behavior, however. He was using a metal-handled net — wearing rubber gloves — while working with eels in an aquarium, and the eels would fling themselves up the handle of the net, pressing themselves to the metal and generating rapid electric shocks. - "This reminded him of von Humboldt's tale, and he ran some experiments. A partly submerged metal rod, like the leg of a horse in the water, or a metal-handled net, or a hand in the water, can act as a conductor. - "The eels attacked all of the above, pressing what you could generously call their chins against the invader, much as Humboldt described them doing with horses. - "Except that they actually climbed up the offending limb or rod, raising their bodies almost completely out of the water, behavior not included in Humboldt's description. - *** - "He thinks that the leaping, high-voltage attack probably is defensive, and has nothing to do with hunting. The eels eat what they can swallow whole, and do not bite or chew. So, they couldn't eat the kind of large mammal that might be willing to risk a shock from the eels to hunt them. - "The eels' usual hunting method of electrifying the water around them works if the prey is completely submerged. But if a land animal that was hunting the eels put only a paw in the water, it might be able to tolerate the electricity." - Comment: One wonders how the eels developed this electrical power. This is a demonstration of inventiveness or complexification in evolution. Life uses ions which create electrical charges that can run along nerves with great speed, but how does this concentration of power happen?

Natures wonders: ant colony complexity

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 22, 2015, 14:14 (3071 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: When does learned behaviour become instinct? Once behaviour is established as beneficial, no doubt it does become instinctive, but instinct gives way to learning when there are problems to be solved or new opportunities to be exploited. This ability to absorb and process new information, and adjust behaviour accordingly (possibly even to the extent of inventing new behaviours that lead to new structures), may well extend from ourselves right down to the molecular level. This is in line with the ideas of thinkers such as Shapiro, Talbott and Barham among many others, though alas they do not include Dr. D. Turell!-Still 50/50. Just as likely I am right and lots of folks agree with me. I know how automatic my cells are in my human body.

Natures wonders: American eels migrate to mate

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 00:28 (3065 days ago) @ David Turell

About 2,400 km to the Sargasso Sea:-http://phys.org/news/2015-10-year-old-mystery-adult-eel-sargasso.html-After more than a century of speculation, researchers have finally proved that American eels really do migrate to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce. A team supervised by Professor Julian Dodson of Université Laval and Martin Castonguay of Fisheries and Oceans Canada reports having established the migratory route of this species by tracking 28 eels fitted with satellite transmitters. One of these fish reached the northern boundary of the Sargasso Sea, the presumed reproduction site for the species, after a 2,400 km journey. -***-Analysis of the data revealed that all the eels adopted similar migratory paths and patterns. Near the coastline they appear to use the salinity level and temperature to find the high seas. A single eel provided data for the ocean segment of the migration. Its transmitter showed that it turned due south upon reaching the edge of the continental shelf, and headed straight to the Sargasso Sea. In 45 days, this eel captured in the province of Quebec covered 2400 km. "This points to the existence of a navigation mechanism probably based on magnetic field detection," asserted Professor Dodson-Comment: It seems everyone uses the magnetic field. A pattern?

Natures wonders: helpful fish distress call

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 14:08 (3065 days ago) @ David Turell

Damsel fish release a chemical when in distress that helps save them:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151027213415.htm-"When damselfish release their chemical alarm on a coral reef, lots of additional predators are attracted to the cue release area," says Professor McCormick.-"'More predators would seem to mean more trouble, but we discovered that additional predators interfere with the initial predation event, allowing the prey a greater chance to escape."-"The research team found the new predators would attempt to steal the prey, and in the ensuing commotion the captured damselfish had a greater chance to break free and hide.-"'When caught by a predator, small damselfish have almost no chance of escaping their fate as the predator's next meal. However, when another fish predator is attracted to the capture site, prey will escape about 40 percent of the time," says Professor McCormick.-"Dr Lönnstedt says this proves that chemical alarm cues benefit the sender by giving it a much greater chance of not ending up as dinner.-"'These findings are the first to demonstrate an evolutionary mechanism by which fish may benefit from the production and release of chemical alarm cues, and highlight the complex and important role chemical cues play in predator-prey interactions on coral reefs." Dr. Lönnstedt says.-"'It all goes to show that coral reef fish have evolved quite a range of clever strategies for survival which are deployed when a threatening situation demands.'"-Comment: A very common strategy with animals and also plants.

Natures wonders: monarch caterpillars store toxins

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 05, 2015, 14:46 (3057 days ago) @ David Turell

From the milkweed, they pick up poisonous compounds to ward off predators but the toxins are harmless to them:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44410/title/Butterflies-Weaponize-Milkweed-Toxins/ -"Monarch butterfly caterpillars have evolved the ability to store toxins known as cardenolides, obtained from their milkweed diet, specifically to make themselves poisonous to birds, as has at least one other species of milkweed-munching caterpillar, according to a study published Wednesday (November 4) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.-***-"If the cardenolide-resistant enzymes don't help the caterpillars eat more milkweed, Agrawal and Petschenka reasoned, they must exist for another reason, such as predator defense. The researchers measured levels of cardenolides in the bodies of the three caterpillar species and found that, while common crows don't store any, both monarchs and queens store the toxic compounds, with monarchs storing concentrations about twice as high as queens. Such storage turns these species into poisonous prey, effectively warding off birds and other predators."-Comment: From an evolutionary standpoint, the caterpillars had to first develop enzymes to protect themselves, then the defense mechanism could work. These are multiple complex steps, accomplished stepwise, but how? You know my answer.

Natures wonders: lichens mine rock

by David Turell @, Friday, November 06, 2015, 00:45 (3056 days ago) @ David Turell

As they break down rock, they become a very important part of the balance of nature:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/the-world-s-largest-mining-operation-is-run-by-fungi/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151105-"But why would a fungus tunnel into a rock? There's no food there, and it no doubt takes a sizeable capital investment to assemble and secrete the acids necessary to eat raw rock.-"There is a precedent: lichens. The crusty creatures, a combination of fungi, algae, and attendant bacteria/archaea, are the first and last word in Earth-based rock colonization. Wherever naked stone is found, lichens will be there.-***-"The fungal half of lichens are the drilling specialists, excreting acids that break down rock and enable the fungus to get a hypha-hold in micro-trenches, cracks, and etch pits (small lens-shaped cavities formed by the action of water). The acids are derived from the food that the algae provide to the fungus.-***
"Scientists have long known that mycorrhizal fungi - those that live symbiotically in and on the roots of plants - trade minerals and water they absorb from the soil for food that plants manufacture from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water.-***-"Taken together, these traits mean fungi can probe and penetrate crevices that roots and root hairs cannot. Thus by partnering with fungi, trees can make use of a much larger soil volume than roots alone could do, and can consequently absorb more water and nutrients than trees without fungal partners.-"Ectomycorrhizal fungi hold up their end of the deal by secreting acids that dissolve mineral particles from a distance. Via special digestive proteins called enzymes, they can also access organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous in the soil (like amino acids, peptides, proteins, amino sugars, chitin, and nucleic acids) that plants wouldn't otherwise be able to exploit. But there is a lot of other competition in the soil for these nutrients -- from other fungi, from bacteria, and from protists.-***-"Fungal mining has many advantages. Some feldspars contain pockets of apatite, a major source of phosphorous in forests. By excavating these otherwise locked nutrient chambers, fungi are able to access a phosphorous source that would be unavailable to plant roots alone.-"Fungal tunnels and the acids used to make them also speed up mineral decay and increase mineral surface area available directly to plant roots. Futher, fungal mining cuts off competition from other soil microbes for nutrients by accessing minerals in seclusion directly at the source. And it provides trees access to minerals even in acidified soil (the product of decades of acid rain), which can make grabbing them straight from the soil more difficult chemically.-Comment: How did all these guys get together to develop this complex balance of nature which makes soil from rock and helps with nutrition in so many ways? Not chance. Remember all land on Earth started as rock. Soil came later. Looks like god planning to me.

Natures wonders: lichens triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, July 25, 2016, 15:30 (2794 days ago) @ David Turell

Lichens are fungus/algae combinations which break down rock, making soil, vital for development of a habitable Earth. Now it is learned they can have three partners:-http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/how-a-guy-from-a-montana-trailer-park-upturned-150-years-of-biology/491702/-"Lichens have an important place in biology. In the 1860s, scientists thought that they were plants. But in 1868, a Swiss botanist named Simon Schwendener revealed that they're composite organisms, consisting of fungi that live in partnership with microscopic algae. This “dual hypothesis” was met with indignation: it went against the impetus to put living things in clear and discrete buckets. The backlash only collapsed when Schwendener and others, with good microscopes and careful hands, managed to tease the two partners apart.-***-"In the 150 years since Schwendener, biologists have tried in vain to grow lichens in laboratories. Whenever they artificially united the fungus and the alga, the two partners would never fully recreate their natural structures. It was as if something was missing—and Spribille might have discovered it.-"He has shown that largest and most species-rich group of lichens are not alliances between two organisms, as every scientist since Schwendener has claimed. Instead, they're alliances between three. All this time, a second type of fungus has been hiding in plain view. -***-"Throughout his career, Spribille had collected some 45,000 samples of lichens. He began screening these, from many different lineages and continents. And in almost all the macrolichens—the world's most species-rich group—he found the genes of basidiomycete fungi. They were everywhere. Now, he needed to see them with his own eyes.-"Down a microscope, a lichen looks like a loaf of ciabatta: it has a stiff, dense crust surrounding a spongy, loose interior. The alga is embedded in the thick crust. The familiar ascomycete fungus is there too, but it branches inwards, creating the spongy interior. And the basidiomycetes? They're in the outermost part of the crust, surrounding the other two partners. “They're everywhere in that outer layer,” says Spribille.-"Despite their seemingly obvious location, it took around five years to find them. They're embedded in a matrix of sugars, as if someone had plastered over them. To see them, Spribille bought laundry detergent from Wal-Mart and used it to very carefully strip that matrix away.-"And even when the basidiomycetes were exposed, they weren't easy to identify. They look exactly like a cross-section from one of the ascomycete branches. Unless you know what you're looking for, there's no reason why you'd think there are two fungi there, rather than one—which is why no one realised for 150 years. Spribille only worked out what was happening by labeling each of the three partners with different fluorescent molecules, which glowed red, green, and blue respectively. Only then did the trinity become clear.-“'The findings overthrow the two-organism paradigm,” says Sarah Watkinson from the University of Oxford. “Textbook definitions of lichens may have to be revised.”-"It makes lichens all the more remarkable,” adds Nick Talbot from the University of Exeter. “We now see that they require two different kinds of fungi and an algal species. If the right combination meet together on a rock or twig, then a lichen will form, and this will result in the large and complex plant-like organisms that we see on trees and rocks very commonly. The mechanism by which this symbiotic association occurs is completely unknown and remains a real mystery.”-"Based on the locations of the two fungi, it's possible that the basidiomycete influences the growth of the other fungus, inducing it to create the lichen's stiff crust. Perhaps by using all three partners, lichenologists will finally be able to grow these organisms in the lab."-Comment: An amazing advance. Lichens are absolutely necessary for life on Earth, which started as a totally rocky planet, without soil. Take a hike along a rocky trial and you will see them as blotchy colored matches on rocks, like lava or granite. How did three separate organisms join together to produce this result, chance or purposeful by God?

Natures wonders: lichens triple maybe quadruple partners

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 00:05 (1886 days ago) @ David Turell

There may or may not be complete symbiosis. There may be three or more partners that must be an algae and some fungi:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/how-lichens-explain-and-re-explain-...

"Lichens can be found growing on bark, rocks, or walls; in woodlands, deserts, or tundra; as coralline branches, tiny cups, or leaflike fronds. They look like plants or fungi, and for the longest time, biologists thought that they were. But 150 years ago, a Swiss botanist named Simon Schwendener suggested the radical hypothesis that lichens are composite organisms—fungi, living together with microscopic algae.

" The very notion of different organisms living so closely with—or within—each other was unheard of. That they should coexist to their mutual benefit was more ludicrous still. This was a mere decade after Charles Darwin had published his masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, and many biologists were gripped by the idea of nature as a gladiatorial arena, shaped by conflict. Against this zeitgeist, the concept of cohabiting, cooperative organisms found little purchase. Lichenologists spent decades rejecting and ridiculing Schwendener’s “dual hypothesis.” And he himself wrongly argued that the fungus enslaved or imprisoned the alga, robbing it of nutrients. As others later showed, that’s not the case: Both partners provide nutrients to each other. (my bold)

***

"But without its alga, a lichen-forming fungus bears no likeness to a lichen. It’s an entirely different entity. The lichen is an organism created by symbiosis. It forms only when its two partners meet.

" But in 2016, Spribille and his colleague Veera Tuovinen, of Uppsala University, found that the largest and most species-rich group of lichens harbored a second fungus, from a very different group called Cyphobasidium. (For simplicity, I’ll call the two fungi ascos and cyphos).

" “The findings overthrow the two-organism paradigm,” Sarah Watkinson of the University of Oxford told me at the time. “Textbook definitions of lichens may have to be revised.” But some lichenologists objected to that framing, arguing that they’d known since the late 1800s that other fungi were present within lichens. That’s true, Spribille countered, but those fungi had been described in terms that portrayed them as secondary to the main asco-alga symbiosis. To him, it seemed more that the lichens he studied have three core partners.

"But that might not be the whole story, either.

"Look on the bark of conifers in the Pacific Northwest, and you will quickly spot wolf lichens—tennis-ball green and highly branched, like some discarded alien nervous system. When Tuovinen looked at these under a microscope, she found a group of fungal cells that were neither ascos nor cyphos. The lichens’ DNA told a similar story: There were fungal genes that didn’t belong to either of the two expected groups. Wolf lichens, it turns out, contain yet another fungus, known as Tremella. (I've reported this discovery before)

***

"It’s an exciting discovery, says Erin Tripp, a lichenologist from the University of Colorado Boulder, but it’s still unclear what Tremella is actually doing. Most likely, she argues, it’s an infection, albeit a very widespread one. The alternative is that Tremella is a core part of the lichen. “This would, of course, be very exciting,” Tripp says, but to demonstrate that, the team would need to try to reconstitute wolf lichens with or without Tremella or, alternatively, use gene-editing techniques to disable the fungus and check how the lichens respond. “Without this sort of experimental approach, it seems premature to suggest that Tremella represents a third, fourth, or whatever-th symbiont.”

***

“'Language matters a lot when dealing with these organisms,” Spribille, now at the University of Alberta, adds. “If we set up our language so that our definition of a lichen is fixed, and these other elements are extrinsic, we’re setting ourselves up to find that they’re extrinsic.” He thinks that researchers should move away from “the imperative of classification” and the compulsion to shoehorn organisms into fixed buckets. He suspects that the relationships between all the components of a lichen are probably highly contextual—beneficial in some settings, neutral or harmful in others.

"That’s a lesson other scholars of symbiosis should also heed. There’s a tendency to categorize the bacteria within an animal’s microbiome as good or bad, as beneficial mutualists or harmful pathogens. But such labels imply an inherent nature that likely doesn’t exist. The same microbes can be benign or malign in different contexts, or perhaps even at the same time. Biology is messy—as are lichens."

Comment: The major point of this article is that Darwin championed the idea of evolution through conflict, struggle, and the ability to survive. The point of the article is that much of life shows cooperation and that conflict may not be that important. Evolution can certainly mean each step is designed for survival as obviously must happen or there would be no evolution. Viewed this way, since there is no proof survival is the driving force, it must be taken as a weak argument. And puts natural selection as a concept in a tenuous position. It can only exert its influence on what is presented by evolving forms. Like survival, it cannot be seen as driving evolution.

Natures wonders: magnetic field migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 17, 2015, 15:25 (3045 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, November 17, 2015, 15:36

A new protein complex which aligns with the magnetic field is found:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44478/title/Biological-Compass/-"A variety of different animal species possess remarkable navigational abilities, using the Earth's magnetic field to migrate thousands of miles every year or find their way home with minimal or no visual cues. But the biological mechanisms that underlie this magnetic sense have long been shrouded in mystery. Researchers in China may have found a tantalizing clue to the navigational phenomenon buried deep in the fruit fly genome. The team, led by biophysicist Can Xie of Peking University, discovered a polymer-like protein, dubbed MagR, and determined that it forms a complex with a photosensitive protein called Cry. The MagR/Cry protein complex, the researchers found, has a permanent magnetic moment, which means that it spontaneously aligns in the direction of external magnetic fields. -
“'This is the only known protein complex that has a permanent magnetic moment,” said Peter Hore, a physical chemist at the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the research. “It's a remarkable discovery.”
 (my bold)-"Determining that MagR and Cry were highly expressed and colocalized in the retinas of pigeons, Xie's team focused on that species to conduct further experiments to ferret out the structure and behavior of the protein complex. Using biochemical co-purification, electron microscopy, and cellular experiments in the presence of a magnetic field, the researchers constructed a rod-shaped model of the MagR/Cry complex, and suggested a potential mechanism for how the complex might work in situ to sense magnetism. “It is quite convincing that this complex may be the magnetoreceptor, at least for the organism they have fished it out from,” Chou said. “I think it's a great step forward to open this whole mystery.”-"Cry likely regulates the magnetic moment of the rod-shaped complex, while the iron-sulfur clusters in the MagR protein are probably what give rise to the permanent magnetic polarity of the structure. “The nanoscale biocompass has the tendency to align itself along geomagnetic field lines, and to obtain navigation cues from a geomagnetic field,” Xie wrote. “We propose that any disturbance of this alignment may be captured by connected cellular machinery such as the cytoskeleton or ion channels, which would channel information to the downstream neural system, forming the animal's magnetic sense (or magnetic ‘vision').”-"Hore was cautious about saying that the newly modeled complex is absolutely responsible for magnetoreception in animals. “I don't think I would say that its game-changing, but it is very interesting and will prompt a lot of experimental and theoretical work,” he said. “It may be very relevant to magnetoreception, it's just too soon to know.'”-From Phys. Org.:-"The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not prove that the protein complex is responsible for magnetic sensing, but suggest it seems possible—if the protein complex lined up inside the eye of a pigeon, for example, it could cause a reaction with other proteins or even cells, that in turn could impact nerve cells. They note that the protein complex exists in many organisms that have demonstrated magnetic sensing, including in the eyes of pigeons—they are calling on the research community to conduct other studies to determine if removing the complex from magnetic sensing insects or animals, causes them to lose their magnetic sensing abilities, which could indirectly prove that they form the basis for the ability. If such efforts prove fruitful, then the next logical step would be to study the complex further as it exists inside living animals to determine exactly how it works." 
 
Comment: My bolded section is an excellent example of specified complexity. How did the process of chance evolution search and find such a molecule to use this way?

Natures wonders: fish invisibility cloak

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 21, 2015, 18:22 (3041 days ago) @ David Turell

Shades of Harry Potter. Fish can turn invisible with 'platelets' in their skin polarizing light:-http://phys.org/news/2015-11-scientists-camouflage-mechanism-fish-ocean.html-"In a paper published this week in Science, a team led by researchers at The University of Texas at Austin reports that certain fish use microscopic structures called platelets in their skin cells to reflect polarized light, which allows the fish to seemingly disappear from their predators.-"Polarized light is made up of light waves all traveling in the same plane, such as the bright glare you sometimes see when sunlight reflects off the surface of water.-"Under the surface of the water, light tends to be polarized. Many fish—and sophisticated modern satellites—have the ability to detect variations in such polarized light.-***-"'I think it's a great example of how human applications can take advantage of evolutionary solutions and the value of evolutionary biology," said Cummings. "It's important for people to recognize that we take advantage of evolutionary processes and solutions all the time and that even our military does.'"- "Many fish that live in the open ocean are silvery, which allows them to reflect light as a mirror does. For many years, experts assumed this was the main means of camouflage among such fish, but this camouflage approach works well only if the surrounding water appears uniform, as it does to human eyes. Polarized light turns out to be an important component of the underwater light field, and it is not uniform but instead highly variable. Using mirrors for camouflage in such an environment can actually backfire and make it easier to stand out in the open ocean."-Comment: One of nature's clever tricks, and is a good example of our use of bio- mimicry when our navy uses it.

Natures wonders: waterbears dry survival

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 18:39 (3038 days ago) @ David Turell

These tiny animals dry themselves out to survive almost everywhere:-http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/tardigrades-worlds-toughest-animals-borrowed-a-sixth-of-their-dna-from-microbes/417243/-"The toughest animals in the world aren't bulky elephants, or cold-tolerant penguins, or even the famously durable cockroach. Instead, the champions of durability are endearing microscopic creatures called tardigrades, or water bears.-"They live everywhere, from the tallest mountains to the deepest oceans, and from hot springs to Antarctic ice. They can even tolerate New York. They cope with these inhospitable environments by transforming into a nigh-indestructible state. Their adorable shuffling gaits cease. Their eight legs curl inwards. Their rotund bodies shrivel up, expelling almost all of their water and becoming a dried barrel called a “tun.” Their metabolism dwindles to near-nothingness—they are practically dead. And in skirting the edge of death, they become incredibly hard to kill.-"In the tun state, tardigrades don't need food or water. They can shrug off temperatures close to absolute zero and as high as 151 degrees Celsius. They can withstand the intense pressures of the deep ocean, doses of radiation that would kill other animals, and baths of toxic solvents. And they are, to date, the only animals that have been exposed to the naked vacuum of space and lived to tell the tale—or, at least, lay viable eggs.-***-"But Boothby found that foreign genes make up 17.5 percent of the tardigrade's genome—a full sixth. More than 90 percent of these come from bacteria, but others come from archaea (a distinct group of microbes), fungi, and even plants. “The number of them is pretty staggering,” he says.-***-"Do these genes do anything? So far, the team have found that the tardigrades switch on several of their borrowed genes, which, in other organisms, are involved in coping with stressful environments. That's pretty tantalizing: It suggests that these animals might owe at least part of their legendary durability to genetic donations from bacteria."-Comment: Interesting horizontal gene transfer. Another inventive mechanism? Further reading:-http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n8/abs/nrg3962.html

Natures wonders: nitrogen cycle mechanism

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 26, 2015, 00:22 (3036 days ago) @ David Turell

An organism uses very toxic hydrazine to help the process of the nitrogen cycle which is a key part of providing nitrogen for plants and animals:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/rocket_science_1101091.html-"Anammox, an abbreviation for ANaerobic AMMonium OXidation, is a globally important microbial process of the nitrogen cycle. The bacteria mediating this process were identified in 1999, and at the time were a great surprise for the scientific community. It takes place in many natural environments.-***-"Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) has a major role in the Earth's nitrogen cycle and is used in energy-efficient wastewater treatment. This bacterial process combines nitrite and ammonium to form dinitrogen (N2) gas, and has been estimated to synthesize up to 50% of the dinitrogen gas emitted into our atmosphere from the oceans. Strikingly, the anammox process relies on the highly unusual, extremely reactive intermediate hydrazine, a compound also used as a rocket fuel because of its high reducing power. So far, the enzymatic mechanism by which hydrazine is synthesized is unknown.-***-"Dinitrogen gas (N2) is a tough nut to crack. The atoms pair up with a triple bond, very difficult for humans to break without a lot of heat and pressure. Fortunately, this makes it very inert for the atmosphere, but life needs to get at it to make amino acids, muscles, organs, and more. Nitrogenase enzymes in some microbes, such as soil bacteria, are able break apart the atoms at ambient temperatures (a secret agricultural chemists would love to learn). They then "fix" nitrogen into compounds such as ammonia (NH3) that can be utilized by plants and the animals that eat them. To have a nitrogen cycle, though, something has to return the N2 gas back to the atmosphere. That's the job of anammox bacteria.-***
"Most nitrogen on earth occurs as gaseous N2 (nitrogen oxidation number 0). To make nitrogen available for biochemical reactions, the inert N2 has to be converted to ammonia (oxidation number ?III), which can then be assimilated to produce organic nitrogen compounds, or be oxidized to nitrite (oxidation number +III) or nitrate (+V). The reduction of nitrite in turn results in the regeneration of N2, thus closing the biological nitrogen cycle.-***-"What does the anammox enzyme look like? They say it has tunnels between the active sites. The "hydrazine synthase" module is "biochemically unique." Don't look for a common ancestor, in other words. It's part of a "tightly coupled multicomponent system" they determined when they lysed a cell and watched its reactivity plummet. Sounds like an irreducibly complex system.-"The paper's diagrams of hydrazine synthase (HZS) show multiple protein domains joined in a "crescent-shaped dimer of heterotrimers" labeled alpha, beta, and gamma, constituted in pairs. The machine also contains multiple haem units (like those in hemoglobin, but unique) and "one zinc ion, as well as several calcium ions." Good thing those atoms are available in Earth's crust.-"Part of the machine looks like a six-bladed propeller. Another part has seven blades. How does it work? Everything is coordinated to carefully transfer electrons around. This means that charge distributions are highly controlled for redox (reduction-oxidation) reactions (i.e., those that receive or donate electrons).-***-"So here's something you can meditate on when you take in another breath. The nitrogen gas that comes into your lungs is a byproduct of an exquisitely designed, precision nanomachine that knows a lot about organic redox chemistry and safe handling of rocket fuel. This little machine, which also knows how to recycle and reuse all its parts in a sustainable "green" way, keeps the nitrogen in balance for the whole planet."-Comment: Remember the bombardier beetle and how it handle the toxic stuff it made. This bug's machine is also irreducibly complex.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 06:19 (3030 days ago) @ David Turell

Reduce the electric current you produce and sharks won't sense it:-http://phys.org/news/2015-12-camouflaged-cuttlefish-electrical-stealth.html-One of the cuttlefish's major predators, the shark, has eyes on the side of its head, making it effectively blind straight ahead and near the front of the mouth. So the shark relies instead on a snout studded with sensitive detectors of faint electrical fields to get the meat in the maw.-Consequently, the common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) has figured out a stealth technology to protect itself in the electrical spectrum, according to Christine Bedore, an assistant professor of biology at Georgia Southern University who studied the phenomenon as a post-doctoral researcher in the Sönke Johnsen lab at Duke University.-Sharks can sense a faint current emanating from the tube-like siphons on either side of the cuttlefish's head, the vent where it excretes, and the gap around its mantle.-These "bioelectric fields" aren't anything like the 500 volts an electric eel produces. They're just a tiny electrical artifact of the ion exchanges caused by the animal's metabolic processes, like respiration. Still, Bedore's experiments showed the sharks will bite when they sense these subtle fields.-A common cuttlefish at rest has a bioelectric potential of 10-30 microvolts, Bedore found. That's about 75,000 times weaker than an AAA battery. But when the animal freezes in place, slows its ventilation, throws its arms around to cover the siphons and clamps down on its mantle, the current drops to about 6 microvolts.-***-Bedore measured these tiny electrical fields as captive-reared cuttlefish rested comfortably in a tank, and then as they responded to videos from an iPad next to the tank that depicted the dark and growing silhouettes of an approaching grouper, shark or crab.-For the fish and the shark, the cuttlefish froze, covered body openings with their arms and slowing breathing. The crab silhouette inspired no such response.-***-Comment: IT the cuttle fish really 'knew' what attracted the shark, that would explain the response, but did the cuttle fish really 'know' that. Either the cuttle fish figured it out, or if they used trial and error they shouldn't be a species any more. dhw?

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 18:11 (3030 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Reduce the electric current you produce and sharks won't sense it:
-http://phys.org/news/2015-12-camouflaged-cuttlefish-electrical-stealth.html-QUOTE: Consequently, the common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) has figured out a stealth technology to protect itself in the electrical spectrum, -David's comment: IF the cuttle fish really 'knew' what attracted the shark, that would explain the response, but did the cuttle fish really 'know' that. Either the cuttle fish figured it out, or if they used trial and error they shouldn't be a species any more. dhw?-The author says “figured out”. Your view of evolution suffers from your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that organisms to which you cannot relate might be individual beings and not just a bunch of automatons. There is no reason at all why hundreds of cuttle fish might not have died trying to “figure out” a means of protecting themselves. But Kevin and Kitty Cuttle were the geniuses who finally cracked the puzzle, and once it's cracked, everybody knows what to do. So there can be “figured out” AND “trial and error”, and so long as SOMEBODY figures it out, the species will survive. No less likely a hypothesis than God preprogramming the first cells with cuttle-fish protection equipment to be passed on a couple of thousand million years later, or personally giving them lessons, when all he really wanted to do was produce humans.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 21:37 (3029 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: There is no reason at all why hundreds of cuttle fish might not have died trying to “figure out” a means of protecting themselves. But Kevin and Kitty Cuttle were the geniuses who finally cracked the puzzle, and once it's cracked, everybody knows what to do. So there can be “figured out” AND “trial and error”, and so long as SOMEBODY figures it out, the species will survive. -That is a big 'if'. How do the survivors, Kevin and Kitty, tell the others about their feat? Tell me about cuttlefish communication.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Thursday, December 03, 2015, 18:03 (3029 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no reason at all why hundreds of cuttlefish might not have died trying to “figure out” a means of protecting themselves. But Kevin and Kitty Cuttle were the geniuses who finally cracked the puzzle, and once it's cracked, everybody knows what to do. So there can be “figured out” AND “trial and error”, and so long as SOMEBODY figures it out, the species will survive. -DAVID: That is a big 'if'. How do the survivors, Kevin and Kitty, tell the others about their feat? Tell me about cuttlefish communication.-Well, you've got me there. Here is my confession: although it has always been my life's ambition to study cuttlefish, I've been so damn busy bringing up a family, teaching at university, writing books and plays, translating hundreds of texts, discussing profound subjects with clever people on the Agnostic website, and in the last two years learning to cater for myself, that I've never quite got round to it. However, I know from various articles posted by a dear friend of mine that animals, birds, reptiles, insects, plants and even bacteria have their own means of communication, which scientists have described in great detail. So I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and make a remarkably daring prediction: that one day scientists will find out that cuttlefish can also communicate.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Friday, December 04, 2015, 00:34 (3028 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: That is a big 'if'. How do the survivors, Kevin and Kitty, tell the others about their feat? Tell me about cuttlefish communication.
> 
> Well, you've got me there. Here is my confession: although it has always been my life's ambition to study cuttlefish, ......However, I know from various articles posted by a dear friend of mine that animals, birds, reptiles, insects, plants and even bacteria have their own means of communication, which scientists have described in great detail. So I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and make a remarkably daring prediction: that one day scientists will find out that cuttlefish can also communicate.-Now, now, I'm sure that cuttlefish have a means of communication. They do become mammas and poppas. Canoodling requires communication, but I don't think they talk about shark avoidance in any meaningful way.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Friday, December 04, 2015, 18:15 (3028 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: That is a big 'if'. How do the survivors, Kevin and Kitty, tell the others about their feat? Tell me about cuttlefish communication.-Dhw: Well, you've got me there. Here is my confession: although it has always been my life's ambition to study cuttlefish, ......However, I know from various articles posted by a dear friend of mine that animals, birds, reptiles, insects, plants and even bacteria have their own means of communication, which scientists have described in great detail. So I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and make a remarkably daring prediction: that one day scientists will find out that cuttlefish can also communicate.-DAVID: Now, now, I'm sure that cuttlefish have a means of communication. They do become mammas and poppas. Canoodling requires communication, but I don't think they talk about shark avoidance in any meaningful way.-I'm impressed by your knowledge of cuttlespeak. But let me take a leaf out of your book. If canoodling is important enough to require meaningful communication, I reckon survival might get a look-in as well. After all, you won't find many dead cuttlefish canoodling. But I'll risk going one step further: I reckon my Kevin and Kitty might even recognize threats to their survival, such as that dirty great shark coming to swallow them up. And I reckon they might not only try to find ways not to get swallowed up, but if they found a way, they might even tell their fellow cuttlefish. After all, if animals, birds, insects, and even little bacteria can do it, I reckon Kevin and Kitty can too. Don't you?

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Friday, December 04, 2015, 19:50 (3027 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Now, now, I'm sure that cuttlefish have a means of communication. They do become mammas and poppas. Canoodling requires communication, but I don't think they talk about shark avoidance in any meaningful way.-> dhw: I reckon my Kevin and Kitty might even recognize threats to their survival, such as that dirty great shark coming to swallow them up. And I reckon they might not only try to find ways not to get swallowed up, but if they found a way, they might even tell their fellow cuttlefish. After all, if animals, birds, insects, and even little bacteria can do it, I reckon Kevin and Kitty can too. Don't you?-I doubt it. Bacteria have quorum sensing and horizontal gene transfer, run automatically. I doubt if 'cuttlespeak' exists, so they have to show the method as a shark approaches. The uninitiated will get eaten before the method is acted out.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 13:46 (3027 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Now, now, I'm sure that cuttlefish have a means of communication. They do become mammas and poppas. Canoodling requires communication, but I don't think they talk about shark avoidance in any meaningful way.
 
dhw: I reckon my Kevin and Kitty might even recognize threats to their survival, such as that dirty great shark coming to swallow them up. And I reckon they might not only try to find ways not to get swallowed up, but if they found a way, they might even tell their fellow cuttlefish. After all, if animals, birds, insects, and even little bacteria can do it, I reckon Kevin and Kitty can too. Don't you?
 
DAVID: I doubt it. Bacteria have quorum sensing and horizontal gene transfer, run automatically. I doubt if 'cuttlespeak' exists, so they have to show the method as a shark approaches. The uninitiated will get eaten before the method is acted out.-When you doubted whether this canoodling couple talked about shark avoidance, you didn't really mean "talk", did you? By "cuttlespeak" I only meant whatever form of communication they used. Bacteria use quorum sensing (all forms of communication entail automatic procedures), and other organisms use chemicals, sounds, movements etc. I am woefully ignorant of how Kevin and Kitty “whispered” their sweet nothings or spread their glad tidings, but their method clearly worked, as it seems to have caught on in a big way. (I hope they had copyright.) However, I'm sure you are quite right to assume that those who hadn't heard/seen the glad tidings were more liable to be gobbled up than those who hadn't.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 15:09 (3027 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: When you doubted whether this canoodling couple talked about shark avoidance, you didn't really mean "talk", did you? By "cuttlespeak" I only meant whatever form of communication they used. ...I am woefully ignorant of how Kevin and Kitty “whispered” their sweet nothings-Easy. You own body responded the same way they do, pheromones.-> dhw: However, I'm sure you are quite right to assume that those who hadn't heard/seen the glad tidings were more liable to be gobbled up than those who hadn't.-We may have answered the question of how the 'Cuttles' got to cuddle, but still haven't answered the question, of how they spread the message of shark avoidance technique.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Sunday, December 06, 2015, 13:08 (3026 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We may have answered the question of how the 'Cuttles' got to cuddle, but still haven't answered the question, of how they spread the message of shark avoidance technique.-You can ask the same question about every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of evolution. Once they've been invented, how do they all “catch on”? Pretty soon, we shall have your God rushing round talking to each cuttlefish - or alternatively, preprogramming the first cells to ensure that a few thousand million years later, some cuttlefish will simultaneously come up with the shark avoidance technique, but some won't. Or it may just be that all organisms have ways of passing information to one another.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 06, 2015, 15:27 (3026 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We may have answered the question of how the 'Cuttles' got to cuddle, but still haven't answered the question, of how they spread the message of shark avoidance technique.
> 
> dhw: Pretty soon, we shall have your God rushing round talking to each cuttlefish - or alternatively, preprogramming the first cells to ensure that a few thousand million years later, some cuttlefish will simultaneously come up with the shark avoidance technique, but some won't. Or it may just be that all organisms have ways of passing information to one another.-We have info passed by chemical agents. We have monkey see/monkey do, and parent animals, especially the jungle cats show the kids how to hunt, so we know the passage of info exists in many ways, but the Cuttles do something that must be watched to be understood, unless there is Cuttlespeak. Now I am a great fan of scientific research, and perhaps we will turn up cuttle-consciousness type of species transfer, as in Sheldrake. Cuttles have brains, so mental telepathy is a possibility.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Monday, December 07, 2015, 12:38 (3025 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have info passed by chemical agents. We have monkey see/monkey do, and parent animals, especially the jungle cats show the kids how to hunt, so we know the passage of info exists in many ways, but the Cuttles do something that must be watched to be understood, unless there is Cuttlespeak. Now I am a great fan of scientific research, and perhaps we will turn up cuttle-consciousness type of species transfer, as in Sheldrake. Cuttles have brains, so mental telepathy is a possibility.-
Unless your God informs each cuttlefish separately, I think we have to accept that they communicate their discoveries, as does/did every other organism throughout the history of evolution.
 
I am interested in your ideas on telepathy. As a dualist, you believe that the mind is separate from the body, and souls communicate by telepathy and without a brain. This means you believe in the possibility of thought existing independently of the brain. So that gets rid of the argument that organisms without a brain cannot think. Of course, I am not as certain as you about these matters. Organisms without a brain may have the equivalent of a brain. But I am just pointing out that what is good for Davids, doggies, corvids and cuttles may also be good for busy bacteria.

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by David Turell @, Monday, December 07, 2015, 21:49 (3024 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I am interested in your ideas on telepathy. As a dualist, you believe that the mind is separate from the body, and souls communicate by telepathy and without a brain. This means you believe in the possibility of thought existing independently of the brain. So that gets rid of the argument that organisms without a brain cannot think.-I know that species consciousness exists at the human level from Sheldrake's work, and with Blue Tits and other species and information can be passed by that mechanism. -> dhw: Organisms without a brain may have the equivalent of a brain. But I am just pointing out that what is good for Davids, doggies, corvids and cuttles may also be good for busy bacteria.-I haven't ever seen an object that is the equivalent of a brain. Wish away. Brains support the reception of consciousness. You think bacteria are conscious?

Natures wonder: cuttle fish survival mechanism

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 20:51 (3023 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am interested in your ideas on telepathy. As a dualist, you believe that the mind is separate from the body, and souls communicate by telepathy and without a brain. This means you believe in the possibility of thought existing independently of the brain. So that gets rid of the argument that organisms without a brain cannot think.-DAVID: I know that species consciousness exists at the human level from Sheldrake's work, and with Blue Tits and other species and information can be passed by that mechanism. -I'm not sure if you're doing a wriggle here, switching from thought and consciousness to passing information. But if blue tits and other species can think and pass thoughts (= telepathy) independently of the brain as well as by sounds, chemicals, movements etc., who knows - Billie Bacterium may also have the gift.-dhw: Organisms without a brain may have the equivalent of a brain. But I am just pointing out that what is good for Davids, doggies, corvids and cuttles may also be good for busy bacteria.-DAVID: I haven't ever seen an object that is the equivalent of a brain. Wish away. Brains support the reception of consciousness. You think bacteria are conscious?-Albrecht-Buehler says the control centre of the cell (or brain equivalent) is the centrosome, and “microtubules mediate between the control centre and the autonomous domains”. Whatever you may think, it's clear that those scientists who advocate cellular/bacterial intelligence believe there is some sort of brain equivalent, and I am leaning more and more towards their viewpoint - bearing in mind that intelligence at this level will entail awareness of the environment and of one another, the ability to take decisions etc., but not the human, philosophizing self-awareness you sometimes conflate with the word “consciousness”.

Natures wonders: early nitrogen cycle mechanism

by David Turell @, Friday, June 29, 2018, 20:31 (2089 days ago) @ David Turell

Where did the early Earth's nitrogen in the atmosphere come from? New study proposals:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-continental-microbes-seed-ancient-seas.html

"Now, ASU researcher Ferran Garcia-Pichel, along with Christophe Thomazo, from the Laboratoire Biogéosciences in Dijon, France, and Estelle Couradeau, a former Marie Curie Postdoc in both labs, show that biological soil crusts—colonies of microorganisms that today colonize arid, desert environments—may have played a significant role in the Earth's nitrogen cycle, helping to fertilize early oceans and create a nutrient link between atmosphere, continents and oceans.

"Garcia-Pichel directs the Biodesign Center for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics and is a professor in ASU's School of Life Sciences. Originally, a marine microbiologist, he became fascinated with the hidden world of microorganisms that lay on top of soils in deserts and other arid regions devoid of plant life. These living biocrusts have remarkable properties, thriving in extreme conditions, helping to anchor soils in place, so they resist erosion, and fertilizing rangelands and deserts.

"The new research, which appears in the advanced online edition of the journal Nature Communications, suggests that analogs of these biocrusts spread across otherwise desolate continents of the early Earth, and contributed to establishing the nitrogen cycle essential for life as we know it today.

***

"Today, nitrogen makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere. It is a vital element in DNA, RNA and proteins, the key components of life. But the nitrogen found in the atmosphere is not suitable for use by most organisms. It must first be processed, through what is known as the nitrogen cycle. This occurs when prokaryotic organisms carry out nitrogen fixation, making atmospheric nitrogen available in a form useful to plants and animals for survival.

"While it has long been assumed that the nitrogen cycle that arose early in the Earth's history, resulted from oceanic microbes during an ancient phase known as the Archean, new research suggests significant amounts of nitrogen came from land-based biological soil crusts.

***

"...intricate microbial communities similar to biocrusts found in present-day desert environments, colonized the early continents. Traces of their presence date to 3.2 billion years ago, well before the Great Oxygenation Event helped set the stage for the Cambrian explosion—a sudden burst of life that gave rise to most of the world's animal phyla.

"The researchers note that today, such biocrusts occupy roughly 12 percent of the Earth's land. They are composed of filamentous cyanobacteria, which perform most of the biocrust's carbon and nitrogen fixation and provide nutrients to the rest of the crust microbiome, while bonding soil grains together and providing microbial communities with erosion resistance.

"'These communities live on light," Garcia-Pichel says. "When plants evolved and started to accumulate, this marked their demise. There's no light on the soil anymore because of plant litter accumulation". However, in an early world, before the evolution of plants, there would be nothing to impede their colonization of the continents, where conditions for their growth and development would have been considerably less harsh.

***


"Quantitative analysis suggests that biocrust contribution to nitrogen cycling during the early history of the Earth would have been significant, even with limited colonization of the pre-Cambrian continents.

"The notion of land-based life forms—the biocrusts—providing a significant contribution to the Earth's early biogeochemistry represents a significant paradigm shift. New research should help establish just how far back in Earth's record these microbial biocrusts extend and help explore their contributions to the cycling of other elements, like phosphorus."

Comment: Starting with a rocky planet without carbon-based molecules useful for life, many necessary systems had to be developed. Note that fortunately cyanobacteria arrived at the right time. More evidence of design.

Natures wonders: waterbears dry survival

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 19, 2017, 21:00 (2556 days ago) @ David Turell

These tiny animals dry themselves out to survive almost everywhere:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/tardigrades-worlds-toughest-animals-...

Further reading:-http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n8/abs/nrg3962.html

The latest findings in how they do it:

http://www.livescience.com/58309-how-tardigrades-survive-drying.html

"Tardigrades live on damp moss and algae around the world. Researchers have found that tardigrades can withstand searing heat and freezing cold, up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit (149 degrees Celsius) and as low as minus 328 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 200 degrees Celsius). Tardigrades can even emerge unscathed after exposure to boiling, high pressure, and the radiation and vacuum of space.

"The creatures survive by expelling the water from their bodies and entering a suspended state known as a "tun." During this state, they retract their limbs and shrink into tiny, desiccated balls, emerging only when life-threatening conditions have passed. But scientists have wondered how that was possible, particularly for tardigrades that spend a decade or more as dried-out tuns.

***

"Results showed that certain genes were expressing a type of protein unique to tardigrades, which the scientists dubbed tardigrade-specific intrinsically disordered proteins, or TDPs. In some species of tardigrades, the genes that produce TDPs were active all the time, while in other species, these genes were activated only under certain conditions.

"TDPs protected the tardigrades in much in the same way that trehalose protects other animals, by forming glass-like structures that help to preserve cells that are in a dehydrated state.

"The tardigrade species that had a constant supply of TDPs was more successful at recovering from drying out than the species that weren't always producing TDPs, the researchers wrote.

"'We think it can do this because it has so many of these proteins around already and doesn't need time to make them," study lead author Thomas C. Boothby, a Life Sciences Research Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of North Carolina, said in a statement.

"The findings reveal that biological methods used to tolerate environmental stress and withstand desiccation are more diverse than suspected, the researchers said."

Comment: they are much like spores or seeds stored for a long time that can come to active life. It is hard to imagine how this ability developed. If it didn't worked from the beginning of drying out, they would not have survived. Suggests salation.

Natures wonders:tardigrades are champion survivors

by David Turell @, Friday, July 14, 2017, 14:01 (2440 days ago) @ David Turell

Some living things are extremely tough:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/indestructible-tardigrades-will-live-until-the-dying...

"Great news for everyone’s favourite vaccuum bag-shaped microanimal – the near-imperishable tardigrade will outlive us all, persisting until the Sun dies in around 5 billion years, according to a new study.

"If a big enough asteroid hits Earth, humans will likely perish. Not so for the tardigrade – a hardy, eight-legged creature that lives in in watery environments across Earth, from mountains to the deep sea.

"This resilient species can withstand extreme conditions including 150-degree heat, pressure six times what you find in an ocean trench, and up to 30 years without food or water – all of which which will aid their survival.

"To assess this resilience, scientists at Oxford and Harvard Universities zeroed in on three kinds of potential astrophysical events: asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts, and exploding stars in the form of supernovae. Their results are published in Scientific Reports.

"They deduced that to kill off tardigrades, an astrophysical event would need to pack enough punch to boil Earth’s oceans. This means a hefty asteroid, a supernova within 0.14 light-years of Earth, or a gamma-ray that burst no more than 40 light-years away.

"None of these situations are particularly probable – our closest asteroids and stars aren’t big enough to achieve these outcomes. As a result, the research suggests tardigrades will live through any major astrophysical impact likely to occur on Earth, potentially giving them another 5 billion years of life.

"A lot of previous work has focused on ‘doomsday’ scenarios on Earth – astrophysical events like supernovae that could wipe out the human race,” says co-author David Sloan, a physicist at Oxford University.

“'Our study instead considered the hardiest species: the tardigrade.”

"Co-author Rafael Alves Batista, also at Oxford, says the incredible resilience of tardigrades is a strong argument for the existence of life on other planets.

“'Tardigrades are as close to indestructible as it gets on Earth, but it is possible that there are other resilient species examples elsewhere in the universe. In this context there is a real case for looking for life on Mars and in other areas of the solar system in general. If tardigrades are Earth’s most resilient species, who knows what else is out there?'”

Comment: There is no given reason to explain why these guys are so tough. We only know of life here, so it is a stretch to assume their toughness allows for life elsewhere. Life here allows for all sorts of extremophiles.

Natures wonders: how tardigrades survive

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 27, 2017, 22:09 (2426 days ago) @ David Turell

More research show that tardigrades replace missing water with protein to hold shapes:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142047-tardigrade-genomes-help-explain-how-they-s...

"For most animals, dehydration spells disaster. The membranes inside their cells collapse without water to hold them in place, causing the cells die. But for two species of tardigrade whose genomes were examined in the new study – Hypsibius dujardini and Ramazzottius varieornatus – a lack of water isn’t fatal.

"A team including Mark Blaxter at the University of Edinburgh, UK, and Kazuharu Arakawa at Keio University in Tokyo has confirmed that the two species make highly soluble, tardigrade-specific proteins. These help the insides of cells maintain their shape even in the absence of water and so avoid damage. But one of the two tardigrades needs a heads-up.

“'The strategies are the same, but H. dujardini needs 24 hours’ warning to make these proteins, and R. varieornatus is ready at all times,” says Blaxter.

"This difference relates to how fast they can dry out. R. varieornatus is often found in moss on concrete roads and can dry out within 30 minutes, while H. dujardini lives in ponds and takes 24 to 48 hours to dry. But the genome studies show that the two share an almost identical set of genes that kick in when water vanishes, says Arakawa. The only difference is how those genes are regulated, he says.

***

"The findings indicate that tardigrades are more closely related to nematodes, despite their outward arthropod-like appearance. This comes from looking at the Hox genes in tardigrades and some of their invertebrate animal relatives. These genes are responsible for the position and alignment of body limbs in animals. Tardigrades are missing five of the genes – and nematodes lack exactly the same ones."

Comment: Life has some strange branches.

But there are still other tardigrade secrets to fully unravel. In their dried up state, they can remain dormant for years – withstanding freezing temperatures, radiation and even being sent into space.

Natures wonders: how tardigrades survive

by David Turell @, Friday, September 09, 2022, 16:25 (557 days ago) @ David Turell

Special proteins found:

https://www.sciencealert.com/tardigrades-can-survive-decades-without-water-and-we-final...

"Water is a key ingredient to all life on Earth, yet tardigrades with their near immortal-like powers can somehow endure being sapped of almost all their H2O.

"Now, researchers have discovered another trick these chubby microscopic anomalies use to survive years of extreme dehydration.

***

"'After testing several different kinds, we have found that cytoplasmic-abundant heat soluble (CAHS) proteins, unique to tardigrades, are responsible for protecting their cells against dehydration," Kunieda explains.

"Using experiments in human and insect cells, the researchers were able to demonstrate CAHS proteins increase cell stiffness, buttressing the cell against shrinkage caused by lost water pressure. The proteins even protected cells against too much water pressure as well.

***

"...in dehydrated cells CAHS proteins link together to form spiderwebs of supporting filaments, providing an on-demand transition to this filament-filled, gel-like phase.

"The cytoskeleton-like structures protect the cell against being completely distorted by the lack of water pressures and likely contribute to the incredible stability of tuns.

"Called anhydrobiosis, this process can be reversed, allowing the tardigrades to pick up their lives where they left off, once more hydrating conditions return."

Comment: at the multicellular level, the most extremophile of all.

Natures wonders: how tardigrades survive

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 14:55 (524 days ago) @ David Turell

Frozen survival:

https://www.sciencealert.com/tardigrades-can-survive-frozen-oblivion-by-pausing-their-b...

"To withstand freezing to death the cuddly-looking water bears enter an extreme form of hibernation called cryobiosis. In this state their metabolic activity basically comes to a standstill.

"It now turns out their metabolism isn't the only process set to 'pause'.

"University of Stuttgart biologist Jessica Sieger and colleagues exposed a bunch of Milnesium inceptum tardigrades to alternating weekly periods of freezing at −30 °C (−22 °F) and feeding at 20 °C (68 °F), until they died. Another group was maintained at room temperature.

"Amazingly, out of a total of 716 tardigrades, those that were periodically frozen lived twice as long as the control group. The longest lived for 169 days, 94 of those spent at room temperature, while the oldest tardigrade in the control group reached 93 days.

"All up, both groups spent the same amount of time actively alive, demonstrating that the tardigrade's biological aging was dramatically slowed, if not halted altogether by cryobiosis. This, the researchers say, confirms the 'sleeping beauty' model of cryobiosis on the animal's biological clock, as opposed to other models that suggested aging is either slowed or continues as normal.

"'During inactive periods, the internal clock stops and only resumes running once the organism is reactivated," explains zoologist Ralph Schill, also from the University of Stuttgart. "So, tardigrades, which usually only live for a few months without periods of rest, can live for many years or even decades."

***

"Tardigrades have been recovered after being frozen for more than 30 years, still alive and fertile. But their suspended animation is not a foolproof system.

"Freezing safely is a complicated physiological process. Death can occur instead, if freezing happens too fast – not allowing certain biochemical processes to complete quickly enough, the researchers explain.

"Insufficient energy storage can be another factor that can go very wrong. Previous studies have demonstrated that entering and exiting their profound sleep state uses the energy stored in cells within the body cavity of the chonky animals.

Comment: more amazing facts about Tardigrades. Why were they created? They fit a role in an ecosystem

Natures wonders: human gut microbiome controls health

by David Turell @, Monday, November 19, 2018, 21:47 (1946 days ago) @ David Turell

Studies of Western and African diets establishes the importance of types of bacteria we carry and how they affect our health. This is a very long article which I can only skim:

http://nautil.us//issue/30/identity/how-the-western-diet-has-derailed-our-evolution?utm...

"A group of Italian microbiologists had compared the intestinal microbes of young villagers in Burkina Faso with those of children in Florence, Italy. The villagers, who subsisted on a diet of mostly millet and sorghum, harbored far more microbial diversity than the Florentines, who ate a variant of the refined, Western diet. Where the Florentine microbial community was adapted to protein, fats, and simple sugars, the Burkina Faso microbiome was oriented toward degrading the complex plant carbohydrates we call fiber.

"Scientists suspect our intestinal community of microbes, the human microbiota, calibrates our immune and metabolic function, and that its corruption or depletion can increase the risk of chronic diseases, ranging from asthma to obesity.

“'It was the most different human microbiota composition we’d ever seen,” Sonnenburg told me. To his mind it carried a profound message: The Western microbiome, the community of microbes scientists thought of as “normal” and “healthy,” the one they used as a baseline against which to compare “diseased” microbiomes, might be considerably different than the community that prevailed during most of human evolution.

"And so Sonnenburg wondered: If the Burkina Faso microbiome represented a kind of ancestral state for humans—the Neolithic in particular, or subsistence farming—and if the transition between that state and modern Florence represented a voyage from an agriculturalist’s existence to 21st-century urban living, then where along the way had the Florentines lost all those microbes?

"Humans can’t digest soluble fiber, so we enlist microbes to dismantle it for us, sopping up their metabolites. The Burkina Faso microbiota produced about twice as much of these fermentation by-products, called short-chain fatty acids, as the Florentine. That gave a strong indication that fiber, the raw material solely fermented by microbes, was somehow boosting microbial diversity in the Africans.

***

"But what the Sonnenburgs’ experiment suggests is that by failing to adequately nourish key microbes, the Western diet may also be starving them out of existence. They call this idea “starving the microbial self.” They suspect that these diet-driven extinctions may have fueled, at least in part, the recent rise of non-communicable diseases. The question they and many others are now asking is this: How did the microbiome of our ancestors look before it was altered by sanitation, antibiotics, and junk food? How did that primeval collection of human microbes work? And was it somehow healthier than the one we harbor today?

***

"Most study subjects live in the tropics; their microbial communities may reflect tropical environments, not an ancestral human state. Yet even “extinct” microbiomes from higher latitudes—including from a frozen European mummy—are similarly configured to break down plant fiber, adding to the sense that the Western microbiome has diverged from what likely prevailed during human evolution.

"The Sonnenburgs think fiber is so important that they’ve given it a new designation: microbiota-accessible carbohydrates, or MACs. They think that the mismatch between the Westernized, MAC-starved microbiome and the human genome may predispose to Western diseases.

***

"Soluble fiber is an umbrella term for complex plant sugars—including some polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, and fructans. The molecules consist of simple sugars linked together in long, hard-to-dismantle chains. If you dump a load of fiber—or microbiota-accessible carbohydrates—onto a colonic community of microbes, those that specialize in fermenting it will bloom. And they’ll start churning out short-chain fatty acids, including butyrate,

"These acids, Sonnenburg thinks, are one of the long-sought mechanisms by which fiber prevents disease. Rodent studies suggest that as they diffuse into circulation, they stimulate the anti-inflammatory arm of the immune system—cells that help you not attack tree pollen and other harmless proteins—preventing allergies and other inflammatory diseases. The calming effect reaches as far as the bone marrow and lungs,

***

"In their recent book, The Good Gut: Taking Control of Your Weight, Your Mood, and Your Long-term Health, the Sonnenburgs argue forcefully that boosting fiber intake is the best way to cultivate a healthier community of microbes. Given the many unknowns, their advocacy surprised me. The science wasn’t settled; what if they were wrong?

"They’d fretted over this scientific uncertainty, they said, but decided that the diet they pushed—really a variant of the Mediterranean diet—would probably not cause harm, and would likely benefit adherents, even if everything they thought about the microbiome was wrong."

Comment: We need fiber and we need the gut bacteria to digest it. Bacteria make up a significant amount of body weight, and what this shows is that the persistence of bacteria since the origin of life is because of this necessary relationship. Multicellular organisms can't do everything they need by themselves.

Natures wonders:bat gut microbiome differ from other mammals

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 22:50 (1588 days ago) @ David Turell

They have their own specialized biome fitted to individual environment. Other mammals' biomes appear to be more related through evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-dont-gut-bacteria-humans.html

"Right now, there are trillions of bacteria living in your gut, making up about one percent of your body weight. They're supposed to be there—we need them to help us digest food and fight off diseases. The same is true for most mammals; in general, just about every mammal from dogs to dolphins relies on a community of helpful bacteria, called a microbiome, living inside them for health and survival. Many animals have even evolved along with their gut bacteria to better work together, to the point that closely related host species typically share more similar microbiomes. But a new study has identified one group of mammals that seems to buck that trend: bats. A new paper in mSystems reveals that the microbiomes of closely-related bats can be totally different from each other, which suggests that having a community of helpful gut bacteria may not be so important for this already eccentric group of mammals.

"'It shifts the paradigm we've been operating under, that animals require microbes for digestion and nutrient acquisition. That's true for us, but it may not be true for all species," says lead author Holly Lutz, a research associate at Chicago's Field Museum and post-doctoral researcher at the University of California, San Diego. "The trends we're seeing suggest that bats may not depend on bacteria the same way many other mammals do, and that they can survive just fine without a strict suite of bacteria in their guts to help them digest.

***

"'There's essentially no relationship between the bat microbiome and bat evolutionary history," says Lutz. "You'd expect to see similar microbiomes in closely-related bat species if these animals depended strongly on their bacteria for survival. This is largely what we've seen in other mammals that have been studied, but it's just not there in bats."

***

"Lutz suspects that bats' unique relationships with gut bacteria are related to another trait that sets them apart from their fellow mammals: their ability to fly.

"'Bats have extremely shortened guts," she explains. Food takes just fifteen to thirty minutes to pass through a bat's digestive system, a third as long as it would take for a similarly-sized rodent. That's likely because a long, winding digestive tract would weigh the bats down. "For bats, you can't be carrying around non-essentials. You need to reduce weight for flying—you don't want a heavy gut." Since bats evolved short digestive tracts, presumably to make them lighter for flight, they may not have evolved the same intimate relationships with their gut bacteria that us land-dwelling mammals have.

"The discovery that bats' microbiomes are closely linked to the world around them means that changes to that world could put the bats in danger. In addition to helping digest food, stable gut bacteria help maintain healthy immune systems to fight off disease, and scientists are still learning about the relationship between microbes and skin, gut, and oral health in wildlife. "Bats may be very susceptible to environmental change—if they have a transient microbiome, they might not have the most stable defense mechanisms," says Lutz. "Human-caused disturbances to the environment are a very important issue. Bats may be extra-fragile and more at risk.'"

Comment: Bats certainly look designed. They came from non-flying rodents and had to initially take off with shortened guts. They may have a different gut biome for reasons we do not yet understand. Echolocation evolved later. Note this website:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

"The oldest fossilised bats ever discovered have given palaeontologists an unprecedented insight into the flying mammals' evolution. The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation.

***

"'There has been much debate about how bats evolved, because there were no specimens to address this issue," said Dr Kevin Seymour at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. "Now the combination of features seen in this species finally gives us an answer: that flying evolved first and echolocation must have evolved later."

***

"One unanswered question is how O. finneryi could have flown without being able to echolocate. Also writing in Nature, physiologist Prof John Speakman of the University of Aberdeen speculates that the earliest bats were day-fliers who used their eyes to navigate."

Natures wonders: human gut microbiome controls health

by David Turell @, Monday, March 20, 2023, 01:01 (365 days ago) @ David Turell

Latest study:

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-boosting-survival-beneficial-bacterium-human.html

"The microbes that inhabit the gut are critical for human health, and understanding the factors that encourage the growth of beneficial bacterial species—known as "good" bacteria—in the gut may enable medical interventions that promote gut and overall human health. In a new study, Yale researchers have uncovered a novel mechanism by which these bacteria colonize the gut.

"Specifically, the Yale team discovered that one of the most abundant beneficial species found in the human gut showed an increase in colonization potential when experiencing carbon limitation—a finding that could yield novel clinical interventions to support a healthy gut.

"The Yale team, based in the lab of geneticist Eduardo Groisman, the Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Microbial Pathogenesis, found that the beneficial gut bacterium Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron responded to starvation for carbon—a main building block for all cells—by sequestering a portion of the molecules for an essential transcription factor within a membrane-less compartment.

"The team established that sequestration of the transcription factor increased its activity, which modified the expression of hundreds of bacterial genes, including several that promote gut colonization and control central metabolic pathways in the bacterium. These findings reveal that "good" bacteria use sequestration of molecules into membrane-less compartments as a vital strategy to colonize the mammalian gut.

"Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and other bacteria residing in the mammalian gut have access to nutrients ingested by the host animal. However, there are also long periods of time when the host organism does not eat. Deprivation of nutrients, including carbon, elicits the production of colonization factors in beneficial gut bacteria, the researchers found.

"'One of the things that emerged is that when an organism is starved for carbon, that is the signal that helps produce properties that are good for surviving in the gut," said Aimilia Krypotou, a postdoctoral fellow in Groisman's lab and lead author of the study.

"A confluence of observations from the lab's previous research led to the breakthrough. The first was when Groisman noticed that the size of the transcription factor from the gut microbe was much larger than those of other well-studied homologous proteins from other bacterial species. The team then found that bacteria could not survive in the gut of a mouse without the extra region absent from homologous proteins.

"Krypotou then hypothesized that the extra region might confer a new biophysical property to the transcription factor required for the bacteria to survive in the gut, and successfully performed a series of experiments to test the hypothesis.

"Krypotou's key insight, he said, was to deduce novel properties for the bacterial transcription factor—termed Rho—based on the extra region. Sequestration of the transcription factor takes place by a process known as liquid-liquid phase separation, a ubiquitous phenomenon present in a wide variety of cells including those of humans.

"'This phenomenon has been known but is usually associated with stress in eukaryotic organisms, such as plants, animals, and fungi," said Groisman. "Recently it was realized it can also happen with bacteria and, in our case, we established that it occurs in commensal gut bacteria, which require it for survival in the gut. One could conceivably, potentially imagine that if one were to manipulate organisms prone to this effect, perhaps one could improve organisms beneficial to humans.'"

Comment: these bacteria play a vital role for us. It is not surprising they have such a degree of adaptability. Representing the first life, they have stayed around from the beginning to play an important role in evolution. They were designed for survival, not like the 99.9% loss described by Raup because of their usefulness, all neatly planned by purposeful God.

Natures wonders: gut microbiome controls baby health

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 20:06 (354 days ago) @ David Turell

A bacteria uses nitrogen from Mother's milk:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230327160617.htm

"More than a decade ago, Sela and his team noticed that Bifidobacterium infantis, a beneficial bacterium that colonizes the infant gut, had the ability to degrade urea, a molecule that mammals excrete as waste in urine.

"'There's a lot of urea in breast milk and since it's typically excreted out of the system, and this major colonizer has the ability to degrade it, we thought it's possible that the microbes are utilizing this waste product as a nitrogen source within the infant gut," Sela says.

***

"To test their hypothesis, researchers in the Sela lab, including lead author Xiaomeng You, a graduate research assistant, demonstrated that the B. infantis bacteria, when fed urea, were able to use it as a nitrogen source.

"They then tracked the urea nitrogen with a stable isotope. "It gets incorporated into all kinds of bacterial products that the bacteria makes, and that was really insightful," Sela says. "It gives us the strongest evidence that the bacteria is utilizing urea nitrogen for its basic metabolism."

"The next step is to examine the process in the human system -- "looking at mom's milk, infant growth and development, and microbiome function as it pertains to urea utilization," Sela says. "If we want to have clinical or nutritional relevancy in humans, we have to understand how it works in babies.'"

Comment: bacteria have been around since life started with Archaea. It is purposeful as they are very helpful in many ways.

Natures wonders: another triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, June 28, 2019, 23:29 (1725 days ago) @ David Turell

This involves a sea slug who eats algae that contain a bacteria that produces a useful set of poisons that protect the snail:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627164743.htm


"The sea slug Elysia rufescens fights predators by wielding toxic chemicals that it acquires from eating algae. A team has discovered that these chemicals are made by bacteria living inside the algae, highlighting a surprising three-way dependence among sea slugs, algae and bacteria.

"Delicate yet voracious, the sea slug Elysia rufescens grazes cow-like on bright green tufts of algae, rooting around to find the choicest bits.

"But this inch-long marine mollusk gains not only a tasty meal -- it also slurps up the algae's defensive chemicals, which the slug can then deploy against its own predators.

"In a new study, a Princeton-led team has discovered that these toxic chemicals originate from a newly identified species of bacteria living inside the algae. The team found that the bacteria have become so dependent on their algal home that they cannot survive on their own. In turn, the bacteria devote at least a fifth of their metabolic efforts to making poisonous molecules for their host.

***

"The team found that the bacterial species, which they named Candidatus Endobryopsis kahalalidefaciens, produces about 15 or so different toxins, known as kahalalides. These chemicals are known to act as a deterrent to surrounding fish and other marine animals. At least one of the kahalalides has been evaluated as a potential cancer drug because of its potent toxicity.

"The researchers also discovered that the bacteria have permanently sacrificed their independence for a life of security, as they no longer possess the genes required for survival outside the algae. Instead, about a fifth of the bacteria's genome is directed toward pumping out toxic molecules that stop predators from eating the bacterium's home.
One predator that can eat the toxins is the slug E. rufescens. The slug stores them, building up a chemical arsenal that is ten times more concentrated than the toxins in the algae.

"One of the questions the team asked was whether the slug acquires not just the chemicals but also the factory -- the bacteria -- itself. But they found that the slug doesn't retain the ingested bacteria but rather digests them as food, keeping just the chemicals.

***

"The team compared the bacteria to a factory because the organism consumes raw materials in the form of amino acids supplied from the algae and releases a finished product in the form of toxic chemicals.

"This theme of specialized bacterial symbionts that have evolved to perform one function -- to make defensive molecules for the host in exchange for a protected living space -- appears to be surprisingly common in the marine environment, from algae to tunicates to sponges, Donia said.

"This is the second such relationship the team has identified. Their previous study, published April 1 in the journal Nature Microbiology, identified a bacterium that lives in symbiosis with marine sponges and produces toxins that protect the sponge from predation.

"'The weirdest thing is that the sponge has actually evolved a specialized type of cells, which we called 'chemobacteriocytes,' dedicated entirely to housing and maintaining a culture of this bacterium," Donia said. "This is very strange, given the small number of specialized sponge cells in general. Again, the bacterium cannot produce the substrates and cannot live on its own.'"

Comment: Once again it is difficult to understand how chance evolution could create this scenario. How did the slug learn to detoxify the poisons in the first place? And the algae had the same problem when they got together with the bacterium.

Natures wonders: fungal plant root symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 00:44 (1603 days ago) @ David Turell

Of course beneficial to all:

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-underground-fungal-relationships-key.html

"Plants live in symbiosis with root-associated, or mycorrhizal, fungi. The fungi provide up to 80 percent of the nutrients and water a plant needs to grow, and the plants produce up to 30 percent of the photosynthate—a food substance made through photosynthesis—that the fungi need.

"There are two main types of mycorrhizal fungi—arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal. An arbuscular mycorrhiza penetrates the cortical cells of the roots of a plant. Ectomycorrhizal fungi do not penetrate the plant's cell walls, instead forming a netlike structure around the plant root.

***

"'Mycorrhizal fungal associations below the ground are one of the largest influences on plant tissue nutrient concentrations," said Kivlin. "To optimize plant nutrition, we need to incorporate mycorrhizal associations into our agricultural and management frameworks."

"Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi increase plant nutrient concentrations in plant leaves, litter, and roots more than ectomycorrhizal fungi. The type of root-associated fungi present has more influence on a plant's nutrient levels than plant leaf traits or plant associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria."

Comment: Just another example of cooperation between different organisms.

Natures wonders: another triple symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, January 13, 2020, 19:56 (1526 days ago) @ David Turell

In this case a sponge, a bacterium and a virus:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/viruses-mediate-interactions-between-bacte...

"To investigate, Jahn and his colleagues sampled four sponge species off the coast of northern Spain and analyzed both the sponges and samples of the surrounding seawater for the presence of viruses. Not only did the researchers find viruses living in sponges that weren’t in the seawater, they discovered substantial diversity in the viromes of different species, and even among conspecifics.

"Digging further into the genomic data, the team noticed one group of previously unidentified bacteriophages that were particularly abundant in sponge viromes. To Jahn’s surprise, these phages contained genetic sequences for so-called ankyrin repeats, protein motifs usually studied in bacteria that help pathogenic or commensal microbes infect and manipulate eukaryotic hosts. He wondered if the viruses, which the team dubbed ankyphages, might facilitate interactions between sponges and their resident bacteria.

***

"Sure enough, the E. coli that had been cultured with ankyrin protein were better at surviving exposure to mouse immune cells: they escaped being engulfed by macrophages more often than control bacteria did. E. coli engineered to produce and secrete the phage proteins themselves also survived macrophage exposure. The team ran further experiments to confirm that the protein wasn’t toxic to either the bacterial or murine cells, and concluded that phage-derived ankyrin was indeed helping to suppress macrophage responses toward the bacteria.

“'I was quite impressed by these . . . proteins being associated with sponge-specific phage communities,” says Breck Duerkop, a microbiologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine who wasn’t involved in the work. That phages might moderate host immunity is a “really interesting idea,” he adds, although the team’s experiments don’t quite establish that such three-way interactions are playing an important role in sponges.

"Scanning genome databases for other phyla, Jahn and his colleagues found evidence that ankyphages are also present in the microbiomes of other eukaryotic organisms, including humans. The findings hint at the importance of bacteriophages in eukaryotic function, says Jahn. Far from being incidental stowaways in eukaryotic organisms, phages “are central elements,” he says. “It opens a lot of perspective for further research.'”

Comment: In thinking about evolution of a three-way symbiosis, it is much more difficult to imagine its evolution than a two-way. Design?

Natures wonders: termite mound ventilation system

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 23, 2019, 17:33 (1823 days ago) @ David Turell

Further more exact studies of the system:

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-x-rays-reveal-termites-self-cooling-self-ventilating.html

"Lead author Dr. Kamaljit Singh, from Imperial's Department of Earth Science & Engineering, said: "Termite nests are a unique example of architectural perfection by insects. The way they're designed offers fascinating self-sustaining temperature and ventilation controlling properties throughout the year without using any mechanical or electronic appliances."

***

"The researchers found that networks of larger and smaller pores in the nest walls help exchange carbon dioxide (CO2) with the outside atmosphere to help ventilation. Larger micro-scale pores are found to be fully connected throughout the outer wall providing a path across the walls, and by using 3-D flow simulations, the authors showed how CO2 moves through the nests to the outside.

"The simulations showed that the large micro-scale pores in nest walls are useful for ventilation when the wind outside is faster, as CO2 can leave freely. However in slower wind speeds, the larger pores can also help to release CO2 through diffusion.

"Nests are usually found in hotter regions, which means they must stay cool. Indeed, the authors found that the larger pores also help regulate temperatures inside nests. The pores, which lie in the outer walls of the nest, fill with air which reduces heat entering through the walls—similarly to how the air in double glazed windows helps keep the heat inside.

"Considering the crucial role the pores play, the team also wondered what happens when it rains and the pores become blocked by water.

"They found that the nests use 'capillary action' - where liquid flows through small spaces without external help from gravity—that forces rain water from the larger pores to the smaller pores. This ensures the larger pores keep stay open to keep ventilating the nest.

***

"'The findings greatly improve our understanding of how architectural design can help control ventilation, heat regulation, and drainage of structures—maybe even in human dwellings. They also provide a new direction for future research, and will eventually bring us one step closer to understanding mechanisms that could be useful in designing energy efficient self-sustaining buildings."

"Co-author Dr. Bagus Muljadi from the University of Nottingham said: "We know that nature holds the secrets to survival. To unlock them, we need to encourage global, interdisciplinary research.

"'This study shows that there is a lot more to learn from mother nature when it comes to solving even the most important 21st century problems.'"

Comment: Brilliant construction by insects can teach us a thing or two. Why is this so? Perhaps they were helped by a mind more brilliant than ours.

Natures wonders: termite mound ventilation system

by dhw, Sunday, March 24, 2019, 10:58 (1822 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Brilliant construction by insects can teach us a thing or two. Why is this so? Perhaps they were helped by a mind more brilliant than ours.

Or perhaps they are a darn sight more intelligent than some folk think they are. Thank you for yet another fascinating insight into my favourite example of how communal intelligence can produce complex systems.

Natures wonders: termite mound ventilation system

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 24, 2019, 18:40 (1822 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Brilliant construction by insects can teach us a thing or two. Why is this so? Perhaps they were helped by a mind more brilliant than ours.

Or perhaps they are a darn sight more intelligent than some folk think they are. Thank you for yet another fascinating insight into my favourite example of how communal intelligence can produce complex systems.

Or not!

Natures wonders: the brilliant octopus

by David Turell @, Monday, September 17, 2018, 20:21 (2009 days ago) @ David Turell

A new descriptive article:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/how-the-octopus-got-its-smarts

"Some researchers who study the octopus and its smart cousins, the cuttlefish and squid, talk about a ‘second genesis of intelligence’ – a truly alien one that has little in common with the mammalian design.

"While the octopus has a large central brain in its head, it also has a unique network of smaller ‘brains’ within each of its arms. It’s just what these creatures need to coordinate the mind-boggling complexity of eight prehensile arms and hundreds of sensitive suckers, which provide the octopus with the equivalent of opposable thumbs (roboticists have been taking note). Not to mention their ability to camouflage instantly on any of the diverse backgrounds they encounter on coral reefs or kelp forests. Using pixelated colours, texture and arm contortions, these body artists instantly melt into the seascape, only to reappear in a dazzling display to attract a mate or threaten a rival.

***

"It turns out the octopus has a profusion of brain-forming genes previously seen only in back-boned animals. But its secret weapon may not be genes as we know them.

"A complex brain needs a way to store complex information. Startlingly, the octopus may have achieved this complexity by playing fast and free with its genetic code.

"To build a living organism, the decoding of the DNA blueprint normally proceeds with extreme fidelity. Indeed it’s known as ‘the central dogma’. A tiny section of the vast blueprint is copied, rather like photocopying a single page from a tome. That copy, called messenger RNA (mRNA), then instructs the production of a particular protein. The process is as precise as a three-hat chef following her prized recipe for apple pie down to the letter.

"But in a spectacular example of dogma-breaking, the octopus chef takes her red pen and modifies copies of the recipe on the fly. Sometimes the result is the traditional golden crusted variety; other times it’s the deconstructed version – apple mush with crumbs on the side.

"This recipe tweaking is known as ‘RNA editing’. In humans only a handful of brain protein recipes are edited. In the octopus, the majority get this treatment.

“'It introduces a level of sophistication and complexity we never thought of. Perhaps it’s related to their memory,” says Eli Eisenberg, a computational biologist at the University of Tel Aviv. Though he quickly adds, “I must stress this is complete speculation”.

***

"But those limber bodies were a tasty treat to fish predators, so the octopus evolved ‘thinking skin’ that could melt into the background in a fifth of a second. These quick-change artists not only use a palette of skin pigments to paint with, they also have a repertoire of smooth to spiky skin textures, as well as body and arm contortions to complete their performance – perhaps an imitation of a patch of algae, as they stealthily perambulate on two of their eight arms.

“'It’s not orchestrated by simple reflexes,” says Roger Hanlon, who researches camouflage behaviour at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. “It’s a context-specific, fast computation of decisions carried out in multiple levels of the brain.” And it depends critically on a pair of camera eyes with keen capabilities.

"It takes serious computing power to control eight arms, hundreds of suckers, ‘thinking skin’ and camera eyes. Hence the oversized brain of the octopus. With its 500 million neurons, that’s two and a half times that of a rat. But their brain anatomy is very different.

"A mammalian brain is a centralised processor that sends and receives signals via the spinal cord. But for the octopus, only 10% of its brain is centralised in a highly folded, 30-lobed donut-shaped structure arranged around its oesophagus (really). Two optic lobes account for another 30%, and 60% lies in the arms. “It’s a weird way to construct a complex brain,” says Hanlon. “Everything about this animal is goofy and weird.”

"Take the arms: they’re considered to have their own ‘mini-brain’ not just because they are so packed with neurons but because they also have independent processing power. For instance, an octopus escaping a predator can detach an arm that will happily continue crawling around for up to 10 minutes.

"Indeed, until an experiment by Kuba and colleagues in 2011, some suspected the arms’ movements were independent of their central brain. They aren’t. Rather it appears that the brain gives a high-level command that a staff of eight arms execute autonomously.

“'The arm has some fascinating reflexes, but it doesn’t learn,” says Kuba, who studied these reflexes between 2009 and 2013 as part of a European Union project to design bio-inspired robots.

"And then there’s their ‘thinking’ skin. Again the brain, primarily the optic lobes, controls the processing power here. The evidence comes from a 1988 study by Hanlon and John Messenger from the University of Sheffield. They showed that blinded newly hatched cuttlefish could no longer match their surroundings."

Comment: The article is much longer, in greater detail, and i suggest reading it in full. an amazing branch of evolution.

Natures wonders: the brilliant octopus

by dhw, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 13:41 (2009 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "But those limber bodies were a tasty treat to fish predators, so the octopus evolved ‘thinking skin’ that could melt into the background in a fifth of a second. These quick-change artists not only use a palette of skin pigments to paint with, they also have a repertoire of smooth to spiky skin textures, as well as body and arm contortions to complete their performance – perhaps an imitation of a patch of algae, as they stealthily perambulate on two of their eight arms.
“'It’s not orchestrated by simple reflexes,” says Roger Hanlon, who researches camouflage behaviour at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. “It’s a context-specific, fast computation of decisions carried out in multiple levels of the brain.” And it depends critically on a pair of camera eyes with keen capabilities.

Thank you for yet another fascinating and highly revealing article. I’m particularly impressed by the point that these are not simple reflexes but decisions carried out in multiple levels of the brain. I’m strongly reminded of the hypothesis that all such actions by all organisms may well be orchestrated by decisions made through intelligent cooperation between parts of the brain and maybe other cell communities, and maybe even by unicellular organisms. Just thought I'd mention it.;-)

Natures wonders: the brilliant octopus

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 15:33 (2009 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "But those limber bodies were a tasty treat to fish predators, so the octopus evolved ‘thinking skin’ that could melt into the background in a fifth of a second. These quick-change artists not only use a palette of skin pigments to paint with, they also have a repertoire of smooth to spiky skin textures, as well as body and arm contortions to complete their performance – perhaps an imitation of a patch of algae, as they stealthily perambulate on two of their eight arms.
“'It’s not orchestrated by simple reflexes,” says Roger Hanlon, who researches camouflage behaviour at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. “It’s a context-specific, fast computation of decisions carried out in multiple levels of the brain.” And it depends critically on a pair of camera eyes with keen capabilities.

dhw: Thank you for yet another fascinating and highly revealing article. I’m particularly impressed by the point that these are not simple reflexes but decisions carried out in multiple levels of the brain. I’m strongly reminded of the hypothesis that all such actions by all organisms may well be orchestrated by decisions made through intelligent cooperation between parts of the brain and maybe other cell communities, and maybe even by unicellular organisms. Just thought I'd mention it.;-)

One wonders how an organism like this evolves, with a main brain and multiple subsidiary brain-lets on its own, or did it have guidance? It is soft and very vulnerable without its special camouflage tricks. It wouldn't have survived if all of this developed stepwise.

Natures wonders: wasps and zombie caterpillars

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 06, 2016, 15:17 (2995 days ago) @ dhw

In this setup wasps infect caterpillars with their larvae who tells their hosts to eat more carbs, resulting in bigger larvae:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160105102326.htm-"Bernardo has been examining host diet manipulation to determine if any empirical evidence can back up what has largely been just a hypothesis. She's found support that diet manipulation might be possible for one special parasitoid wasp, considered a "master manipulator." About 14 days after laying eggs inside its host (the wooly bear caterpillar), the larvae of this wasp emerge, killing the caterpillar in the process. Bernardo has turned to this system because, unlike most caterpillars, the wooly bear caterpillar grazes on over 80 different plant species, meaning the parasitoid could have a veritable smorgasbord of diets to choose from. If diet manipulation exists, this would be a good place to look for it.-"In a series of experiments, Bernardo found that when caterpillars were allowed to choose between a protein- or carbohydrate-rich diet, unparasitised caterpillars chose a protein diet, whereas parasitized caterpillars preferred a carbohydrate diet. In effect, Bernardo says, "The wasps are making their hosts carb-load."-"But why? It turns out that when caterpillars eat more carbs, the wasp larvae that chew their way out of the caterpillar's carcass are bigger. Bernardo explains, "when these parasitoids are older larvae living in the host, they switch from feeding on host blood to feeding on specific host tissue." This tissue is rich in lipids, which wasps can't make, so they get the lipids from their hosts when they are larvae. By making the caterpillars eat more carbs, the wasps cause more lipids to accumulate in the caterpillars, leading to bigger wasps."-Comment: Like all the other examples, I wonder how this arrangement evolved. This is a complex lifestyle. I don't see this is set up by trial and error. the wasp must pick out the perfect food source or the wasp species doesn't survive.

Natures wonders: ants feed larvae with a fluid

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 18:34 (475 days ago) @ David Turell

Another ant colony production, fluid food for larvae:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2349378-ant-pupae-produce-a-nourishing-liquid-food...

A nutrient-rich liquid that could be produced by all ant species while the insects are in a pupae stage then gets consumed by both the adults and larvae.

In an accompanying editorial to the research, a team from Sorbonne Paris North University in France state that the production of this liquid had not been reported by scientists before.

Ants develop in several stages. An egg first becomes a worm-shaped larva, with no eyes or legs. Larvae then develop into pupae, which more closely resemble adult ants but have their legs and antennae folded in. Pupae eventually form adults.

Orli Snir at the Rockefeller University in New York isolated clonal raider ant (Ooceraea biroi) pupae from their colony. She found the pupae secreted a liquid about six days before they hatched.

Alongside her colleagues, led by Daniel Kronauer, Snir then found that if the liquid was allowed to build up around the pupae, it led to a fungal infection and pupal death.

When the researchers removed the liquid as it accumulated, the pupae grew as expected. This may mean that pupae rely on adults and larvae to remove the liquid somehow, says Kronauer.

Next, the researchers wanted to observe this phenomenon in a real-world setting to ensure that the liquid was not only secreted in a laboratory in response to something interfering with the pupae’s development.

To test this, they injected a food dye into the exuvial space of the pupae while they were in an ant colony. This space is a gap between the old cuticle of the pupae as the cuticle is molting and a new cuticle as it is forming. Within 24 hours, the larvae and adult ants also in the colony had taken up the dye into their digestive tracts.

This suggests that other researchers may have missed the liquid’s production because it is consumed relatively quickly.

Next, the researchers tested the effects that this liquid exposure had on larvae. When larvae were deprived of the liquid in an experimental setting, their growth was stunted and they had lower rates of survival. The liquid contains hormones and other substances that may aid larval development.

***

According to Kronauer, the liquid may also ensure that an ant colony acts as a unit. “This secretion really creates these dependencies across different stages,” he says.

The pupae depend on the adults and larvae to remove the liquid so that they do not get an infection and the larvae rely on the pupae’s liquid to aid their growth, says Kronauer.

In a final stage of the experiment, the researchers isolated the pupae of four other ant species, finding that all these species’ pupae produced a similar fluid before hatching. “There are 15,000 ant species, so we can’t say for sure, but so far it seems that all ants produce this liquid,” says Kronauer.

“In short, these results are a fascinating example of how we can still discover new fundamental mechanisms if we just look,” says Chris Reid at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

“The fact that the authors show this newly discovered phenomenon is actually widespread among ants will lead to many researchers changing their way of thinking around the world.”

Comment: more amazing ant activity.

Natures wonders: bowerbirds sex life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 18:59 (474 days ago) @ David Turell

Involves very fancy nests built by males:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-sex-bowerbirds-banding-pay-subordinate.html

"Male spotted bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus maculatus) build and defend a structure of sticks and straw—the bower. They decorate these nests with colorful objects to attract mates during the breeding season. Certain non-resident subordinate males are tolerated by resident males in their bowers over multiple breeding seasons.

"Previous research has shown that these male coalitions bring indirect benefits to subordinate males. So far, however, it has been unclear whether lower-ranking males also have direct advantages. A current study by the Vetmeduni shows for the first time that in rare cases the lower-ranking birds benefit directly from copulation opportunities.

"A current study by the Vetmeduni documents four cases of sneaky matings or mating attempts by subordinate males. The cases were observed in the bowers of spotted bowerbirds during the 2018 breeding season. Several non-resident males disrupted ongoing copulations between the bower-owner and a receptive female, and these events were followed by vigorous aggressive interactions.

***

"Study lead author Leonida Fusani from the Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology at Vetmeduni said, "The fact that we were able to record at least four independent observations in different individuals strongly indicates that sneaky copulations are not an isolated and abnormal behavior. Rather, it is a behavioral pattern or alternative reproductive strategy used by subordinate males."

"Male-male coalitions have so far been observed particularly in birds such as manakins, grouse, peacocks, wild turkeys and bowerbirds. A common feature of most courtship coalitions is that a dominant "alpha" male accounts for all or most copulations, while subordinate "beta" males abstain from breeding and have no—or very limited—access to mates.

"Sacrificing reproductive potential for a male association may seem paradoxical, but it has direct and indirect benefits for the subordinate males. The animals benefit indirectly, for example, from taking over the position of the alpha male after his death or from learning behavior that is important for successful mating from him. As it turns out, they also derive direct benefits from clandestine mating with females."

Comment: another complex activity by a type of bird. Developed by chance or design?

Natures wonders: two sounds from bat larynx

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 21:11 (474 days ago) @ David Turell

High pitched and low growls:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221129143818.htm

"Bats use distinct structures in the larynx to produce high-frequency echolocation calls and lower-frequency social calls, according to a new study. The structures used to make the low-pitched calls are analogous to those used by death metal vocalists in their growls.

"Echolocating bats have an extremely large vocal range of 7 octaves, compared to just 3 to 4 octaves for most mammals, including humans. Their echolocating calls and social calls range between 1 and 120 kilohertz, making them unique among mammals. To understand how different vocal structures allow bats to create such a wide range of calls, researchers extracted the larynx from five adult Daubenton's bats (Myotis daubentonii), mounted and filmed them at 250,000 frames per second while applying a flow of air to mimic natural vocalization. They then used machine learning to reconstruct the motion of vocal membranes that were obscured by other structures.

They found that air pressure generated self-sustaining vibrations in the vocal membrane at frequencies between 10 and 70 kilohertz, sufficient to produce high-frequency echolocation calls. In contrast, thick folds of membrane just above the vocal cords, called "ventricular folds," vibrated at frequencies between 1 and 3 kilohertz, and are likely involved in producing the animals' lower-frequency social calls. Some humans also use their ventricular folds to produce low-frequency vocalizations, such as death metal growls and Tuvan throat singing."

Comment: this is not something natural selection can purposely create, just because of useful need. It is designed

Natures wonders:vertebrates can count, not lizards

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 15:02 (2533 days ago) @ David Turell

It is known vertebrates have counting ability, but lizards seem not to have the ability:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/can-lizards-count?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos+Magazin...


"Suppose you were very hungry and you loved to eat apples, and someone offered you a choice between a plate with five apples on it and a plate with just three. You’d probably choose the five apples without hesitation, and most other animals would do the same. Lizards, however, might find the choice a little tougher.

"New research on the behaviour of ruin lizards (Podarcis sicula), published today in Biology Letters, casts doubt on previous beliefs about the near-universality of numerical cognition.

"The ability of a species to compare relative food quantities and select the largest amount is critical for optimising foraging behaviour and safeguarding survival. To date, this cognitive skill has been observed in all vertebrate species bar reptiles.
An Italian research team from the University of Padova and the University of Ferrara set out to fill this gap in the literature, and investigated the capacity of ruin lizards to select the largest amount of food.

"The researchers exposed their lizard subjects to two servings of Musca domestica housefly larvae, with portions differing in either size or number, and observed the lizard’s choice.

"The two servings were placed in the arms of a Y-shaped study apparatus. After being released from a tunnel-shaped holding area, the lizards climbed to the top of a ramp, reaching a vantage point from which to view the two servings, before being able to enter the experimental compartment and make their final selection.

"Two separate experiments were conducted.

"The first exposed the lizard subjects to two platefuls of different sized larvae, while the second presented two servings containing different numbers of equally sized larvae.

"The results revealed that, while the lizards are able to select the larger of the two different-sized larvae, they do not seem to have the capacity to choose the option containing the higher number of larvae.

"While the observed aptitude for size-discrimination resembles that witnessed in other vertebrate species including chimpanzees, salamanders and guppies, the observed inability of the lizards to distinguish between groups with different numbers of individual components represents a surprising exception.

"The researchers do not know why the ruin lizards lack a numerical capacity, but their findings complicate our previous understanding and open space for new research."

Comment: This is not numerical counting as we do. It is the recognition of bigger and smaller piles or shapes. It seems to be standard brain ability except with lizards.

Natures wonders: Archer fish also do it under water

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 21, 2017, 01:06 (2614 days ago) @ David Turell

Archer fish are amazing shots. they can spit water up to six feet to knock down an insect, but they also use jets underwater to knock prey out of the sand at the bottom:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118582-spitting-archerfish-shoot-at-prey-above-an...

"New experiments show that they also use the jets to hunt underwater – disturbing sediment where prey is lurking and snapping up the spoils.

“'Our study adds support to the view that archerfish use their jets as tools,” says study leader Stefan Schuster of the University of Bayreuth in Germany. “They’re not simple all-or-nothing events, but the jets can be adapted to serve both in aerial and underwater hunting.”

***

"...their jets don’t travel as far underwater. They’re only used at close quarters – between 6 and 40 millimetres from the target – to blast sediment into a cloud that exposes potential prey.

"To their surprise, the researchers found that the archerfish were able to alter the length and type of water blast to suit the type of sediment. Their shots were shortest if the sediment was coarse-grained and increased in length as the sand became finer.

“'The big question is: how did they know beforehand which type of silt was which, and so how long they should blast it for?” asks Schuster. The answer might be that they are adept underwater shooters in the wild, too.

"Which came first – aerial or underwater shooting – also remains to be established.

"Perhaps some tendency to produce underwater jets might have been there first, because this is widespread among fish,” says Schuster. Triggerfish use jets to turn round sea urchins to get access to their soft parts, for example, and lionfish use jets to orient small prey fish for easier swallowing.

“'Many other fish and invertebrates forage by disturbing the ground, and this is probably the ancestral condition,” says Alex Kacelnik of the University of Oxford. “Archerfish probably thus started with this ordinary skill then transitioned to targets probably at, or narrowly above, the surface and this created new selective pressures to focus and aim water jets at ever higher targets.”

“'It’s a lovely example of the incremental and interactive process of evolution of complex traits through natural selection,” he says.

"Schuster says the two techniques might have evolved in parallel, with the fish building on and adapting their skills according to their habitat.

“'Using the same manoeuvre in both contexts might seem silly at first, because jets in water and air face very different constraints,” says Schuster. “But it has a big advantage – that improvements in one context can be adapted to the other.'”

Comment: Since other fish use water jets, it is not limited to only one. Could fish learn to do it by watching others do it? It could be a programmed instinct given to the fish. We cannot tell from what we know.

Natures wonders: Cannibal sex

by David Turell @, Friday, December 19, 2014, 21:47 (3377 days ago) @ David Turell

How to avoid being eaten by your sex partner:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/2014/12/18/male-praying-mantids-have-a-strategy-for-not-being-eaten-by-their-mates/-Male praying mantis trick

Natures wonders: deepest fish

by David Turell @, Friday, December 19, 2014, 23:36 (3377 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Saturday, December 20, 2014, 00:32

The deepest swimming fish on Earth. How is it able to move under such pressure? It has a special chemical, trimethylamine oxide:-"Snailfish are known to thrive at extreme depths: another variety, Pseudoliparis amblystomopsis, previously held the undisputed record for deepest-living fish at 7703 meters. Handling the intense pressure of the deep sea is a challenge for most animals because it impedes muscles and nerves and bends proteins out of shape, disrupting the working of enzymes required for life."-http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/12/19/ghostly-new-fish-discovered-at-record-breaking-depths/

Natures wonders: carnivorous plants

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 20, 2014, 15:05 (3377 days ago) @ David Turell

Bladderwort:-"The bladderworts (Utricularia) are one of the largest genera in carnivorous plants with over 200 species. Aquatic bladderworts catch their prey with highly sophisticated suction traps consisting of little bladders that produce a hydrostatic under pressure. A valve-like trap door opens upon stimulation and the surrounding water including tiny organism flushes in rapidly within three milliseconds. Once inside the trap, the prey dies of suffocation and is degraded by digestive enzymes. Due to the minerals provided by prey organisms, bladderworts are able to live and propagate even in habitats that are extremely poor in nutrients."-"Until recently, it was assumed that suction traps have to be triggered by movements of animal prey but new studies showed that aquatic bladders do require stimulation and "fire" even if they are not stimulated for a longer time. In the natural habitat, more than 50% of all bladders contained only immotile prey like algae, pollen bacteria and fungi but no animal prey that was capable to trigger and open the trap. Thus, prey capture without external stimulation is crucial for these plants."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-vegetarian-carnivorous.html#jCp

Natures wonders: Dragonfly metamorphosis

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 02, 2015, 19:21 (3274 days ago) @ David Turell

Great time-lapse video:-http://bcove.me/bw6uz010-How does an IM invent this process.-Whole article:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recommended-watch-a-dragonfly-s-grotesque-and-beautiful-metamorphosis-video/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150402-"'In the early evening the dragonfly nymph climbs to the top of a reed. She then bends her abdomen while breathing in air, cracking open her skin right below the head. The dragonfly emerges headfirst and upside down. Hanging from the nymph shell, she has to wait until her legs harden before she is able to crawl out and turn around. In the space of about 15 minutes she extends her wings by pumping air into them. Over the next three to four hours her abdomen slowly extends and hardens. Shortly before dawn she spreads her wings. With the first light of the sun the newly emerged dragonfly takes off on her maiden voyage, leaving her old life (and skin) behind."

Natures wonders: Owl flight silent

by David Turell @, Monday, June 22, 2015, 14:36 (3193 days ago) @ David Turell

Owls fly to hunt prey and that flight is relatively noiseless:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-silent-flights-owls-turbines-planes.html-"'Many owls - primarily large owls like barn owls or great grey owls - can hunt by stealth, swooping down and capturing their prey undetected," said Professor Nigel Peake of Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, who led the research. "While we've known this for centuries, what hasn't been known is how or why owls are able to fly in silence."-"Peake and his collaborators at Virginia Tech, Lehigh and Florida Atlantic Universities used high resolution microscopy to examine owl feathers in fine detail. They observed that the flight feathers on an owl's wing have a downy covering, which resembles a forest canopy when viewed from above. In addition to this fluffy canopy, owl wings also have a flexible comb of evenly-spaced bristles along their leading edge, and a porous and elastic fringe on the trailing edge.-"'No other bird has this sort of intricate wing structure," said Peake. "Much of the noise caused by a wing - whether it's attached to a bird, a plane or a fan - originates at the trailing edge where the air passing over the wing surface is turbulent. The structure of an owl's wing serves to reduce noise by smoothing the passage of air as it passes over the wing - scattering the sound so their prey can't hear them coming.'"

Natures wonders: Termites 'collective' mind

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 31, 2015, 00:18 (3062 days ago) @ David Turell

Close study shows some of the termites have differing personalities and the colonies have some sort of group think:-http://www.livescience.com/52644-the-collective-mind-of-the-termite.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2015-10-30-"The nest is not air-conditioned - the mound controls neither the nest's temperature or its humidity. Instead, the mound captures energy in wind to stir the mound air and mix it with the nest's stagnant air, just as you would mix the layers of hot and cold water in a bathtub. This is just what our own lungs do, with the mixing powered by the chest muscles. The termites' clever trick is to power that function with energy in turbulent wind.-***-" You can see the termites' collective mind at work if you drill a hole in the side of the mound. After about 10 minutes, a few termites will show up and start building a mud wall. Then more will come, and more, and more, until there is a frenzy of little termite masons sealing off that hole.-***-"That is a remarkable feat of swarm intelligence. The hole itself is quite a long walk for termites living in the nest, but they must somehow come to know their mound has a hole in it. How? How does a blind termite find the hole? How do they direct their repair efforts to the right place? What calls them off once they are done? How do they even know they are done? These are challenging tasks for tiny insects individually, but collectively they seem to solve them just fine, even when the repair extends far beyond the six-week lifespan of a typical termite worker.-"The collective intelligence of the colony is quite real, as real as our own intelligence, and we are far from comprehending either.-***-"There are identifiable termite “personalities.” Some are “initiators,” getting building under way and running around recruiting lazier nestmates to the task, physically prodding them into action if they resist. Some individuals share water avidly with others, devoting 15 minutes or so to sucking up precious water from soil then distributing it to thirsty nestmates.-***-"Swarm intelligence provides a case in point: are termites simply little robots, programmed to operate through simple algorithms of behavior? Or is there something special, something vital about them that gives what they do an entirely different meaning?-"For a long time, I had thought the former, but I have to say I'm now leaning more toward the latter. What clinched the deal for me was watching swarms of termites settle into what might pass in a Petri dish as a normal setting - familiar soil, a little moisture, a small chip of wood and some fungus from their colony - where there were no swarm aphasias or other signs of cognitive distress.-***-"After a while of exploring their little artificial world, the termites would begin to groom one another. It's a remarkable thing to watch. One termite, the groomer, begins to lick another and then painstakingly works each of the “groomee's” appendages - legs, antennae, mouth parts - through its mandibles. All this time, the groomee seems almost tranquil: its antennae cease to move, it languidly presents its appendages to the groomer as if to say “now this one.” The grooming can become quite intense, with “grooming stations” forming, groups of termites waiting their turn to be attended by a particularly avid groomer.-"Eventually, it hit me: these are not robots; they are living things with individuality, wants and desires. A robot cannot ever “want” to be groomed or “want” to give water to another or “want” a drink. But termites seemingly do. And this gives termites, both individually and collectively, something like a soul - an animating principle that one does not find in mere machines.-Comment: dhw will like this. Not convinced he is not anthropomorphizing them.

Natures wonders: Bumble bees can learn

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 20:47 (3029 days ago) @ David Turell

This experiment using artificial flowers shows that bees can learn where to find the pollen and the nectar although colors may confuse them a bit, and they learn from that confusion.:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/bumblebees-learn-2-things-at-once/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151202-"To train bees by giving them a chance to get experience with both flowers, I let an individual bee into a room where she could fly around and collect nectar and pollen from the artificial flowers. She then returned to her colony, removed her pollen loads and regurgitated nectar into honeypots in the colony (making honey). After a few times of going between the foraging array and colony it seemed like bees had learned where to go to collect nectar and where to go to collect pollen. It was easy to tell whether the bee was trying to collect nectar or pollen from a given flower because bees collected pollen from the artificial anthers of the flowers and nectar from a well at the base of the anther.-"To test whether bees had learned where to go, I then gave each bee a ‘test'. In this test, I presented a bee with four artificial flowers. Two of these flowers were the ones she had previously encountered (blue and yellow) and two of these flowers were completely new (being orange and purple). In this test phase, none of the flowers had any nectar or pollen on them.-"I found that if a bee had been trained to find pollen on yellow flowers and nectar on blue, then she searched for pollen on the anthers of the yellow flowers, and probed for nectar in the nectar wells of the blue flowers. This showed that bees remembered which flowers had previously contained which specific reward.-:Interestingly, the bees also generalised what they had learned for yellow and blue flowers to the two novel colours (purple and orange). This meant that if a bee had learned that yellow flowers had pollen she also searched orange flowers for pollen (the colour most similar to yellow). Similarly, if she had learned that blue flowers had nectar she also searched purple flowers for nectar (the colour most similar to blue).-"This finding that bees can simultaneously learn which flowers have nectar and which have pollen teaches us something new about bee behaviour. However, this discovery also means that we can now use bees to look at how animals more generally learn when they are dealing with different types of reward."-Comment: Interesting but not surprising finding. Bees dance to tell where the best flowers exist.

Natures wonders: Ants protect a plant they live in

by David Turell @, Friday, December 04, 2015, 00:52 (3028 days ago) @ David Turell

This is a triple symbiosis as the article explains. A specific plant, a specific ant species and a third organism that supplies the ant diet:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202124255.htm-"Seemingly helpless against their much more lively natural enemies, plants have actually come up with a wide range of defences. In the present research,...focus[ed] on the mutualistic relationship developed between a specific Neotropical knotweed and an ant species. During a series of ant-exclusion experiments the scientists observed and subsequently reported an aggressive and highly protective behaviour.-***-"'When an ant encountered a caterpillar, a worker approached and detected it with its antennae, and then recruited more workers. Typically more than 10 workers were recruited around the intruder in less than five minutes," shared their observations the researchers. "Several workers harassed the herbivore by stinging or biting, until it dropped off the plant. The caterpillars usually hung by a silk thread and attempted to move back onto the plant. However, individuals of Pseudomyrmex continued to chase them until they dropped again. This cycle was repeated several times."-***-"The herein researched Neotropical plant have found its way of survival through becoming the only host to the ant species Pseudomyrmex dendroicus, characterised with remarkable eyes, light brown body and potent venom, injected through a well-developed sting. In its turn, the knotweed shelters their entire colony in its hollow stems while another symbiont, scale insects, feeds them with the sugary sticky liquid it secrets on digesting plant sap."-Comment: Clever triple arrangement. Everyone benefits except the caterpillar. No clear evidence of how it might have bee arranged in the beginning.

Natures wonders: wasp alarm pheramones

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 06, 2015, 00:26 (3026 days ago) @ David Turell

Wasps protect their nests by identifying enemies with pheromones which allows a whole swarm of wasps to identify and attack:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151202124556.htm-"Social insects invest a lot of work and resources in their colonies, working together to raise large numbers of larvae. Because their nests contain so many protein-rich, yet helpless young, they have evolved elaborate defence mechanisms to protect them.-"One way the social wasps have found to increase the efficiency of their defence is through chemical signals, called alarm pheromones, which are used to rouse the colony to action and mark intruders for attack. As a result, the coordinated attack of a large colony of yellow jackets can drive even large predators away from the nest. Several social wasp alarm pheromones have been discovered, and most of these have been detected in the venom sacs of the wasps.-***-"The scientist have used this new method to figure whether three species of yellow jackets (the western yellow jacket, the common yellow jacket and the German yellow jacket) have alarm pheromones, and whether each species is able to recognize each of the alarm pheromones of the rest.-"'We found evidence for alarm pheromones in all three species, and that each species recognizes and responds to the other species' alarm pheromones in similar ways," say the researchers. "We conclude that the chemical messages produced by these three yellow jacket species must be very similar."-"'It makes sense that wasps can recognize the alarm pheromones of other species, because it would be advantageous to be able to detect a pheromone-marked predator that has attacked other wasps nearby and start stinging it to drive it away before it finds their own colony," conclude the authors."-Comment: The wasps developed two specific useful fluids. No explanation of how this evolved.

Natures wonders: wasp larvae jump to survive

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 20:55 (3009 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 21:07

The wasp larvae live on an alfalfa weevil larva, occupy its cocoon for several months, during which time it tries to move to a shady spot for protection:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151221133838.htm- "Adult Bathyplectes anurus wasps lay their eggs in alfalfa weevil larvae. When the wasp larva develops, it crawls out from inside its host and promptly feeds on it. It then spends ten months in a self-spun cocoon inside the cocoon of the alfalfa weevil larva it has eaten, before developing into a pupa. During this time, the wasp larva performs whip-like twitches against the interior of the cocoon causing the entire structure to move approximately five centimeters at a time.-***-"The Bathyplectes anurus cocoons exposed to light jumped nearly three times more often than those kept in darkness. Jumping activity increased during rapid temperature increases, and was 60 percent higher at conditions of low humidity. When the cocoons were allowed to jump freely in an area of gradient light going from dark to bright, more cocoons ended up in shady areas. Cocoons in the shady area were more likely to survive, compared to the cocoons left out in brighter light.-"The cocoons jumped and moved about 83 percent more when they were placed near Japanese giant ants, known predators of this type of larvae, compared to when there were no danger elements in the vicinity. The frequency of movements decreased once the predators made direct contact with the cocoons."-Comment: Could this behavior have developed naturally?

Natures wonders: bat aerodynamics awesome

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 21:07 (3009 days ago) @ David Turell

Bats can maneuver better than birds. Their wings are heavier and ears bigger, but all works well:-http://phys.org/news/2015-12-awesomeness.html
Bats, unlike most birds and flying insects, have relatively heavy wings - something that might appear disadvantageous. But a recent study in PLOS Biology by Kenny Breuer and colleagues shows that bats can exploit the inertia of the wings to make sharp turns that would be near-impossible using aerodynamic forces alone.-***-"While evolution has minimised the weight of the largely aerodynamic wings of birds and insects, it seems that bats rely on their wings' mass, retracting them to turn rapidly, as figure skaters retract their heavy arms to spin faster.-"The other bat skill that humans envy - their ability to avoid obstacles while flying at speed in complete darkness - was recently dissected in a PLOS Computation Biology paper by Dieter Vanderelst and colleagues. They used spatial simulations to demonstrate that bats are able to negotiate complex environments without making full 3D reconstructions of their surroundings. All they need is the difference in intensity and travel time of the echo received in their two ears - a pared-down functionality that might help drones deliver your internet orders without hitting a lamppost.-"Sometimes these two prime skills - echolocation and acrobatic flight - seem to be in conflict; echolocation benefits from large ears and complicated "noseleaves," but these features would appear to disrupt the streamlining needed for efficient flight. This PLOS ONE paper, also from Vanderelst and co-authors, put this notion to the test by making 3D models of the heads of seven bat species and sticking them in an air tunnel. Surprisingly, while these facial oddities do increase drag, they also contribute substantially to lift, meaning that they confer little net disadvantage, and so the trade-off between bat abilities is minimal.-Comment: Living organisms are amazingly inventive. Or were they helped?

Natures wonders: bat aerodynamics awesome

by romansh ⌂ @, Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 23:26 (3009 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by romansh, Tuesday, December 22, 2015, 23:55

David: Comment: Living organisms are amazingly inventive. Or were they helped?-What about the option neither?
 
> David: Comment: Could this behavior have developed naturally?
Yes.

Natures wonders: triple symbosis

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 31, 2015, 05:17 (3001 days ago) @ romansh

A fungus, a caterpillar and an ant species all working together, with a butterfly from the caterpillar involved:-http://www.livescience.com/53230-ant-caterpillar-parasite-relationship.html-" As the caterpillar gorged on the bulb, an ant seemed to be drumming on the caterpillar's back. This drumming motion spurred the caterpillar to secrete a sugary liquid from a specialized organ on its back, called the dorsal nectary organ, which the ant then devoured. -"It turned out that the caterpillar and the ant had an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" relationship. The ant does bodyguard duty, warding off spiders, wasps or other ants that eat defenseless caterpillars, while the caterpillar provides snacks for the ant, a relationship known as myrmecophily, Pomerantz said.-"'It's multiple layers," Pomerantz told Live Science. "You've got a tree, you've got a parasite inside the tree, you've got caterpillars eating the parasites and then ants taking care of the caterpillar."-***-"He said he suspects the caterpillar grows into the gray butterfly, and that the butterfly uses its camouflage coloring to hide from lizards and birds. In other words, both the larval stage and the adult stage of this butterfly species have evolved changes to best take advantage of the tree and its parasitic plant.-"'This really points to this long-term relationship," Pomerantz said.-"That's especially baffling, considering that the parasites emerge from the trees just a few weeks every year to be pollinated, he said."-Comment: Looks like good timing to me.

Natures wonders: dandelion root protecton

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 06, 2016, 02:08 (2995 days ago) @ David Turell

The roots produce a substance which keeps away pests:-http://phys.org/news/2016-01-dandelion-latex-roots-insect.html-"In fields and meadows, the plant must fend off many herbivores, among them cockchafer larvae. The common cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha) spends the first three years of its life cycle underground as a grub feeding on the roots of different plants. One of its favorite foods is dandelion roots. Like many other plants, dandelions produce secondary metabolites to protect themselves against herbivores. Some of these defenses, such as terpenes and phenols, are of pharmaceutical interest and are considered promising anti-cancer agents. The most important dandelion metabolites are bitter substances which are especially found in a milky sap called latex, a substance found in almost ten percent of all flowering plants.-***-"The researchers succeeded in identifying the enzyme and gene responsible for the formation of a precursor of TA-G biosynthesis, and so were able to engineer plants with lower TA-G. Roots of engineered plants with less TA-G were considerably more attacked by cockchafer larvae. The chemical composition of latex varies between different natural dandelion lines. A common garden experiment with different lines revealed that plants which produce higher amounts of TA-G maintained a higher vegetative and reproductive fitness when they were attached by cockchafer larvae. "For me, the biggest surprise was to learn that a single compound is really responsible for a defensive function," says Jonathan Gershenzon, the head of the Department of Biochemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Jena. "The latex of dandelions and other plants consists of such a mixture of substances that it didn't seem necessarily true that one chemical by itself had such a protective role against our study insect.'"-Comment: My usual question. How did evolution find the proper enzyme molecule to do the job? Hunt and peck? Enzymes are huge and complex molecules often with metal ions attached.

Natures wonders: dandelion root protecton

by dhw, Wednesday, January 06, 2016, 15:18 (2995 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The roots produce a substance which keeps away pests:-http://phys.org/news/2016-01-dandelion-latex-roots-insect.html-David's comment: My usual question. How did evolution find the proper enzyme molecule to do the job? Hunt and peck? Enzymes are huge and complex molecules often with metal ions attached.-And my usual question: Are you now suggesting that 3.8 billion years ago, God equipped the first living cells to pass on a programme for making dandelions with the proper enzyme molecule? (Plus programmes for a few billion other innovations, lifestyles and wonders?) Or did he personally intervene to make sure dandelions survived?

Natures wonders: dandelion root protecton

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 07, 2016, 00:21 (2994 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment: My usual question. How did evolution find the proper enzyme molecule to do the job? Hunt and peck? Enzymes are huge and complex molecules often with metal ions attached.
> 
> dhw: And my usual question: Are you now suggesting that 3.8 billion years ago, God equipped the first living cells to pass on a programme for making dandelions with the proper enzyme molecule? (Plus programmes for a few billion other innovations, lifestyles and wonders?) Or did he personally intervene to make sure dandelions survived?-As usual I don't know which is correct.

Natures wonders: dandelion root protecton

by dhw, Thursday, January 07, 2016, 12:25 (2994 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: My usual question. How did evolution find the proper enzyme molecule to do the job? Hunt and peck? Enzymes are huge and complex molecules often with metal ions attached.-dhw: And my usual question: Are you now suggesting that 3.8 billion years ago, God equipped the first living cells to pass on a programme for making dandelions with the proper enzyme molecule? (Plus programmes for a few billion other innovations, lifestyles and wonders?) Or did he personally intervene to make sure dandelions survived?-DAVID: As usual I don't know which is correct.-See my post under “Different in degree or kind...”.

Natures wonders: Falcons imprison their next meals

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 09, 2016, 05:33 (2992 days ago) @ dhw

They keep live birds trapped for the next meal:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28745-falcons-imprison-live-birds-to-keep-them-fresh-for-a-later-meal/?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-1-08-"In a census of the island's falcons in 2014, Abdeljebbar Qninba of Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, and his colleagues came across small birds trapped in deep cavities, their flight and tail feathers removed. The birds were unable to move their wings or use their dangling legs, the team reported.-"Crippling and imprisoning prey might be a means of keeping fresh food nearby, so parents can stay on the nest and still have snacks nearby to feed hungry offspring.-***-"However, both caution that the few observations made of these trapped birds so far isn't enough to confirm that they are being held prisoner by the falcons.-"Rob Simmons of the University of Cape Town in South Africa is sceptical. “I don't believe a falcon has the cognitive ability to ‘store' prey like this,” he says. “I think the birds' prey may simply be escaping and finding refuge.” Raptors often start plucking their prey before they kill them, so the injured birds may simply be escapees."-Comment: Not clear if it is true.

Natures wonders: Bumblebees sense eletric fields

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 09, 2016, 05:41 (2992 days ago) @ David Turell

They seem to look for charged flowers!-http://www.nature.com/news/bumblebees-sense-electric-fields-in-flowers-1.12480-"As they zero in on their sugary reward, foraging bumblebees follow an invisible clue: electric fields. Although some animals, including sharks, are known to have an electric sense, this is the first time the ability has been documented in insects.-"Pollinating insects take in a large number of sensory cues, from colours and fragrances to petal textures and air humidity. Being able to judge which flowers will provide the most nectar, and which have already been plundered by other pollinators, helps them to use their energy more efficiently.-"It has long been known that bumblebees build up a positive electrical charge as they rapidly flap their wings; when they land on flowers, this charge helps pollen to stick to their hairs. Daniel Robert, a biologist at the University of Bristol, UK, knew that such electrical interactions would temporarily change the electrical status of the flowers — but he did not know whether bumblebees were picking up on this.-***-"But when the researchers turned off the electrical charge on the flowers and re-released the trained bees, the insects visited rewarding flowers only about half of the time, as they would have by random chance. That suggested that the bees were detecting the electric fields and using them to guide their activities, rather than relying on other clues such as fragrance. The team reports its results in this week's Science1.-“'We think bumblebees are using this ability to perceive electrical fields to determine if flowers were recently visited by other bumblebees and are therefore worth visiting,” says Robert."-Comment: If migrating birds and butterflies use magnetic fields, why not electric fields?

Natures wonders: Nematode has five body forms

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 19, 2016, 00:52 (2982 days ago) @ David Turell

And it all comes from the same DNA:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2073487-shape-shifting-worm-creates-five-different-versions-of-itself/-" Genetic studies have shown single species of nematode worm, newly discovered inside figs, can develop into five distinct forms. It is a striking example of physical divergence without genetic divergence.-***-"Young Pristionchus nematodes hitch a ride to new figs on the wasps that fertilise the figs. If you look inside the fig soon after the wasps arrive, only a small form of the nematode can be found. It has a simple tube-like mouth for feeding on microbes.-"But the offspring of these colonists can develop into five distinct forms: two that feed on microbes and three larger ones with bigger mouths equipped with rows of teeth, for catching other species of nematodes. “They have different ecological roles,” Ragsdale says.-***-"So far the team has identified three related species of Pristionchus nematodes - collected in South Africa, Réunion Island and Vietnam - that each have five phenotypes. There may be species with even higher numbers, says team member Ralf Sommer of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany."-Comment: There must be modifiers of gene expression at work.

Natures wonders: Venus fly trap; count to two, trap

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 05:42 (2975 days ago) @ David Turell

These plants digest like animals with an acidic fluid. They trigger a closure by counting:-http://www.livescience.com/53462-venus-flytraps-count.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-1-25-"Unlike proactive predators in the animal kingdom, carnivorous plants like the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) must wait for their insect prey to literally step inside their "jaws" before they can catch the victims. But these plants don't instantly snap at the first tentative tap of a potential meal in their maws; instead, the plants count touches from their hapless prey to tailor a predatory response, an international team of scientists found.-"The first tap from an insect tells a Venus flytrap, "Pay attention, but don't respond just yet," the new study said. A second tap means, "Probably food," triggering the trap to close, and three more taps from a trapped insect signal, "Start digesting!"-***-"The Venus flytrap's capture organ, described by the researchers of the new study as a "green stomach," extends from the ends of the plant's leaves, and its two-hinged, crescent-shaped lobes are fringed with bristles that lock together when the trap shuts. The trap's inner surface sprouts hairlike structures known as trichomes, sensitive strands that react to a visiting insect's touch. And two taps are all it takes to trigger a lethal outcome. Once the prey is caught, the flytrap's digestive juices go to work, breaking down and absorbing the nutrients and reducing the insect to an empty husk. -"Prior observations of flytrap behavior noted that the plants snapped closed after two touches to their trichomes, the scientists reported. But the new study took a closer look at how the Venus flytrap might use touch to identify a visiting insect as food, and to capture and consume it, they said.-***-"The investigators found that the trigger hairs were linked to two important areas in the plant: motor tissue, which mechanically closed the trap, and the endocrine system, which digests the nutrient-rich prey. After the two touches had sprung the trap, the insect's frantic struggles brushed it up against the hairs again and again. Like the repeated ringing of a "Come and get it!" dinner bell, these later touches further stimulated the plant, prompting the release of digestive juices, the researchers observed.-"The scientists also noted that during digestion, gland cells in the flytraps enabled the plants to absorb and store large amounts of sodium from the decomposing insects. The researchers said they were not certain how the plants were using the element, but suggested that it might be stashed in shoot tissues, helping to preserve the proper balance of water in the plant's cells."-Comment: How did this evolve? A plant acting like an animal, but it gets the plant lots of nitrogen.

Natures wonders: Sharks smell their way home

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 20:35 (2973 days ago) @ David Turell

A podcast. Sharks with their nostrils blocked still get home but more erratically. Those with clear noses get back straighter and faster:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/sharks-head-straight-home-by-smell/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160127

Natures wonders: Bats unjam their group sonar

by David Turell @, Friday, January 29, 2016, 01:35 (2972 days ago) @ David Turell

Bats use echolocation to find prey. In crowds they can jam each other:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128133301.htm-"Individual bats emit sonar calls in the dark, using the echo of their signature sounds to identify and target potential prey. But because they travel in large groups, their signals often "jam" each other, a problem resembling extreme radar interference. How do bats overcome this "cocktail party" cacophony to feed and survive in the wild?-"A new Tel Aviv University study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences identifies the mechanism that allows individual bats to stand out from the crowd. The research, by Dr. Yossi Yovel of TAU's Department of Zoology, finds that individual bats manage to avoid noise overlap by increasing the volume, duration and repetition rate of their signals.-***-"In another paper, published in 2009, we trained bats to crawl toward one side or another, in the direction of another bat," Dr. Yovel explained. "This indicated that they indeed differentiated between the voice of one bat and another. This also proved they could identify their own calls.-"'In the current study, we trained bats to fly around a small room and land on a small object -- in the midst of a loud mixture of bat signals playing overhead. They found the object by increasing their emissions: crying louder and longer and shouting more frequently. They cried 'ahhhhhhh' instead of 'ah' twice as frequently -- every 50 milliseconds instead of the usual 100 milliseconds.'"-Comment: Could be a learned response to crowd noise.

Natures wonders: Aquatic insects builld shelters

by David Turell @, Monday, February 01, 2016, 01:09 (2969 days ago) @ David Turell

This is very important protection in the larval form. They remain inside until pupation:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128081431.htm-" Larvae of caddisfly, aquatic insects of the order Trichoptera, using substrate particles, build tiny tubes where they protect their fragile bodies and carry out the metamorphosis which will transform them in adults. Researchers unveil a curious secret of Nature, unknown until now. When the time for pupation comes, larvae modify the architecture of their shelters, balancing their two halves by means of adding weight to both ends. The goal is that the tubes in which they stay captive until pupation can rest horizontally on the shallow banks of the streams, given that, in case of staying in vertical position, the probability of being exposed to the air would be too high and they could die of desiccation. -***-"Intrigued by this fact, professor Alba-Tercedor carried out a research on this aquatic insect using microtomography. The first images showed this double structure and, in addition, they showed that the larva had put additional grains of sand or gravel in both ends before pupating. These grains, which in the images looked like big rocks, were put in the inner or the outer side.-***-"With that change, the tiny tubes can lay horizontally in the shallow banks of the streams where, at the end of the summer, the larvae stay enclosed for several weeks until they complete their transformation and emerge as flying adults.-"'During this time, the streams' volume of water decrease a lot and there remain some poodles in which the larvae, enclosed in their tiny tubes, stay submerged. During this time, if the tubes were in a vertical position, the probability of part of them being exposed to the air would be very high and, therefore, the animal would die out of desiccation," the professor of Zoology from the UGR stresses.-***-"The results confirmed the hypothesis: the weight of the two halves was exactly the same thanks to the re-balancing work that they make by themselves adding new substrate particles to both ends.-***-"Such a tiny larva, whose length is only a little more than one centimeter, is capable of being an expert architect building the tubes and adding the exact amount and volume of grains in both ends to balance the weight as in a scale, afterwards. The survival of the species depends on this. Evolution has selected the ones that built the right way," professor Alba-Tercedor concludes."-Comment: From my viewpoint, this is too complex to have developed by trial and error.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 11, 2016, 20:47 (2958 days ago) @ David Turell

They fly in ever increasing arcs, watch their home, and use the same way to come back:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211140421.htm-"Earlier studies had shown that the arcs wasps travel in learning flights follow a remarkably precise pattern. They also knew that wasps make very similar manoeuvres in return flights as they do during learning.-***-"Their evidence suggests that wasps monitor changing views during learning flights and use the differences they experience relative to previously encountered views to decide when to begin a new arc. When they encounter a familiar view on the way home, wasps move to the left or right, depending on the direction of the nest relative to what they've seen. They also appear to rely on ground features near the nest to guide them.-"Zeil says that his and his colleagues' efforts to examine the homing ability of wasps are part of a much larger effort by many others to develop the tools for ecological neuroscience, a field dedicated to exploring information processing under natural conditions. The next step for them is to explore how their findings in wasps can explain homing in other insects, particularly in bees and ants. They'd also like to understand how this navigational competence develops during the lifetime of an insect.-"Zeil notes that the wasps' homing abilities make them "smarter" than anything humans now know how to build. On that note, he says, it will be interesting to apply and explore what they've learned in flying robots."-Comment: We still Biomimetics to learn how to do things. Nature is still smarter than we are.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by dhw, Friday, February 12, 2016, 13:31 (2958 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Zeil notes that the wasps' homing abilities make them "smarter" than anything humans now know how to build. On that note, he says, it will be interesting to apply and explore what they've learned in flying robots."-David's comment: We still Biomimetics to learn how to do things. Nature is still smarter than we are.-Nature is not an organism. The wasp, dog, elephant and bacterium are the organisms, and yes indeed, in certain fields they are smarter than we are, just as we are smarter than they are in other fields. It's all a matter of degrees of smartness, isn't it?

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Friday, February 12, 2016, 15:00 (2958 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment: We still use Biomimetics to learn how to do things. Nature is still smarter than we are.
> 
> Dhw: Nature is not an organism. The wasp, dog, elephant and bacterium are the organisms, and yes indeed, in certain fields they are smarter than we are, just as we are smarter than they are in other fields. It's all a matter of degrees of smartness, isn't it?-The animals are not smarter. The biomimetic structures (Velcro) and processes (photosynthesis) teach us to create new inventions which were developed thru evolution, which may have been guided by God, or run independently after God created the process of evolution.. Could it be God is the smartest?

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by dhw, Saturday, February 13, 2016, 13:40 (2957 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: We still use Biomimetics to learn how to do things. Nature is still smarter than we are.-Dhw: Nature is not an organism. The wasp, dog, elephant and bacterium are the organisms, and yes indeed, in certain fields they are smarter than we are, just as we are smarter than they are in other fields. It's all a matter of degrees of smartness, isn't it?-DAVID: The animals are not smarter. The biomimetic structures (Velcro) and processes (photosynthesis) teach us to create new inventions which were developed thru evolution, which may have been guided by God, or run independently after God created the process of evolution.. Could it be God is the smartest?-I'm delighted by your acknowledgement that evolution may have run independently. If it did, then the animals which figured out these inventions are smarter than us in their own particular fields. If God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or gave them personal tuition, then they are not. It goes without saying that if God exists, he is the smartest.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 13, 2016, 15:00 (2957 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I'm delighted by your acknowledgement that evolution may have run independently.-Note my proviso that God invented the process for his puprposes.-> dhw: If it did, then the animals which figured out these inventions are smarter than us in their own particular fields. If God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or gave them personal tuition, then they are not. It goes without saying that if God exists, he is the smartest.-Thank you.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by dhw, Sunday, February 14, 2016, 12:22 (2956 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I'm delighted by your acknowledgement that evolution may have run independently.-DAVID: Note my proviso that God invented the process for his purposes.-Duly noted. I have also noted the fact that over and over again you have told us it is impossible to read your God's mind. His purpose may therefore be quite different from the anthropocentric one you have imposed on him.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 14, 2016, 15:16 (2956 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Note my proviso that God invented the process for his purposes.
> 
> dhw: Duly noted. I have also noted the fact that over and over again you have told us it is impossible to read your God's mind. His purpose may therefore be quite different from the anthropocentric one you have imposed on him.-'Purpose' is different than understanding the reasons for the way He does things. When I comment about not being able to read his mind, I'm referring only to that aspect of understanding Him. To me his purpose is obvious, his decisions as to process are not.

Natures wonders: Spider silk amazing stretch

by David Turell @, Monday, February 15, 2016, 15:36 (2955 days ago) @ David Turell

Spider silk can stretch up to five times its length:-http://phys.org/news/2016-02-big-spider-silk-proteins.html-"While working to improve a tool that measures the pushes and pulls sensed by proteins in living cells, biophysicists at Johns Hopkins say they've discovered one reason spiders' silk is so elastic: Pieces of the silk's protein threads act like supersprings, stretching to five times their initial length.-***-"'All other known springs, biological and nonbiological, lengthen in a way that is directly proportional to the force applied to them only until they have been stretched to about 20 percent of their original length," notes Taekjip Ha, Ph.D., the study's lead researcher. "At that point, you have to apply more and more force to stretch them the same distance as before. But the piece of the spider silk protein we focused on continues to stretch in direct proportion to the force applied until it reaches its maximal stretch of 500 percent."-***-"The Virginia team set up those experiments by inserting a repeating amino acid sequence—taken from the spider silk protein known as flagelliform—into a human protein called vinculin. Vinculin is responsible for internalizing forces outside a cell by bridging the cellular membrane and the actin network within the cell, making it an important mechanical communicator within the cell.-***-"The team wasn't expecting the spider silk inserts to show such linear behavior because, according to Ha, they don't form well-defined, three-dimensional structures. "Usually, unstructured proteins show disorderly, nonlinear behavior when we pull on them," says Ha. "The fact that these don't act that way means that they will be really useful tools for studying protein mechanics because their behavior is easy to understand and predict.'"-Comment: I've skipped the details of how they made the measurements. The key point is that these proteins are showing very unusual properties, helpful to spider webs. Again in evolution, how did the spider find these protein molecules that are so different. Not by chance if the spider had to depend on a useful web for food that didn't work properly. Spiders might have starved to death waiting for the right protein. Design is an answer.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by dhw, Monday, February 15, 2016, 16:40 (2955 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Note my proviso that God invented the process for his purposes.-dhw: Duly noted. I have also noted the fact that over and over again you have told us it is impossible to read your God's mind. His purpose may therefore be quite different from the anthropocentric one you have imposed on him.-DAVID: 'Purpose' is different than understanding the reasons for the way He does things. When I comment about not being able to read his mind, I'm referring only to that aspect of understanding Him. To me his purpose is obvious, his decisions as to process are not.-I don't see how anyone can claim to know God's purpose without attempting to read his mind! A deist might argue that the higgledy-piggledy history of cosmic and evolutionary comings and goings makes it “obvious” that your God set things going (e.g. for fun, or as an experiment) and then left them to run their own course, instead of the whole shebang being designed to create humans. The processes we observe are wide open to different “readings”. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how you can claim that your interpretation of God's purpose is anything other than a subjective attempt to read his mind.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Monday, February 15, 2016, 18:36 (2955 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I don't see how anyone can claim to know God's purpose without attempting to read his mind! A deist might argue that the higgledy-piggledy history of cosmic and evolutionary comings and goings makes it “obvious” that your God set things going (e.g. for fun, or as an experiment) and then left them to run their own course, instead of the whole shebang being designed to create humans. The processes we observe are wide open to different “readings”. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how you can claim that your interpretation of God's purpose is anything other than a subjective attempt to read his mind.-I think I can be allowed to read His mind for purpose but not for process, just a the deist example above.

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by dhw, Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 16:08 (2954 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don't see how anyone can claim to know God's purpose without attempting to read his mind! A deist might argue that the higgledy-piggledy history of cosmic and evolutionary comings and goings makes it “obvious” that your God set things going (e.g. for fun, or as an experiment) and then left them to run their own course, instead of the whole shebang being designed to create humans. The processes we observe are wide open to different “readings”. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how you can claim that your interpretation of God's purpose is anything other than a subjective attempt to read his mind.-DAVID: I think I can be allowed to read His mind for purpose but not for process, just a the deist example above.-Of course you can. You are entitled to your opinion, as we all are. However, the complaint that my approach involves reading God's mind is simply the application of double standards: you are allowed to read his mind for purpose and impose it on the apparently contradictory process (which you can't understand), but I am criticized if I base my reading of his mind for purpose on observation of the process!

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 18:37 (2954 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: you are allowed to read his mind for purpose and impose it on the apparently contradictory process (which you can't understand), but I am criticized if I base my reading of his mind for purpose on observation of the process!-I can still see purpose even if I don't understand the intricacies of the process. I'm standing in a Ford automatic car factory. I know what is coming out but I don't understand the robotic process in detail. What is your problem with that reasoning?

Natures wonders: Wasps find their way home

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 21, 2016, 01:16 (2949 days ago) @ David Turell

How whales evolved to see well underwater. Their rhodopsin is blue-shifted compared to terrestrial animals:-http://phys.org/news/2016-02-evolution-whale-vision.html-Researchers from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto used a combination of statistical and experimental methods to determine how the gene coding for the visual protein known as rhodopsin has evolved differently in whales and dolphins relative to terrestrial mammals. By using killer whale rhodopsin as an experimental model, their results show that not only is the rhodopsin gene under natural selection pressure in whales, but also that naturally selected mutations in the gene confer greater sensitivity towards blue-shifted underwater light. This makes it one of the first whale evolution studies to directly link selection patterns with a measurable change in function.-***-Sarah Dungan, PhD candidate and lead author of the paper elaborates: "Rhodopsin is a light-sensitive protein in the rod cells of your eyes that allows you to see even in dark conditions. Whales are particularly relianton rhodopsin because light fades very quickly with depth underwater. But the majority of light in the ocean is also blue, so if you're a deep diver like a sperm whale,having rhodopsin more sensitive in the blue part of the spectrum allows your eyes to make the most useof the scarce light hundreds of meters below the surface. This could mean the difference between catching your prey or going hungry."-Even in species that hunt closer to the surface, such as the killer whale, rhodopsin sensitivity is blue-shifted compared to close terrestrial relatives like the cow. -The graph:-
 http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/56c83ab5b747e.jpg-Graphs showing the light sensitivity of killer whale, cow, and mutant killer whale rhodopsins. The killer whale is blue-shifted compared to the cow (a terrestrial mammal), and this difference is accounted for by mutations in the gene sequence.-Comment: Did jumping in the water come before the rhodopsin alteration? Of course, whales had to see to eat.

Natures wonders: whale vision under water

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 21, 2016, 05:11 (2949 days ago) @ David Turell

Last entry has the wrong title:-Same content:-How whales evolved to see well underwater. Their rhodopsin is blue-shifted compared to terrestrial animals:-http://phys.org/news/2016-02-evolution-whale-vision.html-"Researchers from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Toronto used a combination of statistical and experimental methods to determine how the gene coding for the visual protein known as rhodopsin has evolved differently in whales and dolphins relative to terrestrial mammals. By using killer whale rhodopsin as an experimental model, their results show that not only is the rhodopsin gene under natural selection pressure in whales, but also that naturally selected mutations in the gene confer greater sensitivity towards blue-shifted underwater light. This makes it one of the first whale evolution studies to directly link selection patterns with a measurable change in function.-***-"Sarah Dungan, PhD candidate and lead author of the paper elaborates: "Rhodopsin is a light-sensitive protein in the rod cells of your eyes that allows you to see even in dark conditions. Whales are particularly relianton rhodopsin because light fades very quickly with depth underwater. But the majority of light in the ocean is also blue, so if you're a deep diver like a sperm whale,having rhodopsin more sensitive in the blue part of the spectrum allows your eyes to make the most useof the scarce light hundreds of meters below the surface. This could mean the difference between catching your prey or going hungry."-"Even in species that hunt closer to the surface, such as the killer whale, rhodopsin sensitivity is blue-shifted compared to close terrestrial relatives like the cow. -The graph:-
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/56c83ab5b747e.jpg-"Graphs showing the light sensitivity of killer whale, cow, and mutant killer whale rhodopsins. The killer whale is blue-shifted compared to the cow (a terrestrial mammal), and this difference is accounted for by mutations in the gene sequence."-Comment: Did jumping in the water come before the rhodopsin alteration? Of course, whales had to see to eat.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2016, 16:31 (2939 days ago) @ David Turell

Some amoebas bunch together much like a multicellular organism and have differing functions, but some maintain their trapping mechanisms like engulfing to offer immune protection from predators:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45484/title/Amoebae-Have-Human-Like-Immunity/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=26843367&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-97JpYJwq3uKmjIw7c48gRy-FCa0zn608CedhXZK9QEu1sDbvZGtaq2U0nBluPdOZ0Fz35ZGZIdlRDHDos8m0aaUrpGrA&_hsmi=26843367/-"When resources get low, the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum come together by the thousands to form a stalk topped by a mass of spores, which can blow off in the wind to more-plentiful environments. About 80 percent of the amoeba that contribute to this cooperative structure become spores; approximately 20 percent form the stalk, sacrificing their own survival and reproduction for the success of the group. But there is also a third set of cells—about 1 percent of the population—that maintain the amoeba's typical phagocytic functions, according to a study published yesterday.-"This last percentage is made up of cells called sentinel cells,” study coauthor Thierry Soldati of the University of Geneva in Switzerland said in a press release. “They make up the primitive innate immune system of the slug and play the same role as immune cells in animals. Indeed, they also use phagocytosis and DNA nets to exterminate bacteria that would jeopardize the survival of the slug.” -***- "Amoeba can similarly engulf bacteria in their environment; Soldati and his colleagues in Geneva and at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, found that amoeba sentinel cells also produce DNA-based extracellular traps (ETs) when threatened with bacteria or lipopolysaccharides. Moreover, interfering with this process decreased the colony's ability to clear infection.-“'We have thus discovered that what we believed to be an invention of higher animals is actually a strategy that was already active in unicellular organisms one billion years ago,'”-Comment: In an animal world where everyone is lunch protections are necessary. it started with the earliest organisms.

Natures wonders: dragonflies' yearly migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 03, 2016, 00:50 (2938 days ago) @ David Turell

A tiny dragonfly flies 4,400 miles from India to Africa each year:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160302150020.htm-"Biologists at Rutgers University-Newark (RU-N) who led the study -- which appears in the journal PLOS ONE -- say the evidence is in the genes. They found that populations of this dragonfly, called Pantala flavescens, in locations as far apart as Texas, eastern Canada, Japan, Korea, India, and South America, have genetic profiles so similar that there is only one likely explanation. Apparently -- somehow -- these insects are traveling distances that are extraordinarily long for their small size, breeding with each other, and creating a common worldwide gene pool that would be impossible if they did not intermingle.-***-"Dragonflies, in fact, have already been observed crossing the Indian Ocean from Asia to Africa. "They are following the weather," says Daniel Troast, who analyzed the DNA samples in Ware's lab while working toward his master's degree in biology, which he earned at the university in 2015. "They're going from India where it's dry season to Africa where it's moist season, and apparently they do it once a year."-***-"Flight patterns appear to vary. The hardiest of the dragonflies might make the trip nonstop, catching robust air currents or even hurricane winds and gliding all the way. Others may, literally, be puddle jumpers. Pantala need fresh water to mate and lay their eggs -- and if while riding a weather current they spot a fresh water pool created by a rainstorm -- even on an island in the middle of a vast ocean -- Ware and Troast say it's likely they dive earthward and use those pools to mate. After the eggs hatch and the babies are mature enough to fly -- which takes just a few weeks -- the new dragonflies join the swarm's intercontinental and now multi-generational trek right where their parents left off.-***-"What the Rutgers scientists have discovered puts this dragonfly far ahead of any identified insect competitor. "Monarch butterflies migrating back and forth across North America were thought to be the longest migrating insects," traveling about 2,500 miles each way, says Troast, "but Pantala completely destroys any migrating record they would have," with its estimated range of 4,400 miles or more. It also exceeds Charles Lindbergh's celebrated solo flight from New York to Paris by at least several hundred miles.-"Pantala leaves many of its fellow dragonflies even farther behind. The mysteries of evolution are such that while Pantala and its cousin the Green Darner (Anax junius) have developed into world travelers, Ware says that by contrast, other members of the family "don't ever leave the pond on which they're born -- traveling barely 36 feet away their entire lives.'"-Comment: It is not known yet how they are guided on their trips. They appear to follow seasonal winds, but there may well be more to it, like following magnetic fields.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2016, 13:16 (2938 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Some amoebas bunch together much like a multicellular organism and have differing functions, but some maintain their trapping mechanisms like engulfing to offer immune protection from predators:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45484/title/Amoebae-Have-Human-Li...
QUOTE: "When resources get low, the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum come together by the thousands to form a stalk topped by a mass of spores, which can blow off in the wind to more-plentiful environments. About 80 percent of the amoeba that contribute to this cooperative structure become spores; approximately 20 percent form the stalk, sacrificing their own survival and reproduction for the success of the group. But there is also a third set of cells—about 1 percent of the population—that maintain the amoeba's typical phagocytic functions, according to a study published yesterday." -QUOTE: “'We have thus discovered that what we believed to be an invention of higher animals is actually a strategy that was already active in unicellular organisms one billion years ago.'” 
David's comment: In an animal world where everyone is lunch protections are necessary. it started with the earliest organisms.-Many thanks for yet another fascinating discovery. The ramifications are enormous: single cells cooperate to form an efficient community, different ones take on different functions, some even sacrifice themselves for the good of the others. I see no reason why we should not take this as a model for how the whole of evolution has worked: cells link up to form multicellular organisms, with cells deciding among themselves which ones are to perform which functions. The “earliest organisms” first devise the particular system (innovative thinking), and because it works, it survives. But then, when the environment allows, some of these cell communities form new combinations to create new functions, while others remain as they were. Hence diversification, and in the course of approx. 3,800,000,000 years every innovation from the single cell to the ant, the eagle, the elephant, humans and the duckbilled platypus - all are achieved through the inventiveness of cooperating cell communities following the same principles laid down by the amoeba. The beautiful logic of common descent.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 03, 2016, 15:47 (2938 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Many thanks for yet another fascinating discovery. The ramifications are enormous: single cells cooperate to form an efficient community, different ones take on different functions, some even sacrifice themselves for the good of the others. I see no reason why we should not take this as a model for how the whole of evolution has worked: cells link up to form multicellular organisms, with cells deciding among themselves which ones are to perform which functions. - This is the first hint of how a mechanism for multicellularity might have developed. - - > dhw: The “earliest organisms” first devise the particular system (innovative thinking), and because it works, it survives. But then, when the environment allows, some of these cell communities form new combinations to create new functions, while others remain as they were. Hence diversification, and in the course of approx. 3,800,000,000 years every innovation from the single cell to the ant, the eagle, the elephant, humans and the duckbilled platypus - all are achieved through the inventiveness of cooperating cell communities following the same principles laid down by the amoeba. The beautiful logic of common descent. - Common descent may be logical but I cannot accept your cell communities doing logical planning for complex advances, which in a sense is solving problems in advance.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by dhw, Friday, March 04, 2016, 14:24 (2937 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Common descent may be logical but I cannot accept your cell communities doing logical planning for complex advances, which in a sense is solving problems in advance. - Yesterday, under “More Denton: A new book”, I wrote: “In my hypothesis, as you well know, cells have consciousness, which they may have been given by your God (see below). Advance planning is not part of my concept. My IM begins with an opportunity offered by the environment and responds by developing the innovation (much as an artist, writer, composer may begin with an idea and then develop it).” - In the context of adaptation and innovation, I do not believe organisms anticipate problems or opportunities. I see both processes as responses to current conditions. Understandably, you question whether cells/cell communities can have the intelligence to work out (relatively quickly) all the complexities involved in creating new organs, adapting old ones, devising new lifestyles, strategies etc. But there has to be an explanation for all of these, and in turn I question your idea that there is some unknown superintelligence which has preprogrammed them all in the very first cells, or has personally intervened to create them, just as I question the view that the whole process depends on endless strokes of luck. I understand your doubts over the first and the third of these hypotheses, and am only surprised that you do not seem to find anything questionable in your own. - Now do please explain to me how your preprogramming works with the amoeba. Are you telling us that your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions for thousands of amoeba to get together, for about 80% of them to become spores, about 20% to become the stalk, and 1% to maintain their phagocytic function?

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2016, 15:31 (2937 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw; Now do please explain to me how your preprogramming works with the amoeba. Are you telling us that your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions for thousands of amoeba to get together, for about 80% of them to become spores, about 20% to become the stalk, and 1% to maintain their phagocytic function? - The steps from simple amoeba to the complex community stalk, etc. are just as giant steps as the Cambrian explosion, not explainable by Darwin. It is obviously a pre-planning step to beginning multicellularity, and therefore requires as much guidance as the Cambrian explosion.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2016, 13:18 (2936 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw; Now do please explain to me how your preprogramming works with the amoeba. Are you telling us that your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on instructions for thousands of amoeba to get together, for about 80% of them to become spores, about 20% to become the stalk, and 1% to maintain their phagocytic function? - DAVID: The steps from simple amoeba to the complex community stalk, etc. are just as giant steps as the Cambrian explosion, not explainable by Darwin. It is obviously a pre-planning step to beginning multicellularity, and therefore requires as much guidance as the Cambrian explosion. - “Guidance” can only come in the form of preprogramming (or personal intervention/separate creation). Therefore I take it you believe there was a special amoeba programme as described above, plus a special programme for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder from Day One of life to the present, allowing for every environmental change (unless God fixed those too) - all inside a cell so tiny that we need a microscope to examine it. I wonder how your God ensured the survival of those first cells and the passing on of all the right programmes to all the right organisms, to be activated at all the right times. But you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 05, 2016, 14:28 (2936 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: “Guidance” can only come in the form of preprogramming (or personal intervention/separate creation). Therefore I take it you believe there was a special amoeba programme as described above, plus a special programme for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder from Day One of life to the present, allowing for every environmental change (unless God fixed those too) - all inside a cell so tiny that we need a microscope to examine it. I wonder how your God ensured the survival of those first cells and the passing on of all the right programmes to all the right organisms, to be activated at all the right times. But you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.-Same response. Why can't fine tuning apply to all of the problems we see in explaining how evolution works?

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by dhw, Sunday, March 06, 2016, 16:53 (2935 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “Guidance” can only come in the form of preprogramming (or personal intervention/separate creation). Therefore I take it you believe there was a special amoeba programme as described above, plus a special programme for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder from Day One of life to the present, allowing for every environmental change (unless God fixed those too) - all inside a cell so tiny that we need a microscope to examine it. I wonder how your God ensured the survival of those first cells and the passing on of all the right programmes to all the right organisms, to be activated at all the right times. But you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.-DAVID: Same response. Why can't fine tuning apply to all of the problems we see in explaining how evolution works?-Not really a response at all, but we can use “fine tuning” if you like. You claim that the "fine tuning" for every single innovation etc. is done by a 3.8-billion-year computer programme passed down from the microscopic first cells etc. etc., as described above, together with all the associated problems described above, but for some reason you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Monday, March 07, 2016, 14:47 (2934 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Same response. Why can't fine tuning apply to all of the problems we see in explaining how evolution works?
> 
> dhw: Not really a response at all, but we can use “fine tuning” if you like. You claim that the "fine tuning" for every single innovation etc. is done by a 3.8-billion-year computer programme passed down from the microscopic first cells etc. etc., as described above, together with all the associated problems described above, but for some reason you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.-I understand why you find my stance questionable. You want an exact hypothesis with no loose edges. There is no real proven explanation as to why life started as one-celled organisms and ended up with humans with a giant brain and consciousness. All we see is a series of improvements. We've dismissed chance, you've dismissed design, sort of, but have introduced by the back door an IM that has design capabilities! Talk about questionable.

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2016, 18:04 (2933 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same response. Why can't fine tuning apply to all of the problems we see in explaining how evolution works?-dhw: Not really a response at all, but we can use “fine tuning” if you like. You claim that the "fine tuning" for every single innovation etc. is done by a 3.8-billion-year computer programme passed down from the microscopic first cells etc. etc., as described above, together with all the associated problems described above, but for some reason you do not see why anyone should find such a hypothesis questionable.-DAVID: I understand why you find my stance questionable. You want an exact hypothesis with no loose edges. There is no real proven explanation as to why life started as one-celled organisms and ended up with humans with a giant brain and consciousness. All we see is a series of improvements. We've dismissed chance, you've dismissed design, sort of, but have introduced by the back door an IM that has design capabilities! Talk about questionable.-I don't know what you mean by the “back door”. Since there is no “real proven explanation” of why life has produced such a vast variety of organisms extant and extinct, I don't see why an unproven autonomous inventive mechanism (= the intelligent cell/cell community) - possibly invented by your unproven God - is any more “back door” than an eternal mind (the same unproven God) equipping a few microscopic cells with an unproven 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth, all for the sake of humans. I have many times acknowledged that the creative intelligence of organisms can only be a hypothesis until there is proof, but you actually believe your hypothesis which, since it does not even explain the higgledy-piggledy history, seems to me to be composed of nothing but “loose edges”! But I'm relieved to hear that you understand why I find your version of events questionable. Do you yourself agree that it is questionable?

Natures wonders: social amoeba's immunity

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 08, 2016, 20:41 (2932 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have many times acknowledged that the creative intelligence of organisms can only be a hypothesis until there is proof, but you actually believe your hypothesis which, since it does not even explain the higgledy-piggledy history, seems to me to be composed of nothing but “loose edges”! But I'm relieved to hear that you understand why I find your version of events questionable. Do you yourself agree that it is questionable?-Not questionable at all for me, just for you and those who do not follow my line of reasoning. I'm just reasoning to the best solution to the question.

Natures wonders: strange plant fungus symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2016, 14:28 (2937 days ago) @ David Turell

The plant has lost the ability of photosynthesis, hides from the sun underground, lives off fungi attracted to its roots, from which it gets nutrients, but flowers above ground:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078219-new-underground-plant-hides-from-the-sun-and-parasitises-fungi/-"Kenji Suetsugu of Kobe University came across the previously unknown plant in an evergreen forest on the subtropical Japanese island of Yakushima while documenting other fungi-parasitising - mycoheterotrophic - plants in Japan.-"The plant's stem is about 3-9 centimetres long and has between nine and 15 purple star-shaped flowers, which push up above the ground. Suetsugu has named it Sciaphila yakushimensis after the island.-"The plant can't photosynthesise and, like other mycoheterotrophs, steals the carbon it needs from a fungal host. The parasitic plant attracts strands of mycorrhizal fungus into its many hairy roots and then feeds off fungus growing inside the roots.-"Its parasitic lifestyle is an adaptation to the forest understorey, where the sun's rays struggle to penetrate and so photosynthetic plants are rare, says Suetsugu.-"Because it doesn't rely on photosynthesising the sun's light for its energy, it can stay underground, reducing the risk of being eaten by aboveground herbivores. It only pokes through the leaf litter to flower and fruit.-"Vast fungal networks in the forest soil are linked up with plant roots and usually get their carbon from trees, in exchange for water and minerals that their tiny hairs extract from soil.-"But mycoheterotrophs taps into this network and get the carbon from fungi, which got it from other plants to start with.-“'These mycoheterotrophs are extremely rare and could not survive without a flourishing forest, sustained by species-rich underground fungal networks,” says Suetsugu."-Comment: This is a really odd ball relationship. The fungi don't seem to gain anything from it.

Natures wonders: Mongooses nit-pick warthogs

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2016, 00:43 (2931 days ago) @ David Turell

The mongoose gets a tasty meal and the Warthog gets rid of a pest:-http://phys.org/news/2016-03-warthogs-nit-picking-mongooses-relief.html-
"Warthogs living in Uganda have learned to rid themselves of annoying ticks by seeking out the grooming services of some accommodating neighbors: a group of mongooses looking for snacks. -"Specifically, the warthogs of Queen Elizabeth National Park have learned to lie down in the presence of banded mongooses. In response, the mongoose cleaning crew have learned to inspect the wild pigs for ticks, going so far as to climb on top of their customers to gain access to more parasites.-"A short article in the most recent edition of the journal Suiform Soundings describes the behavior, which has been observed by tourists to the park and was featured in a BBC video, and encourages further research on it.-"Such partnerships between different mammal species are rare, and this particular interaction illustrates a great deal of trust between participants," said Dr. Andy Plumptre, Director for WCS Albertine Rift Program and author of the published description of the behavior. "It makes you wonder what else may be happening between species that we don't see because, in order to see it, both species need to be unafraid of people."-"The common warthog is widespread throughout sub-Saharan Africa and inhabits grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. The species can grow up to five feet in length and is characterized by a pair of tusks, which the warthog uses for both digging and defense. The banded mongoose is a small cat-like carnivore that, as its common name suggests, possesses a series of bands across its back. The species grows up to 1 ½ feet in length and travels in family groups numbering up to 40 individuals.-"The warthog-mongoose encounter is a rare example of mammals exhibiting a symbiotic relationship called mutualism, where two animal species form a partnership with benefits for both groups. The warthogs get a cleaning and the mongooses get a meal. Other examples of mutualism include rhinos, zebras, and other animals that receive visits from parasite-eating birds called oxpeckers, and bees that feed on the nectar of flowers and deliver pollen to other plants."-Comment: Seems to be a learned behaviour that perhaps has become instinctual.

Natures wonders: Hydra new mouth every meal

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2016, 05:38 (2931 days ago) @ David Turell

This tiny invertebrate has stingers on its arms, makes a new mouth each time it catches prey to eat:-http://www.livescience.com/53980-terrifying-mouth-of-a-hydra.html?cmpid=NL_LS_weekly_2016-3-09-"Hydra vulgaris is a tiny, tentacled freshwater invertebrate. It has a tubular body measuring less than 0.5 inches (1.3 centimeters) in length, with a grasping footlike appendage at one end and a ring of tentacles covered in sharp barbs at the other. If a small shrimp touches those tentacles, the hydra's barbs paralyze the prey. That's when the smooth expanse of skin at its head rips open to expose a mouth, which gulps down the prey and then reknits itself closed without a seam to show that there was ever a mouth at all.-***-"Collins examined hydra mouths on a cellular level, genetically engineering hydras to have colorized layers of skin tissue throughout its body, so that she and her colleagues could better track cellular activity in the mouth area during feeding.-"The researchers quickly discovered that the cells weren't rearranging — they were deforming.-"'When the mouth is closed, the cells have a roundish appearance," Collins said. "As [the mouth] opens, cells stretch dramatically, going from a roughly spherical to an ellipsoidlike shape."-***-"A hydra would trigger the stretching with electrical signals, which then cued muscular pulses that pulled its mouth open, Collins said. The muscle contraction was a key part of the mouth-opening process, the researchers found — if a hydra was given a muscle relaxant, its mouth wouldn't open."-Comment: Arrived about 600 million years ago. Not very complex compared to Cambrians which appeared 60 million years later with little phenotypic changes in-between.

Natures wonders: Dangerous fungus helps plants

by David Turell @, Monday, March 21, 2016, 18:08 (2920 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants use fungus around their roots to get needed nutrients, even if the fungus can be dangerous:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160321110454.htm-" For a long time, it was thought that the sole role of the immune system was to distinguish between friend and foe and to fend off pathogens. In fact, it is more like a microbial management system that is also involved in accommodating beneficial microorganisms in the plant when required. -"...laboratories discovered this relationship between the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, or thale cress, and the fungus Colletotrichum tofieldiae. The plant tolerates the fungus when it needs help in obtaining soluble phosphate from the soil and rejects the microbe if it can accomplish this task on its own.-"Plants grow and thrive only if they have access to soluble phosphate in the soil. They are unable to utilize bound phosphate without help from other organisms. Most plants therefore maintain a mycorrhiza -- a fungal mesh around their roots -- that supplies them with vital soil-derived nutrients in exchange for carbohydrates, which they produce by photosynthesis.-"Arabidopsis is one of the few plants that do not have a mycorrhiza. Instead, this species engages in a beneficial relationship with the soil fungus Colletotrichum tofieldiae. This fungus colonizes thale cress through its roots and then lives within and between the root cells. It converts insoluble phosphate in the soil into soluble phosphate and releases the nutrient via the fungal mesh to its plant host, which needs it for growth. "The beneficial interaction between thale cress and Colletotrichum came as a surprise to us, because this fungal family occurs almost everywhere as a pathogen,"-***- "The Cologne-based scientists demonstrated that an intact innate immune system is needed for the symbiosis and allows the fungus to take up residence in the plant's roots only if the plant is not able to obtain enough soil phosphate on its own. However, if phosphate is plentiful, the plant launches a massive immune response. "It's a fantastically well-regulated system," Schulze-Lefert says. "A foe is therefore recognized as such only in specific circumstances. That's an entirely new take on the immune system."-"The scientists were also able to show which processes are involved. One process is known as the "phosphate starvation response," by means of which the plant senses the availability of phosphate in the soil and relays this information to a circuit that accelerates or slows plant growth. If soluble phosphate becomes scarce, the nutrient sensing system communicates with one branch of the plant immune system to accommodate the fungal tenant inside roots. This branch of the immune system directs the synthesis of mustard oil glycosides....Schulze-Lefert and his colleagues showed that in the absence of this synthesis pathway, C. tofieldiae becomes a life-threatening pathogen for thale cress.-***- "The only species among the brassicas that do not synthesize mustard oil glycosides, namely the shepherd's purse, does not tolerate the fungus. For the shepherd's purse, C. tofieldiae is a deadly pathogen. Evidently, absence of the synthesis pathway for mustard oil glycosides means that the molecular basis for a beneficial coexistence is missing.-***-"'We've now shown that a Colletotrichum fungus which we discovered by accident does not take up residence in the plant by accident," says Schulze-Lefert. It serves the thale cress as a substitute for the missing mycorrhiza fungus. Without Colletotrichum, the plant would have a very poor chance of survival in low phosphate soils. The mutual coexistence is beneficial to both partners, but only as long as the right conditions prevail."-Comment: How does this arrangement take place, if at first the fungus is deadly? It has to be an immediate solution. Half-steps won't work. Back to saltation. Note all done by biochemical action. Can cell communities create saltation, unless given a mechanism to use?

Natures wonders: Dangerous fungus helps plants

by dhw, Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 10:13 (2919 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: How does this arrangement take place, if at first the fungus is deadly? It has to be an immediate solution. Half-steps won't work. Back to saltation. Note all done by biochemical action. Can cell communities create saltation, unless given a mechanism to use?-My whole hypothesis is that they do have a mechanism to use, and for want of a better term, I call it intelligence. I do not find it feasible that God preprogrammed this symbiosis 3.8 billion years ago (all for the sake of humans), or personally intervened to show the fungus what to do.

Natures wonders: Dangerous fungus helps plants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 15:11 (2919 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment: How does this arrangement take place, if at first the fungus is deadly? It has to be an immediate solution. Half-steps won't work. Back to saltation. Note all done by biochemical action. Can cell communities create saltation, unless given a mechanism to use?
> 
> dhw: My whole hypothesis is that they do have a mechanism to use, and for want of a better term, I call it intelligence. I do not find it feasible that God preprogrammed this symbiosis 3.8 billion years ago (all for the sake of humans), or personally intervened to show the fungus what to do.-My question was: do the cell communities have the intelligence to make the giant step all at once. You think so, I don't.

Natures wonders: Cuttlefish hide in plain ight

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 20:12 (2917 days ago) @ David Turell

They can change 40 items on their skin and blend into the background:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-cuttlefish-perceive-and-create-depth-cues/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323-"Cuttlefish take on the appearance of their background, creating a very impressive camouflage. In doing so, they have to take in visual information from their surroundings and change their body colouration according to what they see. Therefore, by giving cuttlefish different types of background and seeing how they change their colouration, we can in theory determine how they may be perceiving the background in question.-"Cuttlefish have excellent vision: their eyes give them a 360 view of the background they're on. They use what they see to control 40 discrete visual features of their skin. For example, when on backgrounds with lots of objects like pebbles, cuttlefish produce a disruptive pattern on their skin.-"In particular, cuttlefish have a ‘white square' on their backs that they use in their camouflage. For example, when over pebbles of around the same size as their square, they change the colour of the square to match the colour of the pebbles (making it look like a pebble). -***-"The researchers found that the cuttlefish accentuated the 3-dimensional shading on the white squares of their backs when they were given a background of actual 3-dimensional hemispheres. This was as expected, given how cuttlefish behave when sitting on pebbles. However, the researchers also found that the cuttlefish did the same thing when they were given the background of 2-dimensional drawings of shaded circles. The researchers could tell that the cuttlefish were doing this in response to the shading, rather than just the contrast of black and white stimuli, because the cuttlefish did not shade their white squares in response to the black-and-white circle (bottom right image above). Instead, this image elicited a similar response to circles that were completely white (top left image).-"The cuttlefish were also sensitive to which direction light came from. For example, when the researchers illuminated the background such that light fell in the same direction as the gradient of the 2-D shaded circles (i.e. so that the light came towards the lighter side of the circle), the cuttlefish shaded their white squares to a greater extent.-"All evidence from this experiment, therefore, implies that cuttlefish perceive depth cues in a similar manner to us. There were some discrepancies between how the cuttlefish did certain things compared to how we might do it, likely due to the fact that they live under water where the lighting and shadow effects are less prominent than in air. However, cuttlefish live over a range of depths. At greater depths where there is more diffuse light, the depth cues on cuttlefish backs may be less important, but at shallower depths their ability to detect and reflect depth cues is likely critical in protecting them from predators."-Comment: If one cuttlefish developed this method he couldn't teach it to others because it is an internal metabolic trick. Learning to do it stepwise would result in lots of dead cuttlefish who are not disguised before they figure out the whole process. Saltation from God is one solution that makes sense. Any just-so stories?

Natures wonders: insect warning chemicals

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 24, 2016, 14:32 (2917 days ago) @ David Turell

An insect is studied and shows two warning chemicals when it senses danger, for a different level of alarm:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316105549.htm-"Many insect species respond to danger by producing chemical alarm signals, or alarm pheromones, to inform others. In a recent study, investigators found that their alarm may be even be context dependent.-"The researchers discovered that larvae of the Western Flower Thrips produce an alarm pheromone whose composition of 2 chemicals, decyl acetate and dodecyl acetate, varies with the level of danger they face. When pheromone is excreted with a predator present but not attacking, the percentage of dodecyl acetate increases, whereas when a predator does attack, the percentage of dodecyl acetate is low.-"'This type of communication was so far only known from vocal alarm calling in mammals, and people thought insect pheromones have fixed composition," said Dr. Martijn Egas, co-author of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology study. "When we decided to measure the composition in various contexts, we found variation straight away, and another recent study found that aphids can change the release and amount of their one-compound alarm pheromone. So now we think that this sophisticated chemical signaling is widespread, and this opens a lot of new research questions on the origin and evolution of alarm signaling.'"-Comment: Pheromones are built like esters or perfumes. These are automatic responses to danger stimuli in my opinion. Needed to evolve, but how?

Natures wonders: yeast cell dormancy

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 26, 2016, 01:43 (2915 days ago) @ David Turell

Yeast cells if faced wit adverse conditions can go dormant, becoming semi-solid:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160325131438.htm-"Normally, cells are highly active and dynamic: in their liquid interior, called the cytoplasm, countless metabolic processes occur in parallel, proteins and particles jiggle around wildly. If, however, those cells do not get enough nutrients, their energy level drops. This leads to a marked decrease of the cytoplasmic pH -- the cells acidify. In response, cells enter into a kind of standby mode, which enables them to survive. A team of researchers from Dresden, Germany, have found out that the cytoplasm of these seemingly dead cells changes its consistency from liquid to solid. Thereby, they protect the sensitive structures in the cellular interior.-"Cells can enter into a kind of standby mode -- called dormancy -- when confronted with unfavorable conditions such as nutrient deprivation. In this state, cells drastically reduce their metabolism and shut down growth and cell division. In extreme cases, such cells are hardly or not at all distinguishable from dead cells -- and yet they can re-emerge from this state unharmed and continue to grow and divide when conditions in their environment improve.-"Munder and colleagues from Dresden (Germany) under supervision of Simon Alberti wanted to understand how cells switch on and off the standby mode. They focused their efforts on yeast cells, which they observed during starvation. Their observation: The cytoplasm loses its dynamics, cell organelles and particles slow down and many proteins form large, microscopically visible structures. It seems as if the cytoplasm changes its consistency in response to nutrient deprivation. And indeed: a closer look with highly sensitive biophysical methods shows that the material state of the cytoplasm changes from liquid to solid -- the cell enters into a kind of rigor mortis. As it turns out, the cytoplasmic pH, which decreases markedly under starvation conditions, plays a crucial role in this process.-"Remarkably, the sleeping cells -- in contrast to dead cells -- can also reverse this process. When nutrients are added back, the pH rises again, the cytoplasm fluidizes and cells continue to grow and divide. The studies of Munder and colleagues show that the state of the cytoplasm is crucial for switching on and off the standby mode: ''Cells seem to have a control mechanism in place, which they use for the regulation of their material properties in response to certain environmental cues, thereby ensuring their survival''. Thus, it seems to be possible to trick death by shutting down all processes of life in a controlled manner."-Comment: This is an automatic response to adversity. Like hibernating. How did these yeast cells learn to do this, or were they given the mechanism? If they didn't have it they would die. The development had to appear immediately for the first yeast cells or there would be no yeast cells to study.

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by David Turell @, Monday, March 28, 2016, 14:34 (2913 days ago) @ David Turell

These tropical fish can climb waterfalls and are sown o have a pelvic girdle-like anatomy similar to tetrapods: - http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23711 - "Fishes have adapted a number of different behaviors to move out of the water, but none have been described as being able to walk on land with a tetrapod-like gait. Here we show that the blind cavefish Cryptotora thamicola walks and climbs waterfalls with a salamander-like diagonal-couplets lateral sequence gait and has evolved a robust pelvic girdle that shares morphological features associated with terrestrial vertebrates. In all other fishes, the pelvic bones are suspended in a muscular sling or loosely attached to the pectoral girdle anteriorly. In contrast, the pelvic girdle of Cryptotora is a large, broad puboischiadic plate that is joined to the iliac process of a hypertrophied sacral rib; fusion of these bones in tetrapods creates an acetabulum. The vertebral column in the sacral area has large anterior and posterior zygapophyses, transverse processes, and broad neural spines, all of which are associated with terrestrial organisms. The diagonal-couplet lateral sequence gait was accomplished by rotation of the pectoral and pelvic girdles creating a standing wave of the axial body. These findings are significant because they represent the first example of behavioural and morphological adaptation in an extant fish that converges on the tetrapodal walking behaviour and morphology. - *** - " Several extant fishes have a number of morphological and behavioural traits that facilitate moving out of water to escape predation, find food or new habitats, or lay eggs1,2,3. The most simplistic and least anatomically derived method to move across a dry horizontal surface is to undulate or flip the body by modifying the same motor programs that facilitate swimming and escape responses in water, as is seen in eels4, killifishes2,5, and sticklebacks6. Some fishes are able to walk underwater using their pectoral fins and pelvic fins (e.g. frogfish7); however, in submerged walking the bodyweight is supported by the fluid around the organism. Polypterus8, mudskippers9,10 and walking catfish11 move on land via crutching or lateral pushing by the posterior body and tail to rotate forward over their pectoral fins. Lungfish can walk on a horizontal surface using primarily pelvic driven alternating fin movements12. Fishes known for vertical climbing, such as Hawaiian waterfall climbing gobies, use either intermittent, rapid axial undulation (Awaous guamensis and Lentipes concolor) or oral and pelvic suction (Sicyopterus stimpsoni)13. Notably, none of these fishes walk with a diagonal-couplets lateral sequence gait on land, which has been described as a purely tetrapodal innovation. - *** - "While a study of the development of the pelvic girdle in this cavefish has not yet been possible, it appears that structurally, the pelvic girdle of Cryptotora converges on tetrapodal morphology that supports muscular attachment and transfer of forces for terrestrial walking16,21. In other fishes, including those that can walk by crutching or lunging, there is no bony connection between the pelvis and vertebral column and the pelvis is held in place by a muscular sling." - Comment: One might consider the point that in the evolution of fish a tendency to develop walking is built in. Pre-planning?

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by dhw, Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 13:32 (2912 days ago) @ David Turell

David: These tropical fish can climb waterfalls and are shown to have a pelvic girdle-like anatomy similar to tetrapods: - http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23711 - David's comment: One might consider the point that in the evolution of fish a tendency to develop walking is built in. Pre-planning? - Alternatively, one might consider the point that in evolution organisms work out their own methods to survive and/or improve. Every example of these natural wonders - and I cannot thank you enough for this truly fascinating thread, which is providing us all with an ongoing education and source of wonderment - seems to me to illustrate the astonishing inventiveness of living things. But the more there are, the less convincing (to me) becomes your theory of divine preprogramming and/or intervention. There is simply no need for those first cells to have been loaded with programmes for every imaginable twist and turn in evolution's history, or for personal dabbling. The theist can marvel simply at the ingenuity of the divine engineer who created a mechanism to produce all these wonders. Meanwhile, the atheist can marvel at the (literally) unbelievable stroke of luck that produced the mechanism. And the agnostic is left marvelling at the marvels produced by the mechanism, and mumbling “yes, but…” at each attempt to explain it.

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 19:50 (2912 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 20:00

David's comment: One might consider the point that in the evolution of fish a tendency to develop walking is built in. Pre-planning?
> 
> dhw: Alternatively, one might consider the point that in evolution organisms work out their own methods to survive and/or improve. Every example of these natural wonders - and I cannot thank you enough for this truly fascinating thread, which is providing us all with an ongoing education and source of wonderment - seems to me to illustrate the astonishing inventiveness of living things.-Thank you, BUT: we have discussed this over and over. For organisms to do their own inventing they have to have a mechanism for it. So the issue still is, were they given such a mechanism or did they invent their own? You are on one side of this and I'm on the other. No resolution possible.-> dhw: But the more there are, the less convincing (to me) becomes your theory of divine preprogramming and/or intervention. There is simply no need for those first cells to have been loaded with programmes for every imaginable twist and turn in evolution's history, or for personal dabbling.-This is where Denton's structuralism comes in: his approach (agnostic) is that there are basic patterns established 'by the laws of nature' upon which everything else is based and then modified by epigenetic adaptations, at which point natural selection takes a look. Thus Darwin's functionalism first approach is really a secondary mechanism to the original patterns of structuralism, a theory which is actually a form of my approach (recalled previously) for God to set original patterns. Denton finds patterns all over the place, especially in embryology. I won't list all of his patterns but they are everywhere science looks at life. The cuttlefish show a basic tendency toward the tetrapod form which is ubiquitous throughout advanced animals. My theistic view is 'laws by God', which is just as reasonable for me.-> dhw:The theist can marvel simply at the ingenuity of the divine engineer who created a mechanism to produce all these wonders. Meanwhile, the atheist can marvel at the (literally) unbelievable stroke of luck that produced the mechanism. And the agnostic is left marvelling at the marvels produced by the mechanism, and mumbling “yes, but…” at each attempt to explain it.-Right! However the patterns even extend to natural organic polymers forming tubes automatically in water:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328191849.htm-"Scientists have discovered a family of nature-inspired polymers that, when placed in water, spontaneously assemble into hollow crystalline nanotubes. The nanotubes can be tuned to all have the same diameter of between five and ten nanometers, depending on the length of the polymer chain. -***-" What's more, the nanotubes can be tuned to all have the same diameter of between five and ten nanometers, depending on the length of the polymer chain.-"The polymers have two chemically distinct blocks that are the same size and shape. The scientists learned these blocks act like molecular tiles that form rings, which stack together to form nanotubes up to 100 nanometers long, all with the same diameter.-***-Remarkably, the nanotubes assemble themselves without the usual nano-construction aids, such as electrostatic interactions or hydrogen bond networks.-"'You wouldn't expect something as intricate as this could be created without these crutches," says Zuckermann. "But it turns out the chemical interactions that hold the nanotubes together are very simple. What's special here is that the two peptoid blocks are chemically distinct, yet almost exactly the same size, which allows the chains to pack together in a very regular way."-Comment: Denton notes this sort of event also. It is as if God set up the organic chemistry of life to work by automatic emergence.

Natures wonders: blind shrimp sense light

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 20:14 (2911 days ago) @ David Turell

They live in caves, are frozen in winter but survive and sense light and move to darkness:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082258-eyeless-cave-shrimp-senses-light-and-can-live-frozen-in-ice/-"Although there are examples of animals that can survive being frozen solid, few, if any, have been found in caves. “Cave dwellers are typically not adapted to freezing,” says Espinasa.-***-"The ice caves, however, are different. They are tectonic, having been formed by faults and cracks in the rock. Snow and cold air enter the caves through openings at the top and are then unable to escape, creating a refrigerated environment in which some of the walls and floors become covered in solid ice.-"Experiments in both the field and lab showed that the shrimp were able to survive and return to swimming normally after being frozen in solid blocks of ice for several hours (see video below).-"Animals generally survive a deep freeze by filling their body with substances - such as glycerol, a variety of sugars or amino acids - that lower the freezing point of the water inside them, and prevent ice crystals from forming and destroying their cells.-***-"His team also found in tests that the eyeless shrimp could distinguish between light and dark, with the creatures being drawn to the dark - a feature known as scotophilia.-"Espinasa doesn't know what they use instead of eyes, but early results suggest that the light-detecting structures may be on their heads."-Comment: Life's creatures can adapt to anything. The antifreeze we use is propylene glycol, a glycerol relative. Fish use it in the Arctic, something noted here before.

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by dhw, Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 12:38 (2911 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: One might consider the point that in the evolution of fish a tendency to develop walking is built in. Pre-planning?
dhw: Alternatively, one might consider the point that in evolution organisms work out their own methods to survive and/or improve […]
DAVID: … we have discussed this over and over. For organisms to do their own inventing they have to have a mechanism for it. So the issue still is, were they given such a mechanism or did they invent their own? You are on one side of this and I'm on the other. No resolution possible.-A slight confusion of issues here. We differ over how evolution works: whether the organisms do their own inventing (my autonomous inventive mechanism) or God did the inventing for them (your divine pre-programming or direct creation of all innovations and wonders). If they did their own inventing, then I am open as to whether there is a God who designed the autonomous mechanism or not. -DAVID: This is where Denton's structuralism comes in: his approach (agnostic) is that there are basic patterns established 'by the laws of nature' upon which everything else is based and then modified by epigenetic adaptations, at which point natural selection takes a look. Thus Darwin's functionalism first approach is really a secondary mechanism to the original patterns of structuralism, a theory which is actually a form of my approach (recalled previously) for God to set original patterns. Denton finds patterns all over the place, especially in embryology. I won't list all of his patterns but they are everywhere science looks at life. -Epigenetic adaptations will not explain evolution. Only innovations can result in new species (broad sense). I don't understand why you (and Denton?) believe your basic patterns are somehow a departure from Darwin. He devotes a whole chapter to them, called MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY: EMBRYOLOGY: RUDIMENTARY ORGANS, and he even uses the term “patterns”, e.g.: “On this same view of descent with modification, all the great facts in Morphology become intelligible - whether we look to the same pattern displayed in the homologous organs, to whatever purpose applied, of the different species of a class; or to the homologous parts constructed on the same pattern in each individual animal and plant.” It is these basic patterns that led him to his theory of common descent! -The hard question is how NEW patterns (i.e. innovations) come into being. This is where we agree that Darwin got it wrong, but both your hypotheses and mine also depend on functionalism: neither your God nor my inventive mechanism would have changed the existing structure without a purpose. (Natural selection would still have been in operation, though to different degrees.) Anyway, as I see it, if Denton does not offer an explanation for innovations, we are not going to gain any new insights, are we? However, I can only respond to what you tell me about his book, so perhaps this response is unfair.
 
I can't comment on the polymers that assemble into nanotubes, but since Denton is an agnostic, I doubt if he will endorse your own comment: “It is as if God set up the organic chemistry of life to work by automatic emergence.”

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 15:32 (2911 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Epigenetic adaptations will not explain evolution. Only innovations can result in new species (broad sense). I don't understand why you (and Denton?) believe your basic patterns are somehow a departure from Darwin. He devotes a whole chapter to them,.....It is these basic patterns that led him to his theory of common descent! -Confusion, my fault. Darwin, Denton and I all agree on the patterns. We all agree on common descent. However Denton has gone back to the theory before Darwin of structuralism and says the patterns are the result of 'laws of nature' as I stated. Denton favors intrinsic properties of emergence to explain the changes in evolution, not the functionalism of Darwin with all of us agreeing that Natural selection is a final arbiter. I agree with you, adaptations to changing environment provide variations, but we are all still at a loss to explain speciation, including Darwin, Denton, et al.-> 
> dhw: I can only respond to what you tell me about his book, so perhaps this response is unfair.-Not unfair.
> 
> dhw: I can't comment on the polymers that assemble into nanotubes, but since Denton is an agnostic, I doubt if he will endorse your own comment: “It is as if God set up the organic chemistry of life to work by automatic emergence.”-It's simple. I use God. He uses structure and emergence. You sit on a high perch.

Natures wonders: Ants talk with antennae

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 16:22 (2911 days ago) @ David Turell

Not really but their antennae are used to transmit information:-http://phys.org/news/2016-03-ant-antennae-vital-id.html-
"University of Melbourne scientists have shone a new light into the complexities of ant communication, with the discovery that ants not only pick up information through their antennae, but also use them to convey social signals. It is believed to be the first time antennae have been found to be a two-way communication device, rather than just a receptor.-***-"The key focus was the use and function of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) - a layer of waxy build-up that covers an ant's body and that of many other insects, such as bees, wasps, flies, and beetles.-"CHCs are a group of multi-purpose chemical compounds that not only protect animals from dehydration, but also form a crucial part of their communication toolbox.-"Ants use these chemicals to identify whether another is a friend or foe.-"According to the research, when the CHCs were removed from just the antennae of the ant, her opponents were no longer able to recognise her colony identity.-"This tells us that the CHCs on the antennae provide information about which nest they come from.-"'An ant's antennae are their chief sensory organs, but until now we never knew that they could also be used to send out information," PhD student Qike Wang said.-"Over 125 years ago, famed entomologist Auguste Forel removed the antennae of four species of ants entirely and put them together.-"Instead of fighting among themselves, they huddled unnaturally together entirely peacefully, Mr Wang said.-"'Forel's experiment told us about antennae being used to receive chemical signals, but our research suggests that they are also a source of chemical signals.-"'Like everyone else, we assumed that antennae were just receptors, but nature can still surprise us."-"Mr Wang and his co-authors also found that CHC profiles were different depending on where on the body they were. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that CHC profiles on different body parts of ants are the same.-"'Compared to visual or acoustic signals, we know rather less about chemical signals, and one reason might be that we are analyzing a mixture of different signals.'"-Comment: Chemicals do carry odors, especially organic molecules. Maybe this is the evolutionary origin of human body odor? ;-)

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by dhw, Thursday, March 31, 2016, 17:55 (2910 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Epigenetic adaptations will not explain evolution. Only innovations can result in new species (broad sense). I don't understand why you (and Denton?) believe your basic patterns are somehow a departure from Darwin. He devotes a whole chapter to them,.....It is these basic patterns that led him to his theory of common descent! 
DAVID: Confusion, my fault. Darwin, Denton and I all agree on the patterns. We all agree on common descent. However Denton has gone back to the theory before Darwin of structuralism and says the patterns are the result of 'laws of nature' as I stated.-Thank you for sorting it out. I'm afraid I don't find “laws of nature” very enlightening. It seems obvious to me that if organisms are descended from other organisms, they will have certain patterns in common.-DAVID: Denton favors intrinsic properties of emergence to explain the changes in evolution, not the functionalism of Darwin with all of us agreeing that Natural selection is a final arbiter.-More fine-sounding words that tell us nothing. Either the changes “emerge” by chance and nature selects those which “function” best, or they “emerge” by design to perform a particular function (the design coming either from your God or from my autonomous inventive intelligence within the organisms themselves). Functionalism still comes into play, as does natural selection, especially when the environment changes.-DAVID: I agree with you, adaptations to changing environment provide variations, but we are all still at a loss to explain speciation, including Darwin, Denton, et al.-Yes indeed. -dhw: I can only respond to what you tell me about his book, so perhaps this response is unfair.
DAVID: Not unfair.-Then it would seem, alas, that Denton has taught us nothing new.

Natures wonders: blind walking cavefish

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 31, 2016, 18:56 (2910 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I can only respond to what you tell me about his book, so perhaps this response is unfair.
> DAVID: Not unfair.
> 
> dhw: Then it would seem, alas, that Denton has taught us nothing new.-Only to help destroy Darwin's gradualist approach and bring back a consideration of structure first for an initial methodology for evolution. To me that offers God first with my favorite pre-planning concept, i.e., God set up initial patterns of form in living animals and plants, and designed organic chemistry in planned molecules for easier methods for advances appearing.

Natures wonders: video of venus fly trap

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 05, 2016, 15:51 (2905 days ago) @ David Turell

A video of trapping the fly:-https://aeon.co/videos/a-hair-trigger-existence-the-extreme-peril-of-feasting-on-venus-flytrap-nectar?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a50ab74d9a-Daily_Newsletter_5_April_20164_4_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-a50ab74d9a-68942561-Comment: A protein meal for the plant but the digestive enzymes don't hurt the plant. How did this evolve? Not step by step. The video picture loads slowly. Give it a little time to see it.

Natures wonders: lobster larva jelly fish surfing

by David Turell @, Friday, April 08, 2016, 19:43 (2902 days ago) @ David Turell

Take a ride on your surf board and eat it at the same time: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26706-zoologger-baby-lobster-with-a-taste-for-je... - "It's not every day you see a crustacean surfing a jellyfish. - Adapted perfectly for hiding on the sandy ocean floor, the adult animal looks like it has been squashed flat by a hard object in early life. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. Young lobsters spend their first weeks in the softest surroundings imaginable - floating on a pillow of jelly. Well, jellyfish to be precise. 
 
"Smooth fan lobster larvae are underwater surfers. They latch onto their jellyfish host and then kick back and relax while it does all the hard work. And if a free transport service was not enough, the work-shy youths also treat the hapless animal as their own private buffet. It's first class travel.
“By using jellyfish as food and a vehicle they can eat and rest at the same time,” says Michiya Kamio from the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology in Japan. “It may be lazy but it's also very smart.” - "Free room and board is an attractive proposition but jellyfish don't make the easiest bedfellows. First there is the thicket of poisonous tentacles to contend with. Evolution has been kind though, giving lobster larvae an immunity to toxins which allows them to quickly chomp through this first line of jellyfish defence. - "Despite now being armless, the jellyfish has another trick up its sleeve. It secretes a thick mucus from its skin that covers the hitchhiker from head to toe. This sticky goo prevents the lobster from breathing properly and is a feast for bacteria. In this dirty state, the larvae itself risks becoming the dish of the day. - "With their lives at stake, young lobsters spend half their time grooming themselves. This got Kamio and his team wondering how the larvae manage such a time-consuming beauty regime. - "They focused on one of its elongated appendages, which exists in a much stubbier form in other species to help with feeding. Kamio suspected this limb had evolved into a specialised windscreen wiper whose sole job was to keep the growing lobster spotless. - "He was right. When covered in a substance that mimicked the foul jellyfish secretion, lobsters used this brush to fastidiously clean every nook and cranny. Animals who had this tool immobilised with super glue came out of the lab tank filthy. - "Without this unique grooming device, which is long enough to clean its entire body, jellyfish surfing would be almost impossible, says Kamio. As it is, larvae can dine at their leisure, taking anywhere from a few hours to several days to polish off their ride. At which point, the youngster heads off in search of its next mobile meal." - Comment: Wonder how this started in the first place. Are lobster larvae able to observe and copy? Or were they guided?

Natures wonders: very fast biting spider

by David Turell @, Friday, April 08, 2016, 19:53 (2902 days ago) @ David Turell

Most be filmed at 40,000 frames per second to follow it:-http://mashable.com/2016/04/08/lightning-fast-spider-jaws/#XwOFvyFxJqqh-"The spiders are only found in New Zealand and southern parts of South America, with the quickest of the 14 species of trap-jaw spider closing their jaw more than 100 times faster than the slowest.- "The high-speed predatory attacks of these spiders were previously unknown. Many of the species I have been working with are also unknown to the scientific community."-"Wood examined how these trap-jaw spiders used their unusual head anatomy, like the closely related pelican spider, and how they would stalk prey with their chelicerae (jaws) wide open — snapping them shut when they got close enough. It's the type of predatory behaviour that's been witnessed on ants, but not arachnids.-"Not only are some of these trap-jaw spiders fast, four of the spiders boast a power output exceeding the known capacity of their muscles. -"It's a finding which shows that a spider's movements aren't necessarily powered by their tiny muscles, according to the statement, but have perhaps developed structural mechanisms in their bodies which allow the storing of energy -"This would allow these trap-jaw spiders to release stored energy in a way that power would be near instantaneously amplified, like some kind of super power. It's a discovery that will be further investigated by researchers, potentially having implications for future technologies outside of natural history science."-Comment: Was the bite this fast when it was first discovered by the spider, or did it speed up bit by bit through gradual changes in anatomy? We don't know.

Natures wonders: migrating monarchs set a course

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 21:30 (2895 days ago) @ David Turell

There are two ways, the sun's position and by a circadian clock:-http://phys.org/news/2016-04-scientists-secrets-monarch-butterfly-internal.html-"Their compass integrates two pieces of information—the time of day and the sun's position on the horizon—to find the southerly direction," said Eli Shlizerman, a University of Washington assistant professor.-***-"Monarchs use their large, complex eyes to monitor the sun's position in the sky. But the sun's position is not sufficient to determine direction. Each butterfly must also combine that information with the time of day to know where to go. Fortunately, like most animals including humans, monarchs possess an internal clock based on the rhythmic expression of key genes. This clock maintains a daily pattern of physiology and behavior. In the monarch butterfly, the clock is centered in the antennae, and its information travels via neurons to the brain.-***-"In their model, two neural mechanisms—one inhibitory and one excitatory—controlled signals from clock genes in the antennae. Their model had a similar system in place to discern the sun's position based on signals from the eyes. The balance between these control mechanisms would help the monarch brain decipher which direction was southwest.-"Based on their model, it also appears that during course corrections monarchs do not simply make the shortest turn to get back on route. Their model includes a unique feature—a separation point that would control whether the monarch turned right or left to head in the southwest direction.-"'The location of this point in the monarch butterfly's visual field changes throughout the day," said Shlizerman. "And our model predicts that the monarch will not cross this point when it makes a course correction to head back southwest."-"Based on their simulations, if a monarch gets off course due to a gust of wind or object in its path, it will turn whichever direction won't require it to cross the separation point.-"Additional studies would need to confirm whether the researchers' model is consistent with monarch butterfly brain anatomy, physiology and behavior. So far, aspects of their model, such as the separation point, seem consistent with observed behaviors."-comment: And all of this transpires through 4 larva/adult metamorphoses. It shows how information can be sustained and transmitted by DNA.

Natures wonders: calling ant defenders

by David Turell @, Monday, April 25, 2016, 19:00 (2885 days ago) @ David Turell

Bittersweet nightshade puts out a sweet nectar to call ants to its defense: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2085730-plant-bleeds-nectar-when-attacked-to-summo... - "Calling pest control. When attacked, bittersweet nightshade plants release sugary secretions from their wounds to summon ants that hit back at the assailants. - "Many plants attract predators of herbivores by secreting nectar from specialised glands called extrafloral nectaries. - "But the nightshade, Solanum dulcamara, is the first plant known to do this without any specialised nectar-making structures. - "Anke Steppuhn and colleagues at the Free University of Berlin, Germany, discovered that sweet droplets ooze out from wounds anywhere on the plant when it gets chewed by herbivores. How exactly they make it is unclear, but it could be as simple as having a few sucrose-transporting proteins in the wounded tissue. 
 
"The fluid isn't sap; it is simpler, consisting mostly of water and sucrose. In greenhouse experiments, the secretions attracted three species of ants to patrol the plants. - "We've now observed that the plant, without any structure for secreting nectar, can use this kind of defence - which means that you do not need an organ,” says Steppuhn. - *** - "Plant biologists had been puzzled by the existence of extrafloral nectaries in a wide variety of plants, which suggested that they had evolved independently many times. This seems less surprising if plants can make nectar without specialised organs: it could be a common first step towards the evolution of nectaries outside flowers. - "Steppuhn thinks that if we look more carefully, we'll find more plants that bleed nectar to attract ants. Apart from leafcutter ants, ants generally don't eat plants. So if they are found on one, it's usually because there are sap-sucking insects there that excrete sugar. “If none of those insects are found, we should search those plants for plant-derived nectar that attracts the ants,” she says." - Comment: More than one way to defend oneself.

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by David Turell @, Friday, May 06, 2016, 02:31 (2874 days ago) @ David Turell

In computers there is software called transmission control protocol which is the same as the way ants control foraging rates:-http://priceonomics.com/the-independent-discovery-of-tcpip-by-ants/-"Whenever another forager ant returns with food, it drops off its load and touches antennae with waiting ants. Whether or not any individual forager sallies forth depends on the number of interactions it has with returning foragers and the timing of those interactions. So a complex collective behavior is governed solely through simple individual interactions.-"A forager won't come back until it finds something," Gordon told National Geographic. "The less food there is [within reach], the longer it takes the forager to find it and get back. The more food there is, the faster it comes back. So nobody's deciding whether it's a good day to forage. The collective is, but no particular ant is."-***-"'The algorithm the ants were using to discover how much food there is available is essentially the same as that used in the Transmission Control Protocol," he said. -"Transmission Control Protocol, also known as TCP, is a big part of what makes the Internet possible. The Internet involves a lot of machines sending each other files—including websites, videos, text documents, and audio—over a vast network of hardware including routers, cables, satellites, cellphone towers, and computers.-***-"If a source hosting a file is using TCP, it breaks the file down into smaller chunks, called “packets”. It sends out a bunch of packets to the requester and monitors the acknowledgements of receipt, called “acks”, to calibrate how quickly to send the rest of the packets.-"If we consider that the ant colony's goal is to collect more food and expend fewer ants, and a server's goal is to send a file and avoid congestion or overload, then the similarities are clear. Sending a packet through the Internet is analogous to releasing a forager ant into the wild. Getting an ack of a packet's receipt is analogous to a forager ant returning with food. If lots of acks come back quickly, this corresponds to good bandwidth availability—just like if a lot of ants come back quickly, this corresponds to good food availability. Good availability means the release of more ants or more packets. And if ants or acks come back slowly, or don't come back at all, then release is either slowed or shut down entirely. In the case of harvester ants, shut down means foragers stop going out for a while. In the case of the Internet, the connection times out.-***- "Gordon has said that, because each individual ant is so limited in its abilities, “ant algorithms have to be simple, distributed, and scalable -- the very qualities that we need in engineered distributed systems.” This is what made a functional Internet scalable from a few dozen initial machines to the billions that comprise it today.-***-"Gordon's most recent research suggests that at least certain aspects of foraging technique—a collective behavior—are heritable. This not only means that complex algorithms like these might have developed through natural selection, but that these inhuman engineers could be developing new ones, right now."-Comment: It requires the collective cooperation of the whole foraging group of the colony. It raises the thought that it involves responding to the rates of return against time. Note the individual is thought to be just a cog in the machinery.

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by dhw, Friday, May 06, 2016, 13:11 (2874 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In computers there is software called transmission control protocol which is the same as the way ants control foraging rates: - http://priceonomics.com/the-independent-discovery-of-tcpip-by-ants/ - QUOTES: "Whenever another forager ant returns with food, it drops off its load and touches antennae with waiting ants. Whether or not any individual forager sallies forth depends on the number of interactions it has with returning foragers and the timing of those interactions. So a complex collective behavior is governed solely through simple individual interactions." - "Gordon's most recent research suggests that at least certain aspects of foraging technique—a collective behavior—are heritable. This not only means that complex algorithms like these might have developed through natural selection, but that these inhuman engineers could be developing new ones, right now." - David's comment: It requires the collective cooperation of the whole foraging group of the colony. It raises the thought that it involves responding to the rates of return against time. Note the individual is thought to be just a cog in the machinery. - Yes, it requires the collective cooperation of the whole group to make any society, institution or team run smoothly. I'm fascinated by the idea that the “inhuman engineers” could be developing new algorithms right now. And it seems to me perfectly possible that they developed the original algorithms as well. Or did/does God have to put every algorithm into their heads? I'm also fascinated by the analogy we can draw between the cooperation of individual ants to create a working system and the cooperation of individual cells to do the same thing. But perhaps it's just my fertile imagination detecting a cohesive evolutionary line from cooperating cells to cooperating organisms to cooperating societies.

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by David Turell @, Friday, May 06, 2016, 18:00 (2874 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: And it seems to me perfectly possible that they developed the original algorithms as well. Or did/does God have to put every algorithm into their heads? - It is still the issue of how do instincts develop and enter DNA for future reference?

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by dhw, Saturday, May 07, 2016, 11:44 (2873 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And it seems to me perfectly possible that they developed the original algorithms as well. Or did/does God have to put every algorithm into their heads? - DAVID: It is still the issue of how do instincts develop and enter DNA for future reference? - I don't know where we draw the line between learned behaviour and instinct. If I burn my hand, I will instinctively pull it away from the fire. But if I need to go hunting, I will have to be taught what to do. I would suggest that the ants' foraging is more like learned behaviour than instinct, and we know how well ants communicate. Perhaps once a particular system or strategy proves successful, it is passed on from generation to generation as the way things are done. Isn't that how human society functioned until we became so self-aware that we started to question everything? If you can tell us exactly how DNA stores experiences, memories and information and then passes them on to future generations, you will certainly beat me to that Nobel Prize!

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 07, 2016, 15:22 (2873 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And it seems to me perfectly possible that they developed the original algorithms as well. Or did/does God have to put every algorithm into their heads? 
> 
> DAVID: It is still the issue of how do instincts develop and enter DNA for future reference?
> 
> dhw: I don't know where we draw the line between learned behaviour and instinct.... if I need to go hunting, I will have to be taught what to do. I would suggest that the ants' foraging is more like learned behaviour than instinct, and we know how well ants communicate.-Are the new-born foragers told go find food like the stuff you've been eating? I don't think they learn on the job; not efficient for the nest. I'm still with instinct.-> dhw: If you can tell us exactly how DNA stores experiences, memories and information and then passes them on to future generations, you will certainly beat me to that Nobel Prize!-I'd rather both of us do it together, and take the trip to Stockholm as a team. I'll bring Susan.

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by dhw, Sunday, May 08, 2016, 13:13 (2872 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And it seems to me perfectly possible that they developed the original algorithms as well. Or did/does God have to put every algorithm into their heads? 
-DAVID: It is still the issue of how do instincts develop and enter DNA for future reference?-dhw: I don't know where we draw the line between learned behaviour and instinct.... if I need to go hunting, I will have to be taught what to do. I would suggest that the ants' foraging is more like learned behaviour than instinct, and we know how well ants communicate.-DAVID: Are the new-born foragers told go find food like the stuff you've been eating? I don't think they learn on the job; not efficient for the nest. I'm still with instinct.-No. I am suggesting the young are taught by the old. I have found a short but revealing video: Section 6 concerns how ants teach their young.-	Top 10 Awesome Facts You Didn't Know About Ants - YouTube
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYAPhkQgI4

Natures wonders: crocodile vision

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 08, 2016, 15:13 (2872 days ago) @ dhw

Built for gazing at the surface of water:-http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36197656-"The "fovea", a patch of tightly packed receptors that delivers sharp vision, forms a horizontal streak instead of the usual circular spot.-"This allows the animal to scan the shoreline without moving its head, according to Australian researchers.-"They also found differences in the cone cells, which sense colours, between saltwater and freshwater crocs.-***-"When they measured the light absorbed by single photoreceptors in the retina, they found that those of the freshwater crocs were shifted towards longer, redder wavelengths compared with their saltwater cousins.-"Finding this skewed sensitivity in crocodiles was unexpected, Mr Nagloo said, because the famous predators were only semi-aquatic and did their hunting, feeding and mating on land.-***-"Overall, crocodile vision appears to be less precise than ours, achieving a clarity some six or seven times lower than the human eye. But their "foveal streak" is a striking adaptation that suits their lifestyle perfectly.-"The fovea is a dent in the retina, containing a huge concentration of receptor cells. The indentation arises because other cells, which transmit visual information to the brain, are shifted to the sides.-"Typically, the fovea is circular and located in the centre of the retina. It provides animals with an area of very high visual clarity, in a small area of their visual environment," Mr Nagloo said.-"'It is this small patch of high-resolution information that allows us, for example, to read; but we humans have to move our eyes around to drink in details across a scene.-"'In the case of crocodiles... it's spread across the middle of the retina, and it gives them maximum clarity all along the visual horizon."-"This arrangement reflects the predator's iconic ability to lurk with just its eyes above the water, waiting motionless for prey to wander too close to the river's edge.-"Other animals, particularly mammals like deer and rabbits that live in open spaces and themselves face predation, are known to possess a similar "visual streak". But that is a more subtle feature than the furrow-shaped fovea of the crocodile, Mr Nagloo said.-"'A visual streak is just an elevated cell density, in an elongated shape. A fovea takes that to the extreme - the number of photoreceptors is so high that they have to move the transmitters away, to make room for them. So the wiring is different.-"'I haven't seen any other animals with this kind of specialisation.'"-Comment: An amazing adaptation, but all animals have them. Life's development in evolution has the property to create necessary helpful complexities. Planned?

Natures wonders: ant foraging mimics TCP

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 08, 2016, 15:44 (2872 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Are the new-born foragers told go find food like the stuff you've been eating? I don't think they learn on the job; not efficient for the nest. I'm still with instinct.
> 
> dhw: No. I am suggesting the young are taught by the old. I have found a short but revealing video: Section 6 concerns how ants teach their young.
> 
> 	Top 10 Awesome Facts You Didn't Know About Ants - YouTube
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYAPhkQgI4-Thank you. Great research. Very interesting. They have brains. They learn.

Natures wonders: 17-year Cicada lifecycle

by David Turell @, Monday, May 09, 2016, 02:52 (2871 days ago) @ David Turell

An amazing series of metamorphoses over 17 years:-http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-prime-time-for-cicadas-natures-numerical-nerds-1462535749- "Like the biblical pests, cicadas do occur in scary numbers.-This month, millions—or maybe billions; they're hard to count—will surface primarily in Ohio and West Virginia when one of North America's 15 broods tunnels out of the ground for the first time in 17 years.-“'The most dense I've ever measured is 356 per square meter,” said Gene Kritsky, chair of biology at Mount St. Joseph University in Ohio who counts cicadas in sample areas by inserting the handles of spoons into the finger-size holes left by the emerging insects and then tallies the spoons as he removes them. “It's not inconceivable we could have 6 billion cicadas.”-"Cicadas live most of their lives underground in deciduous forests in the eastern half of the U.S. Twelve of the 15 known broods emerge from the ground after 17 years. The other three emerge after 13 years. There is some overlap, but the broods that take longer to mature tend to be located farther north.-***-"After surfacing, the insects spend several weeks in a buggy bacchanal of singing, mating and laying eggs before they are eaten by predators or simply drop dead. The entire event lasts six weeks or so.-***-"The life cycle begins anew when the eggs hatch about six to eight weeks later, and the tiny nymphs, measuring just 2 millimeters, drop to the ground. Many will be consumed by spiders, ants and beetles, but those that manage to burrow into the earth will live safely below the frost line, where the temperature hovers around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, for the next 13 or 17 years, until they emerge for their own coming-out party.-***-"Underground, the nymphs will molt four times. When they emerge, they molt a fifth and final time, leaving behind browns husks of exoskeletons clinging to trees and other surfaces before spreading their adult wings. The complete transformation takes about three hours. -***-"No one knows exactly how the nymphs keep track of the years while underground, and occasionally, some do appear to get confused, emerging either four years earlier or four years later than expected. But for the most part, they are remarkably accurate, heading for the surface with their brood in the appropriate year when the soil temperature consistently registers 64 degrees Fahrenheit, signaling the arrival of spring.-"And unlike locusts, cicadas, overall, are beneficial to plants.-“'By coming out of the ground, they open up a lot of holes the size of an ordinary person's first finger that allow air and water and nutrients to suddenly go deeper and quicker in the soil than before,” said Thomas E. Moore, curator emeritus of the Museum of Zoology at the University of Michigan. “We wouldn't have the same kind of forests if we didn't have them.'”-Comment: How did Darwin-style evolution arrange the development of this strange complex lifecycle? I doubt it did.

Natures wonders: carnivorous plant robbed!

by David Turell @, Monday, May 09, 2016, 20:30 (2870 days ago) @ David Turell

By a little fly larva that can lubricate itself to avoid the sticky stuff and then eat trapped insects on the plant:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087352-carnivorous-plant-conned-out-of-a-meal-by-cunning-fly-larvae/-"At first glance, all seemed well in the sundew's larder. Sticky tentacles lining this carnivorous plant's leaves had done their job most effectively, trapping small insects and condemning them to a gloopy death. Sundew leaves secrete a sweet, viscous mucilage that attracts and smothers them.-"But in the forests of Brazil, a thief lurks among the carcasses. A grub less than a centimetre in size, gliding in goo and devouring the plant's food reserves. Soon, an adult fly that looks like a bee emerges with a buzz and sets off at speed. A flower fly or hoverfly, from the family Syrphidae. 
 
"The hoverfly larvae have made a super-efficient insect death trap, their homes. And they don't even pay rent. Hoverfly adults are vegetarian and feed on pollen and nectar, but the larvae are ravenous predators of smaller insects, typically aphids.-***-"The T. basalis larvae look rather like maggots, flattened with no distinct head or limbs, and mouthparts designed to pierce and suck the juices out of their prey.-***-'The larvae secrete a watery fluid that lubricates their lower halves, preventing them from sticking to the leaves and getting trapped. And they don't have legs - nothing to entangle them in the sundew's tentacles. Their thick cuticle protects them from the digestive juices that the plant secretes to break down its prey.-"An animal that feeds on stolen prey prepared by another species, without offering anything in return, is called a kleptoparasite. “It's a surprise, but only because it's a new feeding behaviour for syrphids,” says Francis Gilbert from the University of Nottingham, UK. “I've also never heard of kleptoparasitism involving stealing prey from sundews so I guess it must be a first.”-"A sundew plant with its leaves full of dead insects is a sitting duck, so why aren't there more kleptoparasites reported on it? “Most kleptoparasites have not been discovered yet”, says Fleischmann. “The story has just begun”.-"Forming lasting associations with carnivorous plants is common in many members of the fly family (Diptera), but this is seen most frequently with another meat eating plant: the pitcher plant. For example, the capsid bug feeds on the insects caught by the pitcher plant, and the plant absorbs the capsids' faeces to derive nutrition in return."-Comment. Life is as inventive ass ever. Again note this is an example of the balance of nature, which is everywhere.

Natures wonders: veus flytrap evolution studies

by David Turell @, Friday, May 13, 2016, 18:38 (2867 days ago) @ David Turell

How the flytrap may have developed its digestive enzymes is the subject of this study:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160504140819.htm-"In a study published online today in Genome Research, researchers characterized gene expression, protein secretion, and ultrastructural changes during stimulation of Venus flytraps and discover that common plant defense systems, which typically protect plants from being eaten, are also used by Venus flytraps for insect feeding.-***-"Unstimulated traps have gene expression patterns that largely resemble that of a leaf base, supporting the common assumption that traps are modified leaves. However, the glands inside the trap, which promote insect digestion, more closely resemble the expression pattern of roots, a tissue heavily involved in nutrient uptake.-"The researchers found that insect-stimulated traps upregulated enzymes involved in digesting prey and also transporters for nutrient uptake. Tracking the expression patterns of several hydrolases, the researchers determined that hydrolase expression was induced within 1-2 hours of touch stimulation, and a second stimulation event (mechanical or chemical) further amplified expression of chitinase, an enzyme that digests chitin in insect exoskeletons.-"'Contact with chitin normally means danger for a plant -- that insects will eat the plant," corresponding author Rainer Hedrich from the University of Würzburg said. Comparing the global gene expression changes during insect capture and digestion to the stress response of the model organism, Arabidopsis, the researchers found several commonalities. Jasmonic acid (JA), which is produced by non-carnivorous plants when they are wounded by herbivores, is upregulated in insect-stimulated traps. "In the Venus flytrap, these defensive processes have been reprogrammed during evolution. The plant now uses them to eat insects," Hedrich said.-"Unstimulated and stimulated traps both express receptor-like-kinases (RLKs), which are used in chemical sensing in non-carnivorous plants, suggesting Venus flytraps may be able to detect chemical changes related to prey capture, in addition to touch sensitivity.-"Of the upregulated transcripts that were predicted to be secreted, the researchers were able to confirm all were actively secreted using proteomic screening of the flytrap's digestive fluid. The researchers also used electron microscopy to study the ultrastructure of the trap's glands, finding specialized cell layers involved in active secretion, nutrient transport, lipid energy stores, and protein biosynthesis necessary for trap function."-Comment: this is a complex lifestyle for a plant, but it makes it easy to have nitrogen as well as other plant nutrients from the protein of the insects. It involves switching the use of root genes that control root absorption of nutrients, as well as insect defense chemicals. Again an example of complexity that works for survival. Note most plants don't need all this complexity to survive. Shows how the bush of life developed all its variations through complexity

Natures wonders: sharks detect prey's electricity

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 14, 2016, 18:45 (2866 days ago) @ David Turell

Sharks can pick up electric signals from prey. Still working out how:-http://phys.org/news/2016-05-proton-conducting-material-electrosensory-sharks.html-"Sharks, skates, and rays can detect very weak electric fields produced by prey and other animals using an array of unusual organs known as the ampullae of Lorenzini. Exactly how these electrosensory organs work has remained a mystery, but a new study has revealed an important clue that may have implications for other fields of research. -"The ampullae of Lorenzini are visible as small pores in the skin around the head and on the underside of sharks, skates, and rays (known as elasmobranchs, a subclass of cartilaginous fish). Each pore is open to the environment and is connected to a set of electrosensory cells by a long canal filled with a clear, viscous jelly.-"In the new study, published May 13 in Science Advances, a team of researchers from UC Santa Cruz, University of Washington, and the Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason investigated the properties of this jelly. They found that the jelly is a remarkable proton-conducting material, with the highest proton conductivity ever reported for a biological material. -***-"The integration of signals from several ampullae allows sharks, skates, and rays to detect changes in the electric field as small as 5 nanovolts per centimeter. But how such weak signals are transmitted from the pore to the sensory cells has long been a matter of debate. The researchers speculate that sulfated polyglycans in the jelly may contribute to its high proton conductivity.-"Proton conductivity is the ability of a material or solution to conduct protons (positive hydrogen ions). In a system with very many ordered hydrogen bonds, such as a hydrated hydrophilic polymer, proton conduction can occur along chains of these bonds, Rolandi explained. In technological applications, proton conductors such as Nafion can be used as proton exchange membranes in fuel cells.-"'The first time I measured the proton conductivity of the jelly, I was really surprised," said first author Erik Josberger, an electrical engineering doctoral student in Rolandi's group at UW."-Comment: Split off hydrogen from water and the sharks have positive protons as signals to use to alert their brain to act. Self invented or helped by God?

Natures wonders: night hunting giant spider eyes

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 18, 2016, 18:34 (2862 days ago) @ David Turell

These spiders cast a net at night to catch moving prey. Their giant eyes really help the process: - http://phys.org/news/2016-05-giant-eyes-net-casting-spider-nocturnal.html - "To prove the theory that the big eyes evolved to help with night foraging, the researchers started by video-taping several of them as they went about their activities in their natural environment. Then, they captured some samples and applied dental silicone over the single pair of big eyes (net-casters, like other spiders have eight eyes altogether, the others eyes are much smaller) temporarily blinding those eyes. The research pair then recorded the activities of the spiders as they tried to survive without benefit of their huge eyes. - "In studying the results, the researchers found that the blinded spiders were much weaker hunters when their big eyes were covered. Removing the eye covers allowed the spiders to regain their former skill levels. - "In a second test, the researchers conducted a similar experiment, except they did it in a controlled environment in their lab. In studying the results, the researchers found almost identical results. - "The research pair suggest their study shows that net-casting spiders use their huge eyes to hunt walking prey at night; they allow for catching prey in near dark conditions—prey which is very often much larger than they would catch with their net only. They noted also that the partially blinded spiders were just as adept at dealing with prey that was caught in the web, which adds more credence to the idea that the evolution of the large eyes, was strictly to allow the spider to catch larger prey while hunting during the nighttime—which the researchers also note, is a much safer time to hunt as there are far fewer predators out looking to eat them." - Comment: This is real improvement for night stalking spiders. I do not view this as added complexity.

Natures wonders: Australian crayfish & flatworms

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 25, 2016, 01:34 (2855 days ago) @ David Turell

A 100 million year old symbiotic relationship may be ending:-http://phys.org/news/2016-05-million-year-partnership-brink-extinction.html-"Look closely into one of the cool, freshwater streams of eastern Australia and you might find a colourful mountain spiny crayfish, from the genus Euastacus. Look even closer and you could see small tentacled flatworms, called temnocephalans, each only a few millimetres long. Temnocephalans live as specialised symbionts on the surface of the crayfish, where they catch tiny food items, or inside the crayfish's gill chamber where they can remove parasites. This is an ancient partnership,-***-"We've now got a picture of how these two species have evolved together through time," said Dr Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill from Cambridge's Department of Earth Sciences, the paper's lead author. "The extinction risk to the crayfish has been measured, but this is the first time we've quantified the risk to the temnocephalans as well - and it looks like this ancient partnership could end with the extinction of both species."-***-"In Australia, freshwater crayfish are large, diverse and active 'managers', recycling all sorts of organic material and working the sediments," said Professor David Blair of James Cook University in Australia, the paper's senior author. "The temnocephalan worms associated only with these crayfish are also diverse, reflecting a long, shared history and offering a unique window on ancient symbioses. We now risk extinction of many of these partnerships, which will lead to degradation of their previous habitats and leave science the poorer."-***-"The researchers then used computer simulations to predict the extent of coextinction. This showed that if all the mountain spiny crayfish that are currently endangered were to go extinct, 60% of their temnocephalan symbionts would also be lost to coextinction. The temnocephalan lineages that were predicted to be at the greatest risk of coextinction also tended to be the most evolutionarily distinctive. These lineages represent a long history of symbiosis and coevolution of up to 100 million years. However they are the most likely to suffer coextinction if these species and their habitats are not protected from ongoing environmental and climate change.-"'The intimate relationship between hosts and their symbionts and parasites is often unique and long lived, not just during the lifespan of the individual organisms themselves but during the evolutionary history of the species involved in the association," said study co-author Dr Tim Littlewood of the Natural History Museum. "This study exemplifies how understanding and untangling such an intimate relationship across space and time can yield deep insights into past climates and environments, as well as highlighting current threats to biodiversity.'"-Comment: The understanding of evolution should be that it is always evolving, species coming and going, with 99% of all that ever lived are now gone. This symbiosis is just like the wrasse and the grouper: the wrasse cleanup the grouper, picking between the teeth and on the body. The tiny wrasse are never eaten by the groupers.

Natures wonders: bees sense flower electric fields

by David Turell @, Monday, May 30, 2016, 22:01 (2849 days ago) @ David Turell

Flowers are known to communicate with electrical fields. Bee hair senses this:-http://phys.org/news/2016-05-hairs-bees-floral-electric-fields.html-"Tiny, vibrating hairs may explain how bumblebees sense and interpret the signals transmitted by flowers, according to a study by researchers at the University of Bristol. -"Although it's known that flowers communicate with pollinators by sending out electric signals, just how bees detects these fields has been a mystery - until now.-"Using a laser to measure vibrations, researchers found that both the bees' antenna and hairs deflect in response to an electric field, but the hairs move more rapidly and with overall greater displacements.-"Researchers then looked at the bees' nervous system, finding that only the hairs alerted the bee's nervous system to this signal.-***-"Electroreception may arise from the bees' hairs being lightweight and stiff, properties that confer a rigid, lever-like motion similar to acoustically sensitive spider hairs and mosquito antennae.-"Dr Gregory Sutton, a Research Fellow in the University of Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, led the research. He said: "We were excited to discover that bees' tiny hairs dance in response to electric fields, like when humans hold a balloon to their hair. A lot of insects have similar body hairs, which leads to the possibility that many members the insect world may be equally sensitive to small electric fields."-***-"Scientists are particularly interested in understanding how floral signals are perceived, received and acted upon by bees as they are critical pollinators of our crops.-Research into these relationships has revealed the co-evolution of flowers and their pollinators, and has led to the unravelling of this important network which keeps our planet green. (my bold)-"Electroreception is common in aquatic mammals. For example, sharks are equipped with sensitive, jelly-filled receptors that detect fluctuations in electric fields in seawater which helps them to home in on their prey."-Comment: Bees and flowers really need each other. And it illustrates another aspect of the balance of nature, all parts working together. Note my bold

Natures wonders: ecosystem under snow

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 31, 2016, 13:34 (2849 days ago) @ David Turell

Water has wonderful properties. without it there is no life. Under the proper depth of snow there is life all through the cold winter: - https://aeon.co/ideas/beneath-the-snowpack-lies-a-secret-ecosystem-the-subnivium?utm_so... - "Many plants and animals similarly hunker down, relying on snow cover for safety from winter's harsh conditions. The small area between the snowpack and the ground, called the subnivium (from the Latin nivis for snow, and sub for below), might be the most important ecosystem that you have never heard of. - "The subnivium is so well-insulated and stable that its temperature holds steady at around 32°F (0°C). Although that might still sound cold, a constant temperature of 32°F can often be 30 to 40 degrees warmer than the air temperature during the peak of winter. Because of this large temperature difference, a wide variety of species - birds such as the ruffed grouse and willow ptarmigan, mammals such as shrews and mice, and many species of mosses and grasses - depend on the subnivium for winter protection. - "For many organisms living in temperate and Arctic regions, the difference between being under the snow or outside it is a matter of life and death. Consequently, disruptions to the subnivium brought about by climate change will affect everything from population dynamics to nutrient cycling through the ecosystem. - "The formation and stability of the subnivium requires more than a few flurries. Winter ecologists have suggested that eight inches of snow is necessary to develop a stable layer of insulation. Depth is not the only factor, however. More accurately, the stability of the subnivium depends on the interaction between snow depth and snow density. Imagine being under a stack of blankets that are all flattened and pressed together. When compressed, the blankets essentially form one compacted layer. In contrast, when they are lightly placed on top of one another, their insulative capacity increases because the air pockets between them trap heat. Greater depths of low-density snow are therefore better at insulating the ground. - *** - "In field experiments, researchers removed a portion of the snow cover to investigate the importance of the subnivium's insulation. They found that soil frost in the snow-free area resulted in damage to plant roots and sometimes even the death of the plant. - "In addition, plants that are active in the subnivium, such as lingonberry shrubs and alpine buttercups, are crucial for the survival of small rodents, as well as larger animals such as hare and moose, all of which graze on plants under the snow. Rodents create tunnels throughout the subnivium, which allow them to search for food without being exposed to extreme air temperatures or dangerous predators. The plant litter and faeces left by these animals stimulates plant growth, and eventually supports further plant decomposition and nutrient release. Because of the many feedback loops that are inherent in ecology, loss of one species because of disturbances to the subnivium will have ripple effects throughout communities and through entire ecosystems. " (my bold) - Comment: Two key points: Each key ecosystem illustrates the balance of life in nature. Note my bold. And, water has many wonderful qualities, without which, life would not be possible. As snow just one of many aspects of the value of water is seen. In winter water freezes at the surface, but many ponds have liquid below and life. Water is unusual that its solid form is lighter than its liquid form.

Natures wonders: ecosystem under snow

by dhw, Wednesday, June 01, 2016, 12:41 (2848 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Because of the many feedback loops that are inherent in ecology, loss of one species because of disturbances to the subnivium will have ripple effects throughout communities and through entire ecosystems. " (David's bold)-David's comment: Each key ecosystem illustrates the balance of life in nature. Note my bold.-Thank you for another great article. These natural wonders are an ongoing pleasure and education.-I doubt if anyone would question the claim that communities and ecosystems are one vast network of interdependencies. The problem arises when, in your preprogramnming versus dabbling mode of thinking, you use the term “balance of nature” to explain why your God had to personally “guide” billions of innovations and natural wonders - 99% of which are extinct - for the sake of producing and/or feeding humans. Fortunately, it seems that you are now coming round to the possibility*** that the whole higgledy-piggledy bush might have organized itself, and the “balance of nature” has continually changed because of this self-organization, while your God's role may have been confined to dabbling and guiding when he approved or disapproved or wanted to try something new.-*** Written before I had read you latest retraction under “protozoa”.

Natures wonders: ecosystem under snow

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 01, 2016, 21:08 (2847 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:Thank you for another great article. These natural wonders are an ongoing pleasure and education.
> 
> I doubt if anyone would question the claim that communities and ecosystems are one vast network of interdependencies. The problem arises when, in your preprogramnming versus dabbling mode of thinking, you use the term “balance of nature” to explain why your God had to personally “guide” billions of innovations and natural wonders - 99% of which are extinct - for the sake of producing and/or feeding humans.- Thank you appreciated. You have conflated the production of humans and balance of nature in your comment above. Let's clarify: Evolution would not have continued from the beginning unless animals could eat and had plant life to consume. Plans also had to receive energy. The balances have always had to be present. That humans finally appeared is a result of evolution supported by the balance. Nothing more.

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp crustacean crusher

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 01, 2016, 23:04 (2847 days ago) @ David Turell

The mantis shrimps have either a crusher claw or a smasher claw which allows them to break shells and eat:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/01/scientists-crack-mystery-of-the-shrimp-with-the-fastest-punch/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_most-draw6-"The mantis shrimp, only distantly related to the species you would find covered in tempura batter, come in two types, which marine biologists divide into “spearers” or “smashers.” The spearers impale prey with a javelin strike of a pointed claw, whereas the smashers use their fist-like appendages to pop the shells of their food. Smashers, and their shrimply hammers — technically known as dactyl clubs — are of particular interest to researchers because of the blistering blows the animals can deliver.-"A mantis punch arrives with the acceleration of a .22-caliber bullet, 50 times faster than a human eye can blink. Underwater, the low pressure bubble left in the wake of the punch collapses upon itself in a burst of light and heat, reaching an estimated 8,500 degrees Fahrenheit.-"How the mantis shrimp can deliver a blow and not destroy its club in the process has long been a source of scientific intrigue. Within the dactyl club, as scientists at the University of California at Riverside previously discovered, sits a corkscrew pattern of chitin (the stuff of insect shells) and areas spackled with hydroxyapatite (the stuff of human teeth). The shapes of the inner club allow for small breaks, rather than snapping the entire claw.
"The UC-Riverside scientists and engineers say they have detected a heretofore unknown natural structure in the outer layer — the critical “impact area” — of the club. Were helmets or body armor to be created following this mantis shrimp template, they say, soldiers and football players could be protected from immense blows.-"When viewed under a microscope, the outer layer of the club has what the scientists describe as a herringbone structure. There, fibers of chitin and calcium compounds are arranged in a series of sinusoidal waves. When the shrimp strikes a prey's shell, the researchers think this herringbone wave buckles, dispersing the impact throughout the club without causing catastrophic damage to the predator.-"The smasher mantis shrimp has evolved this exceptionally strong and impact-resistant dactyl club for one primary purpose — to be able to eat,” David Kisailus, a UC-Riverside chemical engineer and author of the paper, said in a statement.-"Based on this research, the scientists have 3-D-printed a prototype helmet that mimics both the inner corkscrew pattern and the outer herringbone layer. “The more we learn about this tiny creature and its multi-layered structural designs,” Kisailus said, “the more we realize how much it can help us as we design better planes, cars, sports equipment and armor.'”-Comment: Two points are raised. Did this develop step-wise and if so how did the shrimp eat before they could crush shells? Or was it a saltation like most other advances. It should be noted that arthropod shells ( as in shrimp) are usually fairly thin and brittle, although one uses a nut cracker to break open a lobster claw. Another example of the balance of nature. And, secondly, biomimetic examples from nature solve problems for humans.

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp crustacean crusher

by dhw, Thursday, June 02, 2016, 12:32 (2847 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: Two points are raised. Did this develop step-wise and if so how did the shrimp eat before they could crush shells? Or was it a saltation like most other advances. It should be noted that arthropod shells ( as in shrimp) are usually fairly thin and brittle, although one uses a nut cracker to break open a lobster claw. Another example of the balance of nature. And, secondly, biomimetic examples from nature solve problems for humans.-As you say, pre-crushing survival suggests saltation: another example of organisms finding new ways to survive/improve. And it is indeed truly amazing how often these apparently dumb creatures come up with solutions that appear to require cognitive intelligence. It ties in very neatly with the hypothesis that they actually HAVE cognitive intelligence, but of course it is possible that your God preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on the crusher and billions of other innovations extant and extinct, or personally taught the shrimp how to invent it. After all, without the shrimp's crusher, nature would have been unbalanced, wouldn't it?

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp crustacean crusher

by David Turell @, Friday, June 03, 2016, 01:47 (2846 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: After all, without the shrimp's crusher, nature would have been unbalanced, wouldn't it?-You must be clairvoyant. You identified a top predator in an ecosystem before I published an essay on the subject: Balance of nature; ecologists view, Thursday, June 02, 2016, 15:45. I'm impressed!

Natures wonders: ecosystem under snow

by dhw, Thursday, June 02, 2016, 12:20 (2847 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I doubt if anyone would question the claim that communities and ecosystems are one vast network of interdependencies. The problem arises when, in your preprogramnming versus dabbling mode of thinking, you use the term “balance of nature” to explain why your God had to personally “guide” billions of innovations and natural wonders - 99% of which are extinct - for the sake of producing and/or feeding humans.-DAVID: You have conflated the production of humans and balance of nature in your comment above. Let's clarify: Evolution would not have continued from the beginning unless animals could eat and had plant life to consume. Plans also had to receive energy. The balances have always had to be present. That humans finally appeared is a result of evolution supported by the balance. Nothing more.-Thank you for this clarification. It's good to hear that your God did not after all create every innovation and natural wonder, 99% of which are extinct, for the purpose of producing and feeding humans. The fact that life and evolution would have ended if there had been no food is clear, and that humans appeared is clear, and that there is no special connection between the two is clear, since the duck-billed platypus, the giraffe, the mosquito and every other living species also appeared (but not for the benefit of humans). The balance of nature is whatever balance exists at any particular time, and it is not geared to any particular species but changes according to whatever species are flourishing at that time. "Nothing more."

Natures wonders: ecosystem under snow

by David Turell @, Friday, June 03, 2016, 01:26 (2846 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Thank you for this clarification. It's good to hear that your God did not after all create every innovation and natural wonder, 99% of which are extinct, for the purpose of producing and feeding humans.... The balance of nature is whatever balance exists at any particular time, and it is not geared to any particular species but changes according to whatever species are flourishing at that time. "Nothing more."-I'm glad we straightened out your contortionating,

Natures wonders: desert plant drinks fog

by David Turell @, Monday, June 06, 2016, 21:06 (2842 days ago) @ David Turell

Water is scarce in the desert, and this moss uses a neat trick to stay hydrated:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2092453-desert-plant-seen-drinking-fog-and-mist-with-its-leaves/-"A common desert moss sucks water directly out of the air instead of from the ground. The discovery could be used to inspire ways of collecting clean drinking water in developing countries.-"Most desert plants, including cacti, rely on extensive root systems to mop up scarce groundwater. But the desert moss Syntrichia caninervis collects fresh water straight from the atmosphere.-"Tiny fibres attached to the tips of the moss leaves, known as awns, allow S. caninervis to harvest fog and mist droplets, says Tadd Truscott of Utah State University, who filmed the plant's drinking behaviour.-***-"The camera images show water vapour condensing on nano-sized grooves on the surface of the awns. Miniature barbs then push this water into larger droplets that move along the length of the awn into the leaf.-“'The droplet can travel from the awn to the leaf as fast as 10 to 20 millimetres per second,” says Truscott.-"Two other plant species have previously been found to possess fog-harvesting abilities - the cactus Opuntia microdasys and the alpine plant Cotula fallax - but S. caninervis is the first species in which a detailed mechanism involving barbs and grooves has been elucidated."-Comment: That other plants do this is 'convergence' in evolution, but this report raises the usual chicken/egg issue. How did these plants live before evolution developed the mechanism, or did they arrive in a saltation fashion. If they existed in a rainy area which then changed, why do they look like mosses ( no roots) in the first place.

Natures wonders: archer fish recognize human faces

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 07, 2016, 20:40 (2841 days ago) @ David Turell

It has been demonstrated that crows can distinguish human faces. Now archer fish have been shown to have the same ability. The fish have a more primitive brain, but archer fish have the special ability to hit a moving insect with a stream of water to get a meal.:-http://phys.org/news/2016-06-fish-human.html-"The researchers found that fish, which lack the sophisticated visual cortex of primates, are nevertheless capable of discriminating one face from up to 44 new faces. The research provides evidence that fish (vertebrates lacking a major part of the brain called the neocortex) have impressive visual discrimination abilities.-"In the study, archerfish—a species of tropical fish well known for its ability to spit jets of water to knock down aerial prey - were presented with two images of human faces and trained to choose one of them using their jets. The fish were then presented with the learned face and a series of new faces and were able to correctly choose the face they had initially learned to recognize. They were able to do this task even when more obvious features, such as head shape and colour, were removed from the images.-"The fish were highly accurate when selecting the correct face, reaching an average peak performance of 81% in the first experiment (picking the previously learned face from 44 new faces) and 86% in second experiment (in which facial features such as brightness and colour were standardized).-"Dr Newport said: 'Fish have a simpler brain than humans and entirely lack the section of the brain that humans use for recognizing faces. Despite this, many fish demonstrate impressive visual behaviours and therefore make the perfect subjects to test whether simple brains can complete complicated tasks.-"'Archerfish are a species of tropical freshwater fish that spit a jet of water from their mouth to knock down insects in branches above the water. We positioned a computer monitor that showed images of human faces above the aquariums and trained them to spit at a particular face. Once the fish had learned to recognize a face, we then showed them the same face, as well as a series of new ones.-"'In all cases, the fish continued to spit at the face they had been trained to recognize, proving that they were capable of telling the two apart. Even when we did this with faces that were potentially more difficult because they were in black and white and the head shape was standardized, the fish were still capable of finding the face they were trained to recognize.-"'The fact that archerfish can learn this task suggests that complicated brains are not necessarily needed to recognize human faces. Humans may have special facial recognition brain structures so that they can process a large number of faces very quickly or under a wide range of viewing conditions.'-"Human facial recognition has previously been demonstrated in birds. However, unlike fish, they are now known to possess neocortex-like structures. Additionally, fish are unlikely to have evolved the ability to distinguish between human faces. "-Comment: Surprising but if an archer fish can compute the spot to shoot a steam of water at a flying insect, it has some advanced computational equipment in its tiny brain. The other issue is how did the archer learn to do this to get its meals? How did it eat while learning to shoot? Another puzzle from life's complexity.

Natures wonders: extremophiles in stratisphere

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 12, 2016, 14:43 (2837 days ago) @ David Turell

There are very hardy bugs at the extreme edges of our atmosphere:-http://nautil.us//issue/37/currents/the-surprising-importance-of-stratospheric-life-"scientists are finding that a rich variety of life—archaea, bacteria, and single-celled eukaryotes—can thrive at high altitudes. In the troposphere, where day-to-day weather happens, each cubic meter of cloud contains on average tens of thousands of microbial cells. Even above the clouds in near space—as high as 250,000 feet, according to a 1978 Soviet study—rocket and balloon missions have collected hearty voyagers. “We're not just finding corpses that are blown up there and preserved,” says Brent Christner, a microbiologist at the University of Florida. “Some fraction of these organisms is still alive.”-***-"Depending on their size and aerodynamics, microbes can stay aloft in the atmosphere for days to weeks—long enough to jump a continent, or an ocean, in one go. Analyses of meteorological data, for instance, suggest that transatlantic winds carried fungal spores from West Africa to the Americas, spreading sugarcane and coffee leaf rusts to New World plantations in the 1970s. Bacteria kicked up by dust storms in Africa's drought-plagued Sahel appear to be making a similar leap to the Caribbean, where they are killing coral reefs. And in China, at the start of every growing season, spores causing wheat yellow rust migrate hundreds to thousands of miles from plants in the western provinces of Sichuan and Gansu to recolonize the country's main wheat belt farther north.-***-"No known organism can survive high altitudes indefinitely. Scientists estimate that even the fittest microbes probably last no longer than a week in the stratosphere, and around a couple of weeks in the troposphere. Eventually they “get fried by radiation,” says David J. Smith, a NASA microbiologist who led the October balloon mission testing the stamina of B. pumilus cells. As a result, some high-flying species may have evolved a method to get down fast: hijacking the weather.-***-"Microbial matter typically falls from the sky in rain or snow. To precipitate, clouds must grow ice crystals big enough to outweigh air, but pure water vapor won't normally freeze above -36 degrees Fahrenheit—unless it gets help from an “ice nucleator.” Most often, airborne particles such as salts or mineral dust provide this service. By supplying a seed around which water molecules can arrange themselves, a nucleator enables ice to form at temperatures up to 5 degrees. Some microorganisms produce proteins that catalyze the process in even warmer conditions, up to 28 degrees in a laboratory.-***-"If Earth's atmosphere is a microbial metro, it's an especially brutal one, and commuters have evolved various means to survive the trip. Some, like the B. pumilus cells in the NASA balloon, form endospores. “Sporulation is like hibernation for bacteria,” Smith says. “They shrivel down, dehydrate all of their innards, and wrap their DNA. They remain in that state until water and nutrients arrive, and then they flip the switch and germinate, and go on living.”-***-"The most successful cloud-squatters, Amato has found, are bacteria that spend their terrestrial lives on plants—no surprise, he says, considering that these species are well-adapted to life on the surface of a leaf, where light, temperature, and humidity change rapidly, as they do in a cloud. Many of these organisms have also evolved protections against UV radiation: pigments that act as sunscreens, for instance, or the ability to rapidly repair their own DNA.-"Where these widespread adaptations first arose is an open question. Did microbes hone their survival skills on the ground and then use them to take to the skies? Or vice versa? Smith, for one, argues that the arduous conditions of the upper atmosphere likely provided a selective pressure that drove terrestrial life to be as robust as it is. “Think about trillions upon trillions of tiny cells continuously passing through the Earth's deadly upper atmosphere for billions of years,” he says. “In that framework, evolved resistance to environmental extremes seems almost inevitable.”-***-"How Earth life might get to other planets is a matter of much debate. Airborne cells can't reach escape velocities great enough to break free of Earth's gravitational pull. Nor have scientists come up with a convincing explanation of how they would survive the long transport times and lethal radiation levels in deep space. But that hasn't stopped astrobiologists from musing about panspermia, the hypothesis that life spreads throughout the universe via meteors and other cosmic vehicles—like, say, spacecraft.-"For NASA, this is a very real, and troubling, possibility. The agency has identified hundreds of bacterial strains like B. pumilus that have outlived spacecraft sterilization procedures such as peroxide baths, heat shock, and UV radiation. What would happen if these or other hardy microbes stowed away in a dark crevice on a lander, or latched on as it passed through Earth's atmosphere?"-
Comment: These organisms show how inventive life's adaptations can be. Our oft discussed inventive mechanism must exist, not yet found.

Natures wonders: not all mammals warm-blooded

by David Turell @, Monday, June 13, 2016, 22:55 (2835 days ago) @ David Turell

There are many mammals that have their temperature drop to very low numbers, although most mammals have a rather steady body temperature in a small range:-http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160609-time-to-bust-a-myth-not-all-mammals-are-warm-blooded-"Mammals are animals that are (mostly) covered in hair and that nurse their young with milk. They include duck-billed platypuses, mice, elephants and human beings.-"It is true that all mammals can produce heat from within, a talent known as endothermy. This means that most mammalian species do indeed have warm blood. They maintain a high and fairly constant body temperature, which allows them to function efficiently across a range of conditions.-"This is why entry-level textbooks often refer to mammals as being "warm-blooded". This distinguishes them from "cold-blooded", ectothermic creatures whose body temperature is wholly dependent on their surroundings.-***-"In a classic paper that made the front cover of Science in 1989, physiologist Brian Barnes of the University of Alaska Fairbanks studied the squirrels during hibernation. He found that they drop their core body temperature below zero, in one instance to -2.9C, without freezing solid.-***-"For instance, newborn mammals' body temperature is entirely dependent on the temperature of the environment. The ability to produce internal heat only kicks later in development.-***-"Smaller mammals - including many rodents, insectivores, bats, marsupials and even some primates - have evolved a way to push this temperature reduction much further. They enter an energy-saving state known as daily torpor.-"For instance, the common blossom-bat can lower its body temperature from around 36C at night to just 20C in the day. Similarly, the Brazilian gracile opossum seems able to chill at 16C for hours on end.-"In a more extreme case, Madagascar's pygmy mouse lemur will spend around 10 hours a day in torpor, its body temperature falling below 7C.-***-"'Naked mole rats are interesting from a thermoregulatory standpoint, because they don't control their body temperature very well," says Boyles.-"This does not mean they are failed mammals. Rather, it is simply that they spend all their lives in underground tunnels where the temperature is fairly predictable, usually somewhere between 29 and 32C.-"'They don't have to spend the energy on thermoregulation," says Boyles. "It's the perfect example of an evolutionary adaptation, not a physiological limitation."-***-"Michael Le Page of New Scientist points out that hyraxes also cannot control their internal body temperature. But unlike naked mole rats, they live out in the open and have to deal with changing temperatures. To survive, they must bask in the sun to warm up, as many reptiles do."-Comment: Mammals burn so much energy daily it is easy for them to maintain a steady body temperature. Humans in the AM are 97+ and usually don't above 98.6 F by late afternoon. But a temperature that is too high can burn the brain. Heat stoke can easily occur at temps of 106 F and higher. Over 108 can destroy the brain, if not cooled quickly. Mammals generally have tight controls and several heat loss mechanisms for this reason. By the way, the hyrax is the closest evolutionary relative to the elephant, and they are large rabbit size or slightly bigger weighing from 4.4 to eleven pounds.

Natures wonders: bat and moth sonar jamming

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 15:09 (2835 days ago) @ David Turell

Bats hunt moths by sonar. Moths can also produce sonar to warn or jam the bats:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46307/title/Behavior-Brief/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=30573403&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_3VN-mmjrKgojZq_5Nqy13j1RkpLOGRxiAjU8auSx0_U9Gckpx7a2BnSllvl048xwFJiO5HMzOBC4jTOlk6IrZJ0pV6w&_hsmi=30573403/-"In many insects, bright coloration serves as an indicator of unpalatability and a deterrent to potential predators. But visual cues aren't much use against bats, which locate food using sonar. Tiger moths—potential bat prey—have found a way around this problem, according to a study published earlier this year (April 20) in PLOS ONE: they produce ultrasonic sounds to signal their toxicity.-“'The signals are, in essence, a warning to the bats that the moth is unpalatable and potentially harmful if ingested by the bats,” study coauthor Nick Dowdy of Wake Forest University said in a statement. He added that the study represents the first demonstration of this behavior—known as acoustic aposematism—in a natural setting.-"To demonstrate the importance of the signal, Dowdy and colleagues removed the soundmaking organs from two tiger moth species, Cisthene martini and Pygarctia roseicapitis, and then released them into a field. The researchers found that moths with intact organs were 1.6 and 1.8 times less likely to be captured than silenced insects in the two species, respectively—although bats spat out most of what they'd captured in all cases.-"The team also concluded that unlike Bertholdia trigona, a tiger moth known to use acoustic signals to jam bats' sonar, P. roseicapitis and C. martini did not produce sounds fast enough to have a jamming effect. “This means that in evolutionary history, these moths first evolved these sounds for use in warning bats of their toxicity,” Dowdy said in the statement. “Then sometime later, these sounds grew in complexity in certain species to perform a sonar jamming function.'”-Comment: This study shows the development of complexity through evolution. Still doesn't tell us how this is accomplished by the genome.

Natures wonders: bat and moth sonar jamming

by dhw, Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 17:48 (2834 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: This study shows the development of complexity through evolution. Still doesn't tell us how this is accomplished by the genome.-Thank you for another lovely post. Once again, this shows the development of useful abilities through evolution. You may feel your God preprogrammed a multiple choice of sound signals 3.8 billion years ago, or showed the moths how to do it, presumably after giving the bats a moth-eating programme as well, or dabbling to make sure they did/didn't eat the moths…oh, it's all so confusing. I would suggest the moths developed their own sound programme without on-board multiple choice questions or divine dabbling: just intelligent cell communities recognizing a threat and finding a way to combat it. But whaddoIknow?

Natures wonders: bat and moth sonar jamming

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 20:11 (2833 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment: This study shows the development of complexity through evolution. Still doesn't tell us how this is accomplished by the genome.
> 
> dhw:Thank you for another lovely post. Once again, this shows the development of useful abilities through evolution. You may feel your God preprogrammed a multiple choice of sound signals 3.8 billion years ago, or showed the moths how to do it, presumably after giving the bats a moth-eating programme as well, or dabbling to make sure they did/didn't eat the moths…oh, it's all so confusing. I would suggest the moths developed their own sound programme without on-board multiple choice questions or divine dabbling: just intelligent cell communities recognizing a threat and finding a way to combat it. But whaddoIknow?-You don't know and neither do I, but I recognize the need for a planning mind and you don't. That gulf will never narrow.

Natures wonders: some bacteria live on electrons

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 02:01 (2833 days ago) @ David Turell

No need for oxygen at all:-http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160613-there-are-microbes-that-eat-and-poo-nothing-but-electricity-"Some microbes have developed the ultimate stripped-down diet. They do not bother with food or oxygen. All they need to survive is pure electrical energy.-"They often live in muddy seabeds or along the banks of rivers. Finding them is easy: biologists can coax them out of hiding by sticking an electrode into the sediment. The bacteria nearest to the electrode will even grow biological equivalents of electrical wires out of their bodies, so that other microbes further away can hook up to the electricity source. It is effectively a living power grid.-***-"The microbes, called Geobacter metallireducens, were getting their electrons from organic compounds, and passing them onto iron oxides. In other words they were eating waste - including ethanol - and effectively "breathing" iron instead of oxygen.-***-" Instead, the bacteria pass their electrons to metal oxides that lie outside the cell.-"They do this through special hair-like wires that protrude from the cell's surface. These tiny wires act in much in the same way that copper wire does when it conducts electricity. They have been dubbed "microbial nanowires".-***-"Geobacter bacteria are able to survive on energy sources entirely unavailable to most lifeforms.-"They are even able to effectively "eat" pollution. They will convert the organic compounds in oil spills into carbon dioxide, or turn soluble radioactive metals like plutonium and uranium into insoluble forms that are less likely to contaminate groundwater - and they will generate electricity in the process.-***-"Different species of bacteria and archaea - ancient single-celled microbes similar to bacteria in many ways - team up to degrade the methane before it can get the surface.
It seems that the bacteria use these nanowires to hook up with the archaea.-"The archaea feed on electrons from methane, oxidising the gas to generate carbonate. They then pass the electrons on to their partner bacteria along the nanowires, which act like power cables. Finally the bacteria deposit the electrons onto sulphate, producing energy that the cell can use in the process.-***-"While most organisms get their electron fix from carbohydrates, some bacteria can harvest electrons in their purest form. They can effectively "eat" electrons from minerals and rocks. In a way, they are getting their electrical energy straight from the socket.-"Annette Rowe, a graduate student of Nealson, has found six new bacterial species on the ocean floor that can live off electricity alone. All are very different to one another, and none of them is anything like Shewanella or Geobacter.-***-"Many more electron-loving bacteria have now been found. In fact all you have to do is stick an electrode in the ground and pass electrons down it, and soon the electrode will be coated with feeding bacteria. Experiments show that these bacteria essentially eat or excrete electricity.-***-"Lovley and his lab have also discovered other communities of bacteria that are able to pass electrons directly to each other.-""In the lab, Lovley showed that two species of Geobacter - G. metallireducens and G. sulfurreducens - survive by forming a conductive network of nanowires, through which electrons can be shuttled. G. metallireducens takes electrons from ethanol and then passed them directly to G. sulfurreducens using this electrical grid.-In a more extreme version of this process, some bacteria can link up to form long "cables".-
***-"If life exists on other worlds, such as Mars or Jupiter's moon Europa, it will probably be in similarly sparse environments. Astrobiologists searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life might be particularly interested in electricity-eating and electricity-excreting microbes.-"Whether or not such alien life is ever found, electricity-eating and -excreting bacteria here on Earth are still a significant discovery. All you need to do is provide them with an electrode onto which they can "breathe" electrons, and they have the potential to steal electrons from toxic waste, oil spills and nuclear waste, cleaning up our waste and generating electricity in the process.-"Not bad for simple single-celled organisms."-Comment: Perhaps this is how life started? Note how Archaea work with the electron eaters Very long article. Worth reviewing all of it since there is much more info about different life styles.

Natures wonders: some bacteria live on electrons

by dhw, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 13:31 (2833 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No need for oxygen at all: - http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160613-there-are-microbes-that-eat-and-poo-nothing-but... - "Some microbes have developed the ultimate stripped-down diet. They do not bother with food or oxygen. All they need to survive is pure electrical energy.
"Not bad for simple single-celled organisms." - David's comment: Perhaps this is how life started? Note how Archaea work with the electron eaters Very long article. Worth reviewing all of it since there is much more info about different life styles. - Quite mind-boggling! These simple single-celled organisms appear to be able to change themselves at will to cope with whatever environment they encounter. Some folk might even say their sentience, cognitive skills and decision-making are evidence of intelligence (possibly designed by a God), but others will say they are just machines into which a God preprogrammed every single solution to every single problem throughout the history of life.

Natures wonders: some bacteria live on electrons

by David Turell @, Friday, June 17, 2016, 00:25 (2832 days ago) @ dhw

David's comment: Perhaps this is how life started? Note how Archaea work with the electron eaters Very long article. Worth reviewing all of it since there is much more info about different life styles.
> 
> dhw: Quite mind-boggling! These simple single-celled organisms appear to be able to change themselves at will to cope with whatever environment they encounter. Some folk might even say their sentience, cognitive skills and decision-making are evidence of intelligence (possibly designed by a God), but others will say they are just machines into which a God preprogrammed every single solution to every single problem throughout the history of life. - What the article tells me is these bacteria have an amazing ability for adaptation, which may well have been endowed as God created them. They do have all the trademarks of life before oxygen appeared.

Natures wonders: bat and moth sonar jamming

by dhw, Thursday, June 16, 2016, 13:29 (2833 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: This study shows the development of complexity through evolution. Still doesn't tell us how this is accomplished by the genome.-dhw:Thank you for another lovely post. Once again, this shows the development of useful abilities through evolution. You may feel your God preprogrammed a multiple choice of sound signals 3.8 billion years ago, or showed the moths how to do it, presumably after giving the bats a moth-eating programme as well, or dabbling to make sure they did/didn't eat the moths…oh, it's all so confusing. I would suggest the moths developed their own sound programme without on-board multiple choice questions or divine dabbling: just intelligent cell communities recognizing a threat and finding a way to combat it. But whaddoIknow?-DAVID: You don't know and neither do I, but I recognize the need for a planning mind and you don't. That gulf will never narrow.-As usual, you conflate two planning minds. One is the planning minds of organisms themselves, which you refuse to consider as an alternative to divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. That is the substance of our entire discussion on how evolution works, and that is the gulf between us. At all times I have allowed for the possibility of a planning mind creating the planning minds of the organisms, and as an agnostic I remain open-minded on that question.

Natures wonders: bat and moth sonar jamming

by David Turell @, Friday, June 17, 2016, 00:20 (2832 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: You don't know and neither do I, but I recognize the need for a planning mind and you don't. That gulf will never narrow.
> 
> dhw; As usual, you conflate two planning minds. One is the planning minds of organisms themselves, which you refuse to consider as an alternative to divine preprogramming and/or dabbling. That is the substance of our entire discussion on how evolution works, and that is the gulf between us.-Those organisms are planned to look as if they have a degree of mentation.-> dhw: At all times I have allowed for the possibility of a planning mind creating the planning minds of the organisms, and as an agnostic I remain open-minded on that question.-I recognize your agnosticism and I know your mind is open and evenhanded.

Natures wonders: fish electrolocation

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2016, 16:00 (2823 days ago) @ David Turell

This tiny fish uses electrolocation and its eyes to catch prey:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624100245.htm-"The elephantnose fish explores objects in its surroundings by using its eyes or its electrical sense -- sometimes both together. Zoologists have now found out how complex the processing of these sensory impressions is. With its tiny brain, the fish achieves performance comparable to that of humans or mammals. -***-"The elephantnose fish (Gnathonemus petersii) is widespread in the flowing waters of West Africa and hunts insect larva at dawn and dusk. It is helped by an electrical organ in its tail, which emits electrical impulses. The skin contains numerous sensor organs that perceive objects in the water by means of the changed electrical field. "This is a case of active electrolocation, in principle the same as the active echolocation of bats, which use ultrasound to perceive a three-dimensional image of their environment," -***-"The animals normally use both senses. If necessary, for example because one of the two senses provides no information or the information of the two senses differs greatly, however, the fish can switch back and forth between their visual and electrical senses." The scientists were surprised by the manner in which the fish use these two senses to get the best perception of their environment: When the animals became familiar with an object in the aquarium, for example with the visual sense, they were also able to recognize it again using the electrical sense, although they had never perceived it electrically before.-***-"Their brain gave more weight to the information it thought was more reliable. When the two senses delivered different information in the close range of up to two centimeters, the fish trusted only the electrical information and were then "blind" to the visual stimuli. In contrast, for more distant objects, the animals relied above all on their eyes. They perceived the environment best by using their visual and electrical senses in combination. "A transfer between the different senses was previously known only for certain highly developed mammals, such as monkeys, dolphins, rats, and humans," says Professor von der Emde. An example: In a dark, unfamiliar apartment, people feel their way forward to avoid stumbling. When the light goes on, the obstacles felt are recognized by the eye without any problem. Mammals process such information with their cerebral cortex. The elephantnose fish, however, has just a relatively small brain and no cerebral cortex at all -- but nevertheless switches back and forth between the senses.-***-"The scientists came up with a very clever test setup: The elephantnose fish was in an aquarium. Separated from it were two different chambers, between which the animal could choose. Behind openings to the chambers there were differently shaped objects: a sphere or a cuboid. The fish learned to steer toward one of these objects by being rewarded with insect larvae. Subsequently, it searched for this object again, to obtain the reward again.-"When does the fish use a particular sense? In order to answer this question, the researchers repeated the experiments in absolute darkness. Now the fish could rely only on its electrical sense. As shown by images taken with an infrared camera, it was able to recognize the object only at short distances. With the light on the fish was most successful, because it was able to use its eyes and the electrical sense for the different distances. In order to find out when the fish used its eyes alone, the researchers made the objects invisible to the electrical sense. Now, the sphere and cuboid to be discriminated had the same electrical characteristics as the water."-Comment: This fish with a tiny nervous system has the ability to learn. Not surprising when we know that neurons have many changeable abilities as shown in the brain plasticity studies. Even at this level evolution developed the cooperation between an organism's needs and neuron changeability. A point on the way to the human brain.

Natures wonders: cats intrpret sound

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2016, 21:24 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

Cats are great hunters and use sight and sound. In this study a rattled box was used and turned over to drop out the supposed contents: - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1001-6 - The Abstract: "We used an expectancy violation procedure to ask whether cats could use a causal rule to infer the presence of an unseen object on hearing the noise it made inside a container and predict its appearance when the container was turned over. We presented cats with either an object dropping out of an opaque container or no object dropping out (turning-over phase) after producing either a rattling sound by shaking the container with the object inside, or no sound (shaking phase). The cats were then allowed to freely explore the experimental environment (exploration phase). The relation between the sound and the object matched with physical laws in half of the trials (congruent condition) and mismatched in the other half (incongruent condition). Inferring the presence of an unseen object from the noise was predicted to result in longer looking time in the incongruent condition. The prediction was supported by the cats' behavior during the turning-over phase. The results suggest that cats used a causal-logical understanding of auditory stimuli to predict the appearance of invisible objects. The ecology of cats' natural hunting style may favor the ability for inference on the basis of sounds. - *** - Call (2004) tested great apes for their ability to infer the presence of a reward from visual and auditory information. The auditory information was noises made as the reward moved in a container. Although all apes passed the visual test, only a few passed the auditory test. Similar results have been obtained in other nonhuman primate species (see Takagi et al. 2015 for more detailed information on subjects passing the auditory test). In contrast to our expectation, causal reasoning based on noises seems much less developed in primates than that based on visual information. - Several researchers have suggested that causal understanding in the auditory domain may be related to the ecological importance of auditory information for each species (Maille and Roeder 2012; Plotnik et al. 2014). Nonhuman primates are generally not very good at auditory tests compared to visual tasks (Schmitt and Fischer 2009). D'Amato and Salmon (1982) suggested that primates often use sounds as cues to avoid rather than to approach the source, in contrast to cats, for which auditory cues might more often be associated with prey. Assuming that cats often use auditory cues when hunting (Turner and Meister 1988), they may show a better ability to make inferences from auditory stimuli. - Comment: Interesting difference in species related to hunting technique. Our barn cat will explore everything new that arrives, even trucks in and out. It is not surprising apes are just visual. Humans are much more like cats.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by David Turell @, Monday, June 27, 2016, 00:08 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

There is no way the circulatory controls for the giraffe's circulation could have developed bit by bit. The long neck requires blood pressure regulation when the head is high and very different when the animal drinks:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/the_challenge_o102943.html-"The advantage of the giraffe's long neck for "browsing on the higher branches of trees" is, however, not nearly as obvious as Darwin makes out. Consider that the neck of the female giraffe is two feet shorter, on average, than that of the male. If a longer neck were needed solely to reach above the existing forage line, then the females would have soon starved to death and the giraffe would have become extinct. -***-"When a giraffe stands in its normal upright posture, the blood pressure in the neck arteries will be highest at the base of the neck and lowest in the head. The blood pressure generated by the heart must be extremely high to pump blood to the head. This, in turn, requires a very strong heart. But when the giraffe bends its head to the ground it encounters a potentially dangerous situation. By lowering its head between its front legs, it puts a great strain on the blood vessels of the neck and head. The blood pressure together with the weight of the blood in the neck could produce so much pressure in the head that, without safeguards, the blood vessels would burst.-"Such safeguards, however, are in place. The giraffe's adaptational package includes a coordinated system of blood pressure control. Pressure sensors along the neck's arteries monitor the blood pressure and can signal activation of other mechanisms to counter any increase in pressure as the giraffe drinks or grazes. Contraction of the artery walls, the ability to shunt arterial blood flow bypassing the brain, and a web of small blood vessels between the arteries and the brain (the rete mirabile, or "marvelous net") all control the blood pressure in the giraffe's head. The giraffe's adaptations do not occur in isolation but presuppose other adaptations that all must be carefully coordinated into a single, highly specialized organism. -"In short, the giraffe represents not a mere collection of isolated traits but a package of interrelated traits. It exhibits a top-down design that integrates all its parts into a single functional system. How did such an adaptational package arise? According to neo-Darwinian theory, the giraffe evolved to its present form by the accumulation of individual, random genetic changes that were sifted and preserved piecemeal by natural selection. But how could such a piecemeal process, in which mutation and selection act on the spur of the moment with no view to the future benefit of the organism, bring about an adaptational package, especially when the parts that make up the package are useless, or even detrimental, until the whole package is in place? That's the trouble with integrated packages -- they are package deals that offer no benefit until the entire package is in place. -***-"Major changes, such as the evolution of a giraffe from an animal with short legs and short neck, would require an extensive suite of coordinated adaptations. The complex circulatory system of the giraffe must appear at the same time as its long neck or the animal will not survive. If the various elements of the circulatory system appear before the long neck, they are useless or even detrimental. This interdependence of structures strongly suggests a top-down design that is capable of anticipating the total engineering requirements of organisms like the giraffe.-***-"The Cambrian explosion marks the sudden appearance in the fossil record of numerous multicellular animals exhibiting diverse body plans. For most of these animals, evidence of fossil ancestors is completely lacking (with but one or two exceptions, there are no known Precambrian precursors). And yet these organisms arrive fully formed in the fossil record as integrated adaptational packages. -***-"There is no evidence of mutations in fruit flies creating new structures. Mutations merely alter existing structures. For instance, mutations have produced crumpled, oversized, and undersized wings. They have produced double sets of wings (one set of which doesn't work and thus is deleterious to the organism). But they have not created a new kind of wing. Mutations have also created monstrosities, like fruit flies with legs growing where they should have antennae (a condition known as Antennapedia). But even such monstrosities merely rearrange existing structures, albeit in bizarre ways. Nor have mutations transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations of fruit flies.-*** -"In conclusion, to generate an adaptational package requires not piecemeal change but integrated, systematic change. Moreover, the source of such change must impart massive amounts of new functional information into an organism. Such information, however, gives no evidence of resulting from the interplay of mutation and selection. Indeed, it gives no evidence of being reducible to matter and energy at all."-Comment: These changes are saltations, not available by Darwin's thoughts. The fruit fly mutation experiments show that. God, anyone?

Natures wonders: mosquitoes suck your blood

by David Turell @, Monday, June 27, 2016, 14:23 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

It is a complex system in which six needles are used, blood is anticoagulated and water is removed from blood to concentrate it as a food source for the larvae it will feed: - https://aeon.co/videos/what-makes-mosquitoes-so-good-at-getting-under-our-skin?utm_sour... - This is an irreducibly complex mechanism. It is a saltation by definition. It cannot develop bit by bit.

Natures wonders: amphibious centipede

by David Turell @, Monday, June 27, 2016, 17:35 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

In southeast Asia, and venomous:-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/amphibious-centipede-discovered-laos-scolopendra-cataracta-new-species/-
"When Beccaloni lifted the rock it was hiding under, the centipede immediately escaped into the stream, rather than into the forest. It ran along the stream bed underwater and concealed itself under a rock.-"With some difficulty, Beccaloni captured the centipede and later put it in a large container of water. He says it immediately dove to the bottom and swam powerfully like an eel, with horizontal undulations of its body. When he took the centipede out of the container, the water rolled off its body, leaving it totally dry.-***-"Beccaloni shared the observations of his specimen's amphibious behavior with Edgecombe, and they confirmed that his honeymoon centipede was an example of S. cataracta.-"The entire species is known from just four specimens: the two collected in Laos, Beccaloni's swimming specimen from Thailand, and a fourth specimen that was collected in Vietnam in 1928 and was in the collection at the Natural History Museum in London, misidentified as a more common species.-"Beccaloni believes S. cataracta exploits a different ecological niche from other centipedes.-“'Other Scolopendra hunt on land,” he says. “I would bet this species goes into the water at night to hunt aquatic or amphibious invertebrates.”-"Like all centipedes, this new amphibious species is venomous. Although you would not want to be bitten by one, it probably wouldn't kill you—it would just cause agonizing pain.-***-"But to scientists like Beccaloni and Edgecombe, the new discovery is further proof of all the wonders of nature that are still unknown to us.-“'People tend to study streams in the tropics during the day, but there is probably a whole other range of interesting amphibious things that come out at night,” says Beccaloni. “It would be good to study these streams and their fauna then to see what is actually going on under the cover of darkness.'”-Comment: This shows that there are many undiscovered species, but also more significantly, whatever mechanism that exists to create new species is highly inventive and adds complexity. This guy can live under water, which raises the issue of how amphibians develop. It must be in one step or they would drown, or if coming out of water, they must immediately be able to breathe on land. Darwin doesn't help, does he?

Natures wonders: amphibious centipede

by dhw, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 12:55 (2821 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: This shows that there are many undiscovered species, but also more significantly, whatever mechanism that exists to create new species is highly inventive and adds complexity. This guy can live under water, which raises the issue of how amphibians develop. It must be in one step or they would drown, or if coming out of water, they must immediately be able to breathe on land. Darwin doesn't help, does he?-Thank you for yet another stunning example of the ingenuity of cell communities. No, Darwin's gradualism doesn't help (though his common descent stands firm). Nor does Turell's theory that every single wonder has been divinely preprogrammed or dabbled so that humans can walk the Earth. This little marvel suggests to me that organisms (cell communities) do indeed possess a highly inventive mechanism which creates new ways of coping with or exploiting the environment; these new inventions would obviously entail “adding complexity”, but always with a purpose. Once again, I can only ask what on earth would be the point of adding complexity just for the sake of complexity? It may be that your God preprogrammed the very first cells to pass on every single invention and variation throughout the history of life (apart from those he dabbled), and at some point in time a few centipedes blindly turned on programme XYZ million(multiple choice No. 2099), to make themselves amphibious, just as your God had planned. Or it may be that they used the intelligence your God had given them to devise a new way of exploiting the environment. The latter hypothesis, however, apparently has too many complexities for you to accept as a possibility, whereas you cannot see any complexities in the former.

Natures wonders: amphibious centipede

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 21:35 (2820 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Thank you for yet another stunning example of the ingenuity of cell communities. No, Darwin's gradualism doesn't help (though his common descent stands firm). Nor does Turell's theory that every single wonder has been divinely preprogrammed or dabbled so that humans can walk the Earth. This little marvel suggests to me that organisms (cell communities) do indeed possess a highly inventive mechanism which creates new ways of coping with or exploiting the environment; these new inventions would obviously entail “adding complexity”, but always with a purpose. - This weird character had to arrive all planned and integrated from the beginning. He is pure saltation, more likely a dabble from God than a committee result. - > dhw: Once again, I can only ask what on earth would be the point of adding complexity just for the sake of complexity? - It may not be logical to human thought, but the h-p bush shows just that. - > dhw:It may be that your God preprogrammed the very first cells to pass on every single invention and variation throughout the history of life (apart from those he dabbled), and at some point in time a few centipedes blindly turned on programme XYZ million(multiple choice No. 2099), to make themselves amphibious, just as your God had planned. Or it may be that they used the intelligence your God had given them to devise a new way of exploiting the environment. The latter hypothesis, however, apparently has too many complexities for you to accept as a possibility, whereas you cannot see any complexities in the former. - I see all of the possibilities you do. All are complex. All fit the results of evolution. I am allowed to chose the ones that I deem must likely. And I admit God could have made cells so intelligent they create new full-blown species, but He would have had to load them with precise programming, which is more complicated than taking direct dabble action.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2016, 18:16 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "In conclusion, to generate an adaptational package requires not piecemeal change but integrated, systematic change. Moreover, the source of such change must impart massive amounts of new functional information into an organism. Such information, however, gives no evidence of resulting from the interplay of mutation and selection. Indeed, it gives no evidence of being reducible to matter and energy at all."-David's comment: These changes are saltations, not available by Darwin's thoughts. The fruit fly mutation experiments show that. God, anyone?-
David's comment (on "kidneys"): We are back to saltation and the recognition that Darwin's ideas don't work. But intelligent design explains it. There is only chance and design to consider, or wish for a third way, for which there is no trace of evidence.-We have long, long, long ago rejected Darwin's random mutations and gradualism, and even his “bulldog” Huxley complained about his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility of saltations. More dead-horse-flogging. I agree that the choice is between chance and design, but the intelligent cell hypothesis is not a third way - it is a different form of design from your 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or dabbling, for which there is no trace of evidence.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 21:24 (2820 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We have long, long, long ago rejected Darwin's random mutations and gradualism, and even his “bulldog” Huxley complained about his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility of saltations. More dead-horse-flogging. I agree that the choice is between chance and design, but the intelligent cell hypothesis is not a third way - it is a different form of design from your 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or dabbling, for which there is no trace of evidence. - Of course we are working from the results of an evolutionary process that we really do not understand. Each of us has no evidence, but that is where faith takes over for some of us. And your intelligent cell has to plan for the giraffe saltation. A faith position to me.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by dhw, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 13:44 (2820 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We have long, long, long ago rejected Darwin's random mutations and gradualism, and even his “bulldog” Huxley complained about his dogmatic refusal to accept the possibility of saltations. More dead-horse-flogging. I agree that the choice is between chance and design, but the intelligent cell hypothesis is not a third way - it is a different form of design from your 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or dabbling, for which there is no trace of evidence. - DAVID: Of course we are working from the results of an evolutionary process that we really do not understand. Each of us has no evidence, but that is where faith takes over for some of us. And your intelligent cell has to plan for the giraffe saltation. A faith position to me. - Agreed. But (a) we can stop flogging the dead horse of Darwin's gradualism, and (b) faith or no faith, we can stop pretending that design only means hypothetical divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, when it can also mean the inventiveness of hypothetical cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 15:10 (2820 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Of course we are working from the results of an evolutionary process that we really do not understand. Each of us has no evidence, but that is where faith takes over for some of us. And your intelligent cell has to plan for the giraffe saltation. A faith position to me.
> 
> dhw: Agreed. But (a) we can stop flogging the dead horse of Darwin's gradualism, and (b) faith or no faith, we can stop pretending that design only means hypothetical divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, when it can also mean the inventiveness of hypothetical cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God. - I can accept God designing a planning process for speciation within organisms. The problem is,for me, no evidence so far. There is no discovered speciation mechanism, only Darwin theory which we have abandoned.

Natures wonders: giraffe circulatory system

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 20, 2016, 14:26 (2707 days ago) @ David Turell

An excellent description:

http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/how-necking-shaped-the-giraffe-rp

Let’s start with the most obvious. The giraffe’s great height poses a number of difficulties that have been overcome via some notable adaptations. In order to pump blood seven feet above the animal’s heart to that towering head, an exceptionally high blood pressure is required, as much as three times the human systolic level. In order to keep from blowing their arteries apart, giraffes need special structural supports within those blood vessels.

In the other direction, to prevent blood from pooling in their feet, which are at the end of some very long legs, giraffes have evolved the equivalent of compression stockings, like those that people use post-surgery or to prevent deep vein thrombosis on long airplane rides. The giraffe’s hack consists of highly elastic blood vessel walls, combined with an extensive capillary bed. By restricting perfusion of fluid into surrounding tissues, these structures keep a giraffe’s blood in its vessels, where it belongs, rather than in surrounding tissue. These animals have another specially adapted compression system in their necks, which prevents too much blood from rushing to their heads when they bend down to drink—which they don’t do very often, since they get most of their water from the leaves they eat, using their highly flexible 18-inch tongue.

As notably long as are giraffe necks, these are actually outclassed by their legs, such that those monumental necks are—believe it or not—too short to comfortably reach a puddle; as a result, a drinking giraffe must splay its front feet wide apart. And, by the way, the same fluid sluice-way control mechanism in its lengthy neck works in reverse when a giraffe is done drinking and eventually raises its high head, allowing only a relative trickle of blood to flow back down so that its brain doesn’t suddenly become hypoxic.

Comment: The article contains lots more about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the animals strange movement pattern and its sex life. Worth a read. One can only wonder why evolve such problem animal which requires all of these adaptations. How many mutations are required? Chance or saltation?

Natures wonders: cats intrpret sound

by BBella @, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 17:34 (2820 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by BBella, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 17:43

Cats are great hunters and use sight and sound. In this study a rattled box was used and turned over to drop out the supposed contents:
> 
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1001-6
> 
>The prediction was supported by the cats' behavior during the turning-over phase. The results suggest that cats used a causal-logical understanding of auditory stimuli to predict the appearance of invisible objects. The ecology of cats' natural hunting style may favor the ability for inference on the basis of sounds.
> 
> ***
 Ah...so, does this solve the mystery of why every cat I've ever had, even when born in my home, comes running and meows when the can opener is used, even though I've never used canned cat food, only dry? The sound in-furs to the cat there's possibly food to be shared? This study fits neatly with another study I read how cat's and humans experience emotion from the same part of their brains. Obviously, we should be able to understand cat's affection for food. After all, I have to admit, when the can opener is used by someone else besides me, I have to run find out what's being opened as well.lol

Natures wonders: fish electrolocation

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2016, 18:11 (2822 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for all these splendid articles. I shall put some of your comments together, as they serve to illustrate the same points.-QUOTE: "The elephantnose fish explores objects in its surroundings by using its eyes or its electrical sense -- sometimes both together. Zoologists have now found out how complex the processing of these sensory impressions is. With its tiny brain, the fish achieves performance comparable to that of humans or mammals. -David's comment: This fish with a tiny nervous system has the ability to learn. Not surprising when we know that neurons have many changeable abilities as shown in the brain plasticity studies. Even at this level evolution developed the cooperation between an organism's needs and neuron changeability. A point on the way to the human brain.-David's comment (on "Brain plasticity"): This is a human study. At some point ape brains will have this same study, and I can guess the result: no where near the variability. This is part of the reason why our brains are so helpful to our needs. One can only wonder how this developed in evolution without purposeful planning.
-The elephantnose fish, just like our fellow primates, displays all the signs of intelligence, though of course on nothing like the level of our own. Both examples lead to the all-important question of the link between the neurons and the organism's identity. Is the fish/ape/human directed by the neurons, or do they each direct the neurons. You have no doubt that “you” direct your neurons,which serve "your" needs, but what are “you”? Why should we assume that the neurons direct the fish if the human directs the neurons? In other words, what is the seat of intelligence? The materialist will say the brain, but you say that is not so in the case of humans. Maybe it is not so in the case of the ape or in the case of the fish. But if it is not so, intelligence must in some way be independent of the brain. And if it is independent of the brain, there must be a different source. And that source may also be present in organisms without a brain.

Natures wonders: fish electrolocation

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 21:21 (2820 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The elephantnose fish, just like our fellow primates, displays all the signs of intelligence, though of course on nothing like the level of our own. Both examples lead to the all-important question of the link between the neurons and the organism's identity. Is the fish/ape/human directed by the neurons, or do they each direct the neurons. You have no doubt that “you” direct your neurons,which serve "your" needs, but what are “you”? Why should we assume that the neurons direct the fish if the human directs the neurons? In other words, what is the seat of intelligence? The materialist will say the brain, but you say that is not so in the case of humans. Maybe it is not so in the case of the ape or in the case of the fish. But if it is not so, intelligence must in some way be independent of the brain. And if it is independent of the brain, there must be a different source. And that source may also be present in organisms without a brain. - You have come back to panpsychism, and I can simply point to universal consciousness God) as the answer. From quantum studies we see intelligent consciousness is required.

Natures wonders: fish electrolocation

by dhw, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 13:41 (2820 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The elephantnose fish, just like our fellow primates, displays all the signs of intelligence, though of course on nothing like the level of our own. Both examples lead to the all-important question of the link between the neurons and the organism's identity. Is the fish/ape/human directed by the neurons, or do they each direct the neurons. You have no doubt that “you” direct your neurons,which serve "your" needs, but what are “you”? Why should we assume that the neurons direct the fish if the human directs the neurons? In other words, what is the seat of intelligence? The materialist will say the brain, but you say that is not so in the case of humans. Maybe it is not so in the case of the ape or in the case of the fish. But if it is not so, intelligence must in some way be independent of the brain. And if it is independent of the brain, there must be a different source. And that source may also be present in organisms without a brain. - DAVID: You have come back to panpsychism, and I can simply point to universal consciousness God) as the answer. From quantum studies we see intelligent consciousness is required. - In my view, intelligent consciousness (but not human self-awareness) is certainly required to explain intelligent behaviour. Panpsychism and universal consciousness (also not to be confused with human self-awareness) can be synonymous. But such consciousness (which can range from minimal to human) is not synonymous with any concept of God that I know of, since all gods are beings with human-type awareness and powers to intervene in the course of life. In my “panpsychist” hypothesis, living organisms have different levels of consciousness, though I am very wary of attributing any degree of consciousness to inorganic matter.

Natures wonders: fish electrolocation

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 15:07 (2820 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: In my view, intelligent consciousness (but not human self-awareness) is certainly required to explain intelligent behaviour. - But so can planned automatic intelligent responses.

Natures wonders: at altitude ants warm nests

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 18:26 (2820 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants that live high in mountains maintain a higher nest temperature than the surrounding environment. There is a tradeoff not noted in the article: higher temps required higher metabolic rate and lower oxygen is present, so there has to be a ceiling for this:-http://phys.org/news/2016-06-mountaineering-ants-body.html-"Although they're a nomadic species—which is relatively rare for ants—Labidus praedator create underground nests (called bivouacs) that harbor their eggs and young offspring (brood). How hot or cold that bivouac gets may be critical for the ability of the ants to stay mobile and raise their young.-"'As is the case for most insects, army ant brood temperature is a key determiner of the time required for each hatched egg to reach adulthood," said Kaitlin Baudier, a graduate student in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, who teamed with Drexel professor Sean O'Donnell, PhD, to publish their findings in Insectes Sociaux.-"L. praedator carefully time the lifecycle of their young. Efficiency is key. When their young are larvae (freshly hatched offspring), the colony can remain on the move. But when those larvae become pupae (similar to a chrysalis in butterflies, the stage just before the ants become adults), the colony is tied down to one bivouac for weeks.-"Since there is an ideal temperature range that best facilitates offspring growth, it's important for the ants to keep their nest nice and toasty. And when those bivouacs occur at higher elevations that becomes especially vital.-***-"While previous research focused on above-ground army ants who make their bivouacs at lower (and warmer) elevations, Baudier and O'Donnell's research showed the resiliency of army ants when confronting colder mountain environments.-"'This study lifts the roof on what we thought army ants were capable of in terms of warming their young in the face of the more extreme cold and wet conditions at high elevations," Baudier said.-"Still, that doesn't mean that the ants are ready to climb Mount Everest. Army ants do a good job of warming their nests, but there might be a ceiling to their capabilities.-"In the lower bivouac the researchers studied (constructed at 950 meters above sea level) even the coolest portions were consistently warmer than the highest temperatures recorded in the bivouac at 1,565 meters above sea level.-"'The record high elevation for an army ant in Costa Rica was a specimen of Labidus coecus—a close relative, though more subterranean than L. praedator—that was found at 3,000 meters above sea level. However, in the case of L. praedator, the highest I'm aware of is about 1,750 meters above sea level," Baudier said. "I do suspect that cold temperatures are a major factor in setting these upper elevational ranges. The highest bivouacs seem to struggle to keep warm in wet, cold soil."-"'We suspect ants in the mountains have to expend a lot of energy to keep their nests warm," O'Donnell added."-Comment: A logical adaptation. As with bacterial extremophiles living creatures are built to adapt to all environments. The usual issue is how does God help?

Natures wonders: frigatebird flight

by David Turell @, Friday, July 01, 2016, 02:32 (2818 days ago) @ David Turell

They can stay aloft for as long as 63 days gliding on updrafts: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095708-roller-coasting-birds-soar-for-months-and-... - "Frigatebirds are really strange in many aspects of their life history,” says Henri Weimerskirch at the Centre for Biological Studies, Chizé, France. Unlike other long-distance travelling seabirds like albatrosses, frigatebirds' feathers lack waterproof oil so they can't take a break on the sea. Instead, they have to save energy by coasting for kilometres while minimising wingbeats. - *** - "The devices revealed globetrotting flights that lasted up to 63 days without a rest. Only alpine swifts can fly for longer. Wandering juveniles travelled the farthest, with one chalking up 55,000 km in 185 days with only four days of rest on islands. - "The frigatebird's migratory behaviour is unique among birds: while most birds avoid clouds because of their turbulence, frigatebirds seem to seek them out. “These frigatebirds do it intentionally,” Weimerskirch says. The birds ride on the strong updrafts under cumulus clouds in the open ocean to gain altitude. - *** - "They usually climb to the base of the cloud layer, about 700 metres up, before entering a long descending glide. But when the next cloud is far away, they keep ascending into the layer, up to 4000 metres - above the height where water droplets begin to freeze. - "This lets them coast for more than 60 kilometres until they find another updraft. “This was a very surprising result,” Weimerskirch says. - "The birds drift with the trade winds on their ascent, and descend with the prevailing breeze to pick up speed. The scientists call the resulting zigzag a “roller coaster” flight pattern. In total, the frigatebirds climbed an average of 15.4 kilometres a day - that's more one and a half times the height of Mount Everest. - "Since frigatebirds can't take a break in the water, they have to snooze on the wing. The birds stopped flapping while rising in updrafts, so that's probably when they sleep, says Curtis Deutsch at the University of Washington. “When they're gliding, they need to be scouting out opportunities,” he says. - "The migratory paths track the wind belt around the doldrums or equatorial calms at the centre of the Indian Ocean. This is a good way to look for prey, Deutsch says. Predatory fish like tuna also skirt the edge of the doldrums. The predators chase smaller creatures up to the surface, where frigatebirds can snatch them." - Comment: They use the same techniques as human glider pilots.

Natures wonders: bacteria farm algae for food

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 03, 2016, 00:54 (2816 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain bacteria farm algae for food using pesticides to protect them: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095799-bacteria-gardeners-farm-algae-to-harvest-w... - "They're possibly the tiniest, most ancient gardeners in the world. A type of marine bacteria tends algae, using pesticides to keep other microbes away. - *** - "Sonnenschein's work builds on a 2011 discovery by Mohammad Seyedsayamdost, now at Princeton University. He found that in times of plenty, the algae produce nutrients that help Roseobacter microbes thrive. In return, the bacteria make antibiotics which serve as pesticides, protecting the algae from rival bacterial strains. - "Both the bacteria and the algae appear to benefit from the arrangement, reminiscent of ants farming aphids. “I suspect it's mutualism,” says Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland at College Park. “They wouldn't be there if it wasn't beneficial to both parties.” - "When times get tougher, though, and the algae begin competing with the bacteria for resources, the “farmers” stop making antibiotics and instead produce a substance that kills off the algae, harvesting the rich algal decay products. - "Sonnenschein's team has now investigated the “tools” that the bacteria use to manage their algal gardens. These include a “herbicide”, tropodithietic acid (TDA), which protects the algae from other bacteria, and roseobacticides, the substances that kill off the algae for harvest. - "The team studied samples from aquaculture facilities in Denmark, Spain and Greece and from seawater off the coast of Denmark, Germany and Australia. They identified and studied strains of a particular species of Roseobacter called Phaeobacter inhibens, most of which produced roseobacticides. - "By comparing their genomes with those of the strains that did not, the researchers could home in on genes likely to be responsible for their production. They found that the microbes that make TDA aren't always also able to produce the compounds that kill algae. Indeed, they identified 41 gene clusters that are unique in those bacteria that can make roseobacticides." - Comment: Very similar to ants herding aphids. Not really symbiosis if you harvest and eat your partner. - It is thought that algal breakdown products induce more production of roseobacticides, creating a positive feedback loop that causes more algae to be killed off.

Natures wonders: Hibernating bears

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 05, 2016, 15:15 (2814 days ago) @ David Turell

The hibernation process is not explained but fascinating:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/learning-from-healthy-bears-you-mean-we-should-hibernate.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20160705-"Gain a few hundred pounds and lie around in bed for months, and you are likely to develop a host of ailments, from diabetes and heart failure to muscle loss, osteoporosis and bedsores.-"Unless, that is, you happen to be a bear.-***-"Confirming work by other researchers, Dr. Godsk Jorgensen and his colleagues found that bears' heart rate slowed sharply during hibernation, from about 75 beats a minute to as few as 10, with pauses that sometimes lasted 19 seconds or more.-“'I once had a patient with a pause of 13 seconds,” Dr. Godsk Jorgensen said. “When you have that, you go around and you faint and hit your head.”-***-"The researchers also identified clusters of blood cells on the bear's ultrasound, called “smoke,” that are seen in humans who have severe heart failure or atrial fibrillation, a condition that raises the risk of blood clots and stroke.-***-"Hibernating bears, grown fat from summer feasting, do not eat, drink, urinate or defecate while they are hibernating. But they lose no muscle mass from inactivity. Platelets in the bears' blood become less sticky, acting as a natural blood thinner, the researchers found, perhaps to counteract blood clots that could form during long periods of immobility. The bears' metabolism drops to 25 percent of its normal state and their kidneys stop functioning, yet they do not have kidney failure.-***-"Obese bears are healthier; in fact, they are more reproductively fit,” said Heiko T. Jansen, a professor at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University who presented at the meetings. “They have all the advantages, which is so counterintuitive to human biology.”-"In research financed in part by the pharmaceutical company Amgen, Dr. Jansen and his colleagues found that bears' handling of insulin appears to vary with the seasons, with resistance increasing during hibernation and sensitivity increasing in summer.-"Fat cells of hibernating bears treated with a blood serum from “summer” bears become more insulin sensitive, the researchers found.-Comment: Darwin would say this developed bit by bit. I don't see how, because it seems like life in very slow motion, fatal for us. Fat bears are fit, humans are not. Saltation again.

Natures wonders: Sea slugs raft the world

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 05, 2016, 18:41 (2814 days ago) @ David Turell

By taking a ride on anything the two species cover the Earth:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096201-rafting-allowed-this-sea-slug-to-conquer-the-worlds-oceans/-"Unlike most sea slugs that crawl on coral reefs, the nudibranch Fiona pinnata lives on the go. These seafaring sea slugs live on floating islands of debris, eating gooseneck barnacles and drifting with the currents. As a result, they span the globe - yet a genetic analysis shows they are still closely related. It seems rafting helps sea slugs find each other.-"They travel on anything that floats: uprooted mats of kelp, plastic - even loggerhead sea turtles. 
 
"Although many of these vessels wash up on shore or sink, the species survives as larvae jump to a new home.-“'It's like it's juggling, the ball is always in the air,” says co-author Jonathan Waters at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “There's always stuff out there for them to live on. They never need the shore.”-***-“'It's like this squirming mass of black barnacles on stalks. Some people say it looks really gross,” says Waters. “Then I kept on discovering these other little furry things, these weird looking little bugs in there.”-"A colleague identified them as Fiona nudibranchs, giving Waters the perfect idea when Jennifer Trickey, a graduate student at the time and a nudibranch enthusiast, asked for a project. They set out to investigate just how well these animals were circumnavigating the globe.-"Trickey wrote to dozens of museums around the world, asking to test their Fiona pinnata samples, and collaborator Martin Thiel at the Facultad Ciencias del Mar in Coquimbo, Chile, fished out more from the nearby Pacific Ocean. -"Through genetic analysis, they found that Fiona pinnata is at least two species, with both lineages covering vast swaths of territory.-"The “A” branch lives in temperate latitudes on both sides of the equator, with sea slugs off the coasts of Chile and New Zealand close cousins of those found near Alaska. This could be explained if some temperate sea slugs crossed the tropics, beating the heat thanks to the upwelling of colder water near Pacific coastlines.-"By contrast, the “B” branch claims tropical waters.-Taking to the high seas has given each lineage broader, more connected populations than other nudibranchs, says Waters, showing how natural currents work to disperse animals across large distances.-"But outliers in the data also demonstrate how these patterns are warped by humans.-“'We had one lineage that was shared by the Azores, off the coast of North Africa, and the North island of New Zealand. To us that doesn't make much sense,” Waters says.-"In this case, the sea slugs may have hitched a ride on ship hulls. Elsewhere, they may be learning to live on plastic.-“'There is a very strong natural signal in our data set, but then you think of something like the Pacific Garbage Patch,” says Waters. “Those things all get covered in goose barnacles, and presumably our Fiona nudibranchs get on to those as well.'”-Comment: It doesn't take any thought or evolution to be opportunistic, as another characteristic of living organisms.

Natures wonders: Swordfish built for speed

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 07, 2016, 19:55 (2811 days ago) @ David Turell

It seem they have a lubricating oil gland to grease the way for speed at the base of their sword:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/swordfish-grease-themselves-to-cut-through-water/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160707-"Swordfish are toothless hunters with eyes that can grow as big as softballs. The prized sport fish brandishes a sharp, flat bill up to half the length of the rest of its body, and it has a reputation as the fastest fish in the ocean that often leaps spectacularly when hooked. Now the discovery of a lubricating gland behind the bill could show how swordfish manage to slice through the water so fast—and could serve as an inspiration for biomimetic low-friction surfaces.-***-"Swordfish have proved remarkably difficult to study. They cannot be bred in captivity and are often injured during efforts to catch, tag and release them. Estimates of their incredible speed—commonly reported at up to 100 kilometers per hour—are based on flawed research from the mid-20th century, and their true maximum remains unknown. Even the purpose of the eponymous sword is debated, with some researchers arguing it is primarily a hunting weapon and others contending that it mostly serves to reduce drag on the fish as it swims.-
"A paper published by another group used computed tomography (CT) scans of a different swordfish in a bid to understand the sword's mechanical properties and thus infer its function. That study found a weak spot just behind the place where the bill attaches to the head. Videler heard about this, remembered how his swordfish's bill had broken off, and returned to the MRI images. Those, together with dissections and other evidence, revealed the existence of a gland at the base of the sword that secretes lubricating oil via a network of capillaries throughout the front of the fish's head. The oil, it is thought, may help reduce drag as the fish—which can grow up to 4.5 meters long—glides through the water.-Swordfish were already known to have several drag-reducing adaptations. The surface of the bill has a roughness that is similar in purpose to the dimples on a golf ball. The sword is also porous, which helps to equalize pressure across different regions of its surface. Videler says golf balls would fly even better if they were porous as well as dimpled, and the paper, which was published in The Journal of Experimental Biology, suggests that fully understanding the oil's purpose could help with the creation of low-drag surfaces.-"The oil gland's link to movement seems clear, but not everyone is certain it is all about speed. “It's extremely interesting that they have this oil gland and that this could reduce friction, but I wouldn't necessarily see this in the context of these superhigh speeds—I would see this in the context of making locomotion more efficient,” says Jens Krause, a fish ecologist at Humboldt University in Berlin who was not affiliated with Videler's study. “[The study is] an interesting step forward in documenting the hydrodynamic advantages” the swordfish has, Krause says."-Comment: It is not clear why this fish has to swim so fast, but they care hard to study since they don't live in captivity. Another example of the higgledy-piggledy pattern of life's creatures.

Natures wonders: Some birds see in ultraviolet

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 12, 2016, 15:11 (2807 days ago) @ David Turell

These birds have a fourth retinal cell which can be used for u-v light vision:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-birds-super-sense-ultraviolet-vision.html-"Birds can be divided into those that can see ultraviolet (UV) light and those that cannot. Those that can live in a sensory world apart, able to transmit and receive signals between each other in a way that is invisible to many other species.-"The study reveals two essential adaptions that enable birds to expand their vision into the UV range: chemical changes in light-filtering pigments called carotenoids and the tuning of light-sensitive proteins called opsins.-"Birds acquire carotenoids through their diets and process them in a variety of ways to shift their light absorption toward longer or shorter wavelengths. The researchers characterized the carotenoid pigments from birds with violet vision and from those with UV vision and used computational models to see how the pigments affect the number of colors they can see.-"'There are two types of light-sensitive cells, called photoreceptors, in the eye: rods and cones. Cone photoreceptors are responsible for color vision. While humans have blue, green, and red-sensitive cones only, birds have a fourth cone type which is either violet or UV-sensitive, depending on the species," says senior author Joseph Corbo, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Pathology and Immunology.-"Our approach showed that blue-cone sensitivity is fine-tuned through a change in the chemical structure of carotenoid pigments within the photoreceptor, allowing both violet and UV-sighted birds to maximize how many colors they can see."-"The study also revealed that sensitivity of the violet/UV cone and the blue cone in birds must move in sync to allow for optimum vision. Among bird species, there is a strong relationship between the light sensitivity of opsins within the violet/UV cone and mechanisms within the blue cone, which coordinate to ensure even UV vision.-"Taken together, these results suggest that both blue and violet cone cells have adapted during evolution to enhance color vision in birds.-"'The majority of bird species rely on vision as their primary sense, and color discrimination plays a crucial role in their essential behaviors, such as choosing mates and foraging for food. This explains why birds have evolved one of the most richly endowed color vision systems among vertebrates," says first author Matthew Toomey, a postdoctoral fellow at the Washington University School of Medicine.-"'The precise coordination of sensitivity and filtering in the visual system may, for example, help female birds discriminate very fine differences in the elaborate coloration of their suitors and choose the fittest mates. This refinement of visual sensitivity could also facilitate the search for hidden seeds, fruits, and other food items in the environment."-Comment: Not surprising. Hunting for food in flight requires extraordinary vision, as in hawks and other raptors with telescopic sight. Evolution is inventive. Choosing mates is Darwin-speak, and not the likely reason for the development.

Natures wonders: Manis shrimp use polarized light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 02:26 (2806 days ago) @ David Turell

Apparently by rolling their eyes in many directions, a phenomenon not fully understood:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-mantis-shrimp-eyes-vision.html-"PhD student Ilse Daly, from the Ecology of Vision research group in the from the University of Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, found the eye-rolling behaviour of mantis shrimp helps them see the world around them.-"Mantis shrimp are able to see the polarization of light, and by rolling their eyes they actively improve the polarization contrast of objects in their marine environment.-***-"They can use 12 different colour channels (we use only three), and can see the polarization of light. But the eye movements of mantis shrimp have always been something of a puzzle.-"'Intuitively, a stable eye should see the world better than a mobile one, but mantis shrimp seem to have found a different way to see more clearly."-"The visual world of the mantis shrimp is staggeringly complex. Now add to that the ability to actively enhance their vision using eye movements -The article abstract:-"Gaze stabilization is an almost ubiquitous animal behaviour, one that is required to see the world clearly and without blur. Stomatopods, however, only fix their eyes on scenes or objects of interest occasionally. Almost uniquely among animals they explore their visual environment with a series pitch, yaw and torsional (roll) rotations of their eyes, where each eye may also move largely independently of the other. In this work, we demonstrate that the torsional rotations are used to actively enhance their ability to see the polarization of light. Both Gonodactylus smithii and Odontodactylus scyllarus rotate their eyes to align particular photoreceptors relative to the angle of polarization of a linearly polarized visual stimulus, thereby maximizing the polarization contrast between an object of interest and its background. This is the first documented example of any animal displaying dynamic polarization vision, in which the polarization information is actively maximized through rotational eye movements."-The summary: -"In summary, the dynamic polarization vision system of mantis shrimps is yet another example of an exquisite and unique adaptation to visual perception in these crustaceans and such findings could prove useful for developing bio-inspired technology in the field of polarization cameras and image processing. However, there are still a number of questions about this remarkable polarization vision system that remain to be investigated, such as how do these animals determine which set of receptors (dorsal or ventral) to align with the stimulus?; how is the information processed downstream within the optic neuropil and beyond?; and how, if at all, is information combined from the two eyes?" (my bold)-Comment: this is a highly complex visual system, which raises the usual issue. How would chance possibly develop this? It won't, and it is difficult to see that advanced planning is not needed. Back to saltation.

Natures wonders: Denizens of the Mariana trench

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 02:46 (2806 days ago) @ David Turell

This is for viewing to see the weirdness being found up to 11 kilometers deep: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096973-never-before-seen-sea-creatures-filmed-in-... - "NOAA's Okeanos research ship has been cruising the seas above the trench, which plunges 11 kilometres into the Pacific, since April. Researchers have been using sonar and a remotely operated vehicle to study the ocean there down to 6 kilometres. - *** - "The Mariana trench lies to the east of the Philippines, but like much of the deep sea floor it is understudied. “We know less about the 70 per cent of our planet covered by water than we do about Mars, Venus, the moon - even Jupiter,” says Fryer. - "Live streaming of the dives has seen up to 40,000 people at a time tune-in to watch new discoveries as they happen, including scientists who comment on the finds." - Comment: Talk about complex and weird. Take a look.

Natures wonders: Imprinting by newborn ducks

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 14, 2016, 20:47 (2804 days ago) @ David Turell

Ducks right after birth imprint on their Mother. That is important. She must protect them and they need to stay close. But they will also imprint on other objects, not surprising since their brains are built to imprint:-http://phys.org/news/2016-07-smarter-thought-scientists-newborn-ducklings.html-:Ducklings and other young animals normally learn to identify and follow their mother through a type of learning called imprinting, which can occur in as little as 15 minutes after hatching. Imprinting is a powerful form of learning that can allow ducklings to follow any moving object, provided they see it within the species' typical 'sensitive period' for imprinting.-"In this new study, published in the journal Science, ducklings were initially presented with a pair of objects either the same as or different from each other - in shape or in colour - which moved in a circular path.-"The ducklings therefore 'imprinted' on these pairs of moving objects before being tested for their preferences between different sets of objects. In these subsequent choice tests, each duckling was allowed to follow either of two pairs of objects composed of shapes or colours to which the duckling had not previously been exposed.-***-"In the example above, ducklings that had been imprinted on two spheres should have followed the set of two pyramids, because they were the same as each other. This is exactly what the ducklings did.-***-"Professor Alex Kacelnik of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, who has worked extensively on learning and decision-making in animals, said: "To our knowledge this is the first demonstration of a non-human organism learning to discriminate between abstract relational concepts without any reinforcement training. The other animals that have demonstrated this ability have all done so by being repeatedly rewarded for correct performance, while our ducklings did it spontaneously, thanks to their predisposition to imprint when very young.-***-"Antone Martinho, a doctoral student in Oxford's Department of Zoology and the study's first author, said: "While it seems surprising at first that these one-day-old ducklings can learn something that normally only very intelligent species can do, it also makes biological sense. When a duckling is young, it needs to be able to stay near its mother for protection, and an error in identifying her could be fatal.-***-"Ducks walk, swim and fly, and are constantly changing their exact shape and appearance as they extend their wings or become partially submerged, or even change angle with respect to the viewer. If the ducklings just had a visual "snapshot" of their mother, they would lose her. They need to be able to flexibly and reliably identify her, and a library of concepts and characteristics describing her is a much more efficient way to do so, compared with a visual memory of every possible configuration of the mother and her environment.-***
 
"The discovery of relational concept learning in a new species and in a newly hatched baby bird suggests that this ability may not be as rare or as difficult as previously thought."-Comment: In dealing with our newborn horses we spent much time making those babies imprint on us. It took longer than the ducks but I'm sure this property is ubiquitous in all prey animals. The ducks are not surprising to me. Watch as they parade behind their Mother.

Natures wonders: male ants remove rivals

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 16, 2016, 21:07 (2802 days ago) @ David Turell

Adult male ants want to protest their rights to the queen, by marking young males for death:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2097707-kiss-of-death-marks-young-ant-rivals-for-worker-kill-squad/-"Instead of dispatching their young competitors directly, adult male ants smear them with bodily fluids, leaving the youths with a bulls-eye marking them for assassination by worker ants.-“'They let the workers do the dirty job of finishing off all the rivals,” says Jürgen Heinze at the University of Regensburg in Germany.-"Insects that live in colonies - such as ants, bees and wasps - generally operate as a superorganism. The entire group benefits when each member supports and safeguards their collective society. 
 
“'To some extent, they all have the same interest,” says Sara Helms Cahan at the University of Vermont in Burlington. “But not completely.” That's because some resources are in short supply.-"Unlike most ants, which seek out mates in swarms of eligible insects from many colonies, ants in the genus Cardiocondyla breed within their nests. By staying home, those males pit themselves against one another in order to reproduce with their nest's queen or queens.-***-"Heinze and his team collected 10 colonies of a single Cardiocondyla species from Queensland, Australia, ranging in size from about 10 to 80 individuals, then brought them back to the lab for observation. Each group contained up to several dozen ants, but at most only a single adult male, presumably because other males were killed as soon as they emerged. After finding the dismembered corpses of 11 young males in the nests, the researchers scanned colonies by eye and video camera, hoping to catch the culprits in the act.-"The scientists witnessed four assaults. Adult ants clutched victims in their mandibles, then dabbed the juvenile with a combination of faeces and other substances from the gut. In three of the cases, this attracted worker ants, which bit the besmeared individual and pulled it apart. The fourth youngster was ignored by the workers, allowing him to mount a counter-attack against the older male: he painted a target on him, prompting workers to kill the elder ant.-“'We know that in other species, older males sometimes fail to kill rivals and then they will be overthrown,” says Heinze. “So obviously age is important here.”-***-“'This is a really unusual male-centric version of what lots of different kinds of social insects do to manipulate others and destroy their competition,” she says.-"The researchers aren't sure why the male ants don't just slay their adolescent adversaries themselves - as other Cardiocondyla species do - but Heinze speculates that it may be because this species has shorter mandibles or weaker muscles.-"The study is based on only a few observations from a small number of colonies, says Helms Cahan. That makes it difficult to know how rare this kind of lethal “kick me” sign is within the species. Heinze and his team hope to remedy this problem by testing more populations in Queensland and Papua New Guinea."-Comment: Seems like too much testosterone to me. Probably targets of opportunity, not instinctual.

Natures wonders: honey bee air conditioning

by David Turell @, Friday, July 22, 2016, 00:16 (2797 days ago) @ David Turell

They send o=out water foraging bees to bring back water, which feeds thirst and then sloshed around the hive, evaporates and cools:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2098161-bees-spew-water-at-their-hive-mates-when-the-temperature-rises/-"Honeybees have a few strategies for chilling out: some fan the nest, others leave the hive to increase air flow, and a few zip off looking for ponds or puddles. These “water collector” bees fill their bellies with water, fly back home, then regurgitate the liquid. Other bees slurp it up and spit it out around the hive, allowing the colony to cool as the water evaporates.-"It was suspected that a steady supply of water is important during extreme heat, says Thomas Seeley at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. To confirm that, Seeley and his colleagues exposed two hives — each containing about 3000 honeybees — to heat lamps in the lab.-"When the bees didn't have access to water, the colonies shot up to about 43°C, a hazardously high temperature: above 40°C, bee larvae can dehydrate and die. When the researchers restored water access, the hives cooled below the lethal threshold.
 
“'[Water] is not just icing on the cake, it's critical for their cooling,” says Seeley. “Without that, they cannot really control the temperature in the nest on hot days.”-"But the researchers weren't sure how the water collectors knew when more liquid was needed. To find out, they turned up the heat and watched how individual bees responded.-"Once the hive ran out of water, the bees that stay home and dole out provisions begged for more by touching their tongues to the mouths of the water collectors, entreating them to spew up more liquid. These solicitations were almost non-existent under cooler conditions.-"The foraging bees largely ceased their excursions once their sisters stopped pleading for more water — but not before they stockpiled some water their hive-mates didn't spread around, Seeley says.-"After a day enduring hot and dry conditions, several dozen bees — both water collectors and others — transformed themselves into living storage tanks, bulging with water stowed in an expandable region of their gut. The bees also stashed some water in honeycomb cells, but, because water can easily evaporate from the comb, “water-bottle bees” may be a more efficient storage method, says Seeley.-***-"We just don't know much about how bees handle water,” she says. “It's been a bit of a gap.”-"The exciting thing about this study is that it clarifies how individual bees are stimulated to respond to a colony-wide need, says James Nieh at the University of California San Diego."-Comment: Is this a learned instinct? Seems likely.

Natures wonders: human bird honey hunting

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 24, 2016, 19:07 (2795 days ago) @ David Turell

There are birds in Africa that work with humans to find hives. The birds get the wax for food, humans get the honey and the bees lose:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/science/birds-bees-honeyguides-africa.html?emc=edit_th_20160724&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0-"Researchers have long known that among certain traditional cultures of Africa, people forage for wild honey with the help of honeyguides — woodpecker-like birds that show tribesmen where the best beehives are hidden, high up in trees. In return for revealing the location of natural honey pots, the birds are rewarded with the leftover beeswax, which they eagerly devour.-"Now scientists have determined that humans and their honeyguides communicate with each other through an extraordinary exchange of sounds and gestures, which are used only for honey hunting and serve to convey enthusiasm, trustworthiness and a commitment to the dangerous business of separating bees from their hives.-***-"Claire N. Spottiswoode, a behavioral ecologist at Cambridge University, and her colleagues reported in the journal Science that honeyguides advertise their scout readiness to the Yao people of northern Mozambique by flying up close while emitting a loud chattering cry.-"For their part, the Yao seek to recruit and retain honeyguides with a distinctive vocalization, a firmly trilled “brrr” followed by a grunted “hmm.” In a series of careful experiments, the researchers then showed that honeyguides take the meaning of the familiar ahoy seriously.-"The birds were twice as likely to offer sustained help to Yao foragers who walked along while playing recordings of the proper brrr-hmm signal than they were to participants with recordings of normal Yao words or the sounds of other animals.-***-“'Chimpanzees want to eat honey at least as much as humans do,” Brian M. Wood, a biological anthropologist at Yale University, said. “But they don't possess the technologies that have allowed us to tap into that resource.”-"The Yao know what to do to subdue bee defenses. They wedge a bundle of dry wood wrapped in palm fronds onto a long pole, set the bundle on fire, hoist it up and rest it against a beehive in a tree. When most of the bees have been smoked out, the Yao chop down the tree, tolerate the stings of any bees that remain and scoop out the liquid gold within.-***-"The birds can nibble on waxy plants, waxy insects, the waxy detritus in an abandoned bee nest. Or they can summon human honey hunters to crack open a felled and toasted hive, remove the honey and leave the fresh waxy infrastructure to them.-"The birds can recruit helpers with a chatter, or be recruited with a trill-grunt. They can show their human companions the right trees with more chatters or a flick of their white-tipped tails. When assisted by honeyguides, Yao hunters found beehives 54 percent of the time, compared with just 17 percent when unaided.-"Researchers have identified a couple of other examples of human-wild animal cooperation: fishermen in Brazil who work with bottlenose dolphins to maximize the number of mullets swept into nets or snatched up by dolphin mouths, and orcas that helped whalers finish off harpooned baleen giants by pulling down the cables and drowning the whales, all for the reward from the humans of a massive whale tongue.-***-"How the alliance began remains mysterious, but it is thought to be quite ancient.-“'It appears to depend on humans using fire and hand-axes,” Richard Wrangham, a biological anthropologist at Harvard University, said. Those talents date back to the lower Paleolithic, “so the relationship could be more than a million years old.”-"The bird might even have played a role in the emergence of fully modern humans and their energetically demanding brains. Honey is a vital resource for many subsistence cultures, Dr. Wrangham said, “sometimes supplying 80 percent of calories in a month.”-Comment: This appears to be a learned behaviour that has become an instinct. We don't know how instincts are recorded in the genome, but they must be. Note how far behind the chimps are.

Natures wonders: flying animal efficiency

by David Turell @, Monday, July 25, 2016, 15:07 (2794 days ago) @ David Turell

They are about twice as efficient as airplanes by using flapping wings:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160711120526.htm-"'We've known for quite a while that the aerodynamic theory for airplanes doesn't work so well in predicting the force of lift for flapping wings," says Leif Ristroph, an assistant professor at NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences who directed the study. "We found that the drag or wind resistance also behaves very differently, and we put together a new law that could help explain how insects move through the air."-"'To double its flight speed, an airplane must increase its thrust four-fold to counter the stronger wind resistance," Ristroph explains in outlining the law. "In contrast, we found that flapping wings have a drag that is in direct proportion to its flight speed -- to go twice as fast, an insect simply needs to double its thrust."-***-"The significance of aerodynamic drag and its strong increase with speed has been known since before the Wright brothers took flight. This fact is summarized by a mathematical law that posits wind resistance increases as the square of speed; hence, moving twice as fast requires four times the thrust to overcome the higher drag.-"Previous studies of flying insects, which beat their wings hundreds of times a second, suggested that these creatures do not obey this same relationship.-"To make this sense of this discrepancy, the researchers in Courant's Applied Math Lab built a robotic wing apparatus for measuring the motions, flows, and forces. The apparatus allowed the team to compare steady motions of a wing, as would occur for airplane flight, to the maneuvers of insects, in which their wings flap as they move through air.-"The team's results showed that the back-and-forth motions cause the drag to resist the movement in some instances; however, at other times the drag is actually directed forward, more like a thrust. The net force that results depends on the flight speed as well as the flapping motions, all of which the authors include in a new drag law."-Comment: It is always amazing how effectively developing evolutionary life produces results that we humans cannot mimic.

Natures wonders: mama dolphins sing to newborns

by David Turell @, Friday, August 12, 2016, 19:51 (2776 days ago) @ David Turell

Dolphins have individual calls for identification. Mama dolphins teach their babies to know the mother's and develop their own:-http://www.livescience.com/55699-mother-dolphins-teach-babies-signature-whistle.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160810-ls-"New research suggests that dolphin mothers teach their babies a "signature whistle" right before birth and in the two weeks after. Signature whistles are sounds that are made by individual dolphins, which the animals use to identify one another. Calves eventually develop their own signature whistle, but in the first few weeks of life, mothers seem focused on teaching their offspring their signature sound, the scientists said.-"'It's been hypothesized that this is part of an imprinting process," Audra Ames, a doctoral student at the University of Southern Mississippi, said.-"The researchers captured a total of 80 hours of recordings from the two months before and the two months after the dolphin's birth. They recorded the mom and the calf as well as the five dolphins housed with them. It was important to capture the noises of the mother's peers to understand whether the communication was exclusive to the mother-baby pair, Ames said.-"The recordings showed that the increased signature-whistle production was, in fact, the purview of the mother dolphin. She began increasing her signature whistle two weeks before the birth, possibly starting the learning process while her calf was still in utero.-***-"The mother dolphin also produced her signature whistle at high rates until two weeks after the calf's birth, after which she tapered off. Interestingly, Ames said, the other dolphins in the group didn't produce their own signature whistle at very high rates during the first two weeks of the calf's life. But after mama stopped the repetitions of her own whistle, the other members of the group started producing their own whistle at higher rates.-"'What the other dolphins might be doing here is remaining quiet so the calf does not imprint on the wrong signature whistle," Ames said.-"'Baby dolphins don't usually develop their own signature whistle until they're around the age of 2 months, with much variation in timing, Ames said. The baby's whistle tends not to be similar to the mother's or to the other dolphins in the group.-"'You don't want to have a signature sound that is going to be similar to someone else you're around quite often," Ames said."-Comment: Dolphins and whales have complex lifestyles as mammals living in water. One must wonder why the evolutionary process drove this complex development. There are much easier evolutionary paths to follow.

Natures wonders: hummingbird collision avoidance

by David Turell @, Friday, August 12, 2016, 21:39 (2775 days ago) @ David Turell

They use optical distance measures.-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/how_hummingbird103016.html-"Hummingbirds have a unique collision avoidance system built into their brains that allows them to perform high-speed aerobatics in safety.-"The super-agile birds, whose wings beat up to 70 times a second, can hover, fly backwards, and whizz through dense vegetation at more than 50 kilometres per hour.-"How they manage to avoid potentially fatal crashes has remained a mystery until now. Researchers in Canada conducted a series of experiments which showed that the birds process visual information differently from other animals.-***-"Instead, they appeared to rely on the size of objects to determine distance, steering away from the stripes as they grew larger.-"'When objects grow in size, it can indicate how much time there is until they collide even without knowing the actual size of the object," says Dakin. "Perhaps this strategy allows birds to more precisely avoid collisions over the very wide range of flight speeds they use."-***-"The secret became clear: expansion of an object in any part of the field of view was the bird's cue to respond. They would slow down or steer away from anything that grew in size vertically.-"Collectively, our findings suggest that birds control forward flight by monitoring changes in the vertical axis: specifically, the height of features and vertical pattern velocity. This finding is consistent with other laboratory studies showing that flying birds rapidly stabilize key features in their visual field. In nature, collisions may be avoided by monitoring changes in the apparent size of features, such as trees and branches, as well as changes in the vertical position of those features. Although our experiments focused on manipulating a limited number of cues, we do not suggest that these represent the only visual guidance strategies used by birds.-***-"Neurons that compute expansion have been identified in the nucleus rotundus of the pigeon brain, part of the tectofugal pathway.... These cues can inform an animal about the nearness in time of an impending collision, triggering an appropriately timed response without knowledge of the true size or distance of the approaching object. It was recently discovered that the zebra finch nucleus rotundus also contains cells that respond during simulated flight if an approaching feature is located at the point of expansion, suggesting that the tectofugal pathway may also be involved in flight control.-"Flight control. That's design. Understandably, the scientists did not speculate about how flight control systems might have evolved."-Comment: My first thought is that the birds learned this by trial and error and their brain plasticity accommodated the trials. But consider how fast they fly. Could this have developed while sustaining many crash landings? Doubtful. How about direct design?

Natures wonders: hummingbird collision avoidance

by BBella @, Saturday, August 13, 2016, 08:06 (2775 days ago) @ David Turell

They use optical distance measures.
> 
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/how_hummingbird103016.html
> 
> "Hummingbirds have a unique collision avoidance system built into their brains that allows them to perform high-speed aerobatics in safety.
> 
> 
> 
> Comment: My first thought is that the birds learned this by trial and error and their brain plasticity accommodated the trials. But consider how fast they fly. Could this have developed while sustaining many How about direct design? - So let us agree: it was direct design. Does not the very process of designing require trial and error?

Natures wonders: hummingbird collision avoidance

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 13, 2016, 15:48 (2775 days ago) @ BBella


> > David: Comment: My first thought is that the birds learned this by trial and error and their brain plasticity accommodated the trials. But consider how fast they fly. Could this have developed while sustaining many How about direct design?
> 
> BBella: So let us agree: it was direct design. Does not the very process of designing require trial and error? - Yes and no. Our space program to the Moon showed to ability to design without error. The accidents were due mainly to bad manufacture. My concept of God includes perfection in design.

Natures wonders: mama dolphins sing to newborns

by BBella @, Saturday, August 13, 2016, 07:56 (2775 days ago) @ David Turell

Dolphins have individual calls for identification. Mama dolphins teach their babies to know the mother's and develop their own:
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/55699-mother-dolphins-teach-babies-signature-whistle.html?ut... 
> "New research suggests that dolphin mothers teach their babies a "signature whistle" right before birth and in the two weeks after. -> Comment: Dolphins and whales have complex lifestyles as mammals living in water. One must wonder why -No, one must not always wonder why. Sometimes one thinks it is what it is. Or sometimes think: life holds more questions than can ever be asked, for which there may or may not ever be answers. Whether there are many more questions that will never be asked or many more answers than can ever be found, it doesnt automatically mean there's a God that designed it all which holds all the answers. But not sayin' there aint, not sayin' there is.-
>the evolutionary process drove this complex development. -Every thing is a complex development. How can a process drive? Sometimes a term will seem like a logical term (like "evolutionary process drove/drives) until you try to imagine it actually taking place.-
>There are much easier evolutionary paths to follow.-Who can know that?-Welcome back!!!

Natures wonders: mama dolphins sing to newborns

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 13, 2016, 15:36 (2775 days ago) @ BBella


> > David: Comment: Dolphins and whales have complex lifestyles as mammals living in water. One must wonder why 
> 
> BBella: No, one must not always wonder why. Sometimes one thinks it is what it is. Or sometimes think: life holds more questions than can ever be asked, for which there may or may not ever be answers. -Is any of Darwin's theory correct? Is survivability (natural selection) a major factor? Why do we see amazingly complex developments like aquatic mammals? I'm just puzzling over it. The complexity of physiologic requirements is mind boggling.
> 
> 
> > David: There are much easier evolutionary paths to follow.
> 
> BBella: Who can know that?-If they stayed on land their lifestyles would be much less complex as would their bodies.
> 
> BBella: Welcome back!!!-Thank you.

Natures wonders:dolphins understand some language

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 14, 2016, 19:26 (2774 days ago) @ David Turell

Research by Louis Herman showed that dolphins can follow some simple sentences and understand hand signals while chimps take much longer to understand some language and do not ever follow hand signals:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/science/louis-herman-who-talked-with-dolphins-dies-at-86.html?emc=edit_th_20160814&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0-"Louis M. Herman, whose seminal research demonstrated that dolphins could understand and respond to language transmitted by sound and visual signals, died on Aug. 3 in Honolulu. He was 86.-"More than two decades of experiments at his Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory in Honolulu proved that dolphins were the cognitive cousins of chimpanzees. By one measure, arguably, the dolphins were more advanced.-***-“'In contrast to the learning process that seems required for chimpanzees, the dolphins at our laboratory proved capable of understanding gestural language instructions given through television images of people the very first time they were exposed to television,...-" Kea had mastered two-word sentences and could respond to questions by pressing paddles that represented yes or no, Dr. Herman told People magazine in 1979.-“'We were working with a very sophisticated animal who was showing comprehension of simple sentences like ‘Fetch the ball' and ‘Touch the ring,'” he said in the interview.-***-"Within three years, he had taught two dozen words in an artificial language to two other bottlenose dolphins, Phoenix and Akeakamai (“lover of wisdom” in Hawaiian). He ultimately demonstrated that dolphins, like bonobos, can process two of the fundamental components of human language: the meaning of words represented by sound or symbol, and the order that governs how they relate in a sentence grammatically.-"Research suggested that the dolphins could understand the abstract meanings of the words, could discriminate left from right and, unlike chimps, could understand when humans gesture by pointing. The dolphins were also found to be able to respond to their environment by both sight and sound by calibrating the sharp clicking sound they emit and operate like sonar to detect the distance, shape, size and solidity of an object.-"Like people, the research found, dolphins can be short-tempered when they are wrong and relish being right (especially when rewarded with a helping of silver smelt).-Comment: It appears the mammal mind developed a capacity for language even before the amazing development in humans. Of course, I see purpose in this.

Natures wonders: chimps cooperate, not compete

by David Turell @, Monday, August 22, 2016, 20:34 (2765 days ago) @ David Turell

Recent studies show chimps understand it is better to cooperate than compete to complete a wanted result:-http://phys.org/news/2016-08-chimpanzees-cooperation-competition-distinctiveness-human.html-"When given a choice between cooperating or competing, chimpanzees choose to cooperate five times more frequently Yerkes National Primate Research Center researchers have found. This, the researchers say, challenges the perceptions humans are unique in our ability to cooperate and chimpanzees are overly competitive, and suggests the roots of human cooperation are shared with other primates.-*** -
"To determine if chimpanzees possess the same ability humans have to overcome competition, the researchers set up a cooperative task that closely mimicked chimpanzee natural conditions, for example, providing the 11 great apes that participated in this study with an open choice to select cooperation partners and giving them plenty of ways to compete. ....the researchers gave the great apes thousands of opportunities to pull cooperatively at an apparatus filled with rewards. In half of the test sessions, two chimpanzees needed to participate to succeed, and in the other half, three chimpanzees were needed.-***-"The chimpanzees used a variety of enforcement strategies to overcome competition, displacement and freeloading, which the researchers measured by attempted thefts of rewards. These strategies included the chimpanzees directly protesting against others, refusing to work in the presence of a freeloader, which supports avoidance as an important component in managing competitive tendencies, and more dominant chimpanzees intervening to help others against freeloaders. Such third-party punishment occurred 14 times, primarily in response to aggression between the freeloader and the chimpanzee that was cooperatively working with others for the rewards.-***-"When we considered chimpanzees' natural behaviors, we thought surely they must be able to manage competition on their own, so we gave them the freedom to employ their own enforcement strategies. And it turns out, they are really quite good at preventing competition and favoring cooperation. In fact, given the ratio of conflict to cooperation is quite similar in humans and chimpanzees, our study shows striking similarities across species and gives another insight into human evolution," she continues. Suchak was a graduate student at the Yerkes Research Center at the time of the study.-***-"Frans de Waal, PhD, director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Research Center, a C. H. Candler Professor of Psychology at Emory University and one of the study authors, adds, "It has become a popular claim in the literature that human cooperation is unique. This is especially curious because the best ideas we have about the evolution of cooperation come straight from animal studies. The natural world is full of cooperation, from ants to killer whales. Our study is the first to show that our closest relatives know very well how to discourage competition and freeloading. Cooperation wins!'"-Comment: Chimps live in groups. If the prize is good enough they cooperate, and this must have carried over to the first hunter-gatherer human groups

Natures wonders: chimps cooperate, not compete

by dhw, Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 15:10 (2765 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Frans de Waal, PhD, director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Research Center, a C. H. Candler Professor of Psychology at Emory University and one of the study authors, adds, "It has become a popular claim in the literature that human cooperation is unique. This is especially curious because the best ideas we have about the evolution of cooperation come straight from animal studies. The natural world is full of cooperation, from ants to killer whales. Our study is the first to show that our closest relatives know very well how to discourage competition and freeloading. Cooperation wins!'"-David's comment: Chimps live in groups. If the prize is good enough they cooperate, and this must have carried over to the first hunter-gatherer human groups.

As usual, Frans de Waal has hit the nail on the head. It is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”: some humans just cannot bear the thought that we are the inheritors, not the originators. I would add that bacteria also cooperate, and multicellular life depends on the cooperation of single cells forming communities, and on these communities also cooperating.

Natures wonders: chimps cooperate, not compete

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 18:33 (2765 days ago) @ dhw

dhw" As usual, Frans de Waal has hit the nail on the head. It is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”: some humans just cannot bear the thought that we are the inheritors, not the originators. I would add that bacteria also cooperate, and multicellular life depends on the cooperation of single cells forming communities, and on these communities also cooperating. - Cooperation is always advantageous.

Natures wonders: plant poison helps a larva

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2016, 18:22 (2762 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants put out chemicals to deter herbivores from eating them. This larva uses the chemical to protect itself from infections:-http://phys.org/news/2016-08-moth-advantage-defensive-compounds-physalis.html-"The larva of the specialist moth Heliothis subflexa climbs the calyx of a Physalis, which is also called ground cherry. The fruit, which is inside the calyx, provides the caterpillar with a perfect shelter from enemies, once it has entered the calyx. Moreover, the fruit contains withanolides, which have antibacterial properties and boost the larva's immune system.-"The researchers measured and compared the effects of withanolides on relative weight gains, survival rates and the immune status in two moth species: the specialist Heliothis subflexa and the generalist Heliothis virescens. They knew from earlier studies that the specialist moth possesses a weaker immune response compared to the closely related generalist. "We were surprised to find that only Heliothis subflexa benefits from withanolides by increasing larval growth and immune system activity, but not its close relative, Heliothis virescens," ...-***-"The medicinal importance of Physalis plants is mainly due to the presence of steroidal lactones, the withanolides. Withanolides exhibit potential anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and apoptotic activities. However, the actual role of withanolides in Physalis plants is defence against herbivores. Withanolides have been shown to be potent anti-feeding deterrents as well as immunosuppressants in insects. These effects can be attributed to possible interactions of withanolides with signal transduction pathways in the cells. For instance, previous studies have shown that withanolides may cause moulting disorders in insects, suggesting that the anti-feeding and immunosuppressive effects arise from the disruptive effect of withanolides on the development of non-adapted insects. These toxic effects of withanolides on herbivorous insects suggest an adaptive benefit, since few insect species are known to feed on Physalis plants with impunity.-***-"Heliothis subflexa larvae feed exclusively on Physalis fruits, and it is the only Heliothis species to do so. Physalis fruits are enclosed by a thin-walled, inflated calyx called a "lantern". The lantern provides a so-called enemy-free space for fruit-feeding larvae of Heliothis subflexa, which could be demonstrated in earlier studies. However, the impact of withanolides on specialized Heliothis subflexa had not been evaluated prior to this study. With the known immunosuppressive properties of withanolides in mind, the researchers aimed to examine the specialization of Heliothis subflexa on Physalis in the context of ecological immunology. "Ecological immunology combines classical studies of the immune system with an ecological perspective to evaluate the costs and benefits of defence against pathogens in the natural environment, and the manner in which natural selection shapes the immune system," explains Andrea Barthel, the first author of the publication."-Comment: Since a related species cannot eat this plant, one must wonder how this larva developed a method to circumvent the chemical deterrent and enjoy the meals. It is an interesting arrangement. The plant doesn't benefit, only the larva.

Natures wonders: statocysts for sensing balance

by David Turell @, Friday, September 02, 2016, 00:49 (2755 days ago) @ David Turell

An early ancient way to keep balance using gravity: - http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46824/title/Sensory-Biology-Aroun... - " Invertebrates rely on a simpler structure known as a statocyst to sense their own movement and body position relative to the Earth's gravitational pull. Even comb jellies (ctenophores), which may have been the first multicellular animals to evolve, have a rudimentary statocyst—essentially, a weight resting on four springs that bend when the organism tilts in the water. - "The comb jelly's single statocyst sits at the animal's uppermost tip, under a transparent dome of fused cilia. A mass of cells called lithocytes, each containing a large, membrane-bound concretion of minerals, forms a statolith, which sits atop four columns called balancers, each made up of 150-200 sensory cilia. As the organism tilts, the statolith falls towards the Earth's core, bending the balancers. Each balancer is linked to two rows of the ctenophore's eight comb plates, from which extend hundreds of thousands of cilia that beat together as a unit to propel the animal. As the balancers bend, they adjust the frequency of ciliary beating in their associated comb plates. “They're the pacemakers for the beating of the locomotor cilia,” says Sidney Tamm... - "Sensing gravity's pull and the subsequent ciliary response is entirely mechanical, Tamm notes—no nerves are involved in ctenophore statocyst function. Most other animals with statocyst sensing, on the other hand, do employ a nervous system. Statocysts exist in diverse invertebrate species, from flatworms to bivalves to cephalopods. Although the details of the statocyst's architecture vary greatly across these different groups, it is generally a balloon-shape structure with a statolith in the center and sensory hair cells around the perimeter. As the statolith, which can be cell-based as in the ctenophore or a noncellular mineralized mass, falls against one side of the sac, it triggers those hair cells to initiate a nervous impulse that travels to the brain. - "The complexity of the statocyst system appears to correlate with the complexity of a species' movement and behavior, says Heike Neumeister, a researcher at the City University of New York. Squids and octopuses, which move rapidly around in three-dimensional space, for example, have highly adapted equilibrium receptor organs. Likewise, the nautilus, whose relatives were among the first animals to leave the bottom of the ocean and begin swimming and employing buoyancy, has a fairly advanced system. Each of its two statocysts is able to detect not only gravity, like the ctenophore's, but angular accelerations as well, like those of octopuses, squids, and cuttlefishes (Phil Trans R Soc Lond B, 352:1565-88, 1997). “[Nautilus] statocysts are an intermediate state of evolution between simpler mollusks and modern cephalopods,” says Neumeister." - Comment: Vertebrates have semicircular canals related to their ears. If you read the description carefully the statocyst may be an evolutionary early system but it is very complex and one is left to wonder how it developed bit by bit. Once again saltation is a better answer.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 03, 2016, 00:13 (2754 days ago) @ David Turell

And they manage their fertilizer for the best food results:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160902142139.htm-"Soon after the dinosaur extinctions 60 million years ago, the ancestors of leaf-cutter ants swapped a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for a bucolic existence on small-scale subsistence farms. A new study at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama revealed that living relatives of these earliest fungus-farming ants still have not domesticated their crop, a challenge also faced by early human farmers.-"Modern leaf-cutter ants can not live without their fungus and the fungus can not live without the ants -- in fact, young queens carry a bit from the nests where they were born when they fly out to establish a new nest. The fungus, in turn, does not waste energy-producing spores to reproduce itself.-"'For this sort of tight mutual relationship to develop, the interests of the ants and the fungi have to be completely aligned, like when business partners agree on all the terms in a contract," said Bill Wcislo,-"Just as human farmers harvest their vegetables before they go to seed, ants want their fungus to minimize the amount of energy it puts into creating inedible mushrooms full of spores. It is best for the ants if the fungus grows more of the fungal hyphae that fill up the chambers in their underground gardens and serve as food for the ants and their larvae.-"In a study of Mycocepurus smithii, an ancestor of the leaf-cutters that has not yet domesticated its fungal crop, at the Smithsonian research center in Gamboa, Panama, Jonathan Shik, a Marie Curie Post-Doctoral Fellow in Jacobus Boomsma's lab at the University of Copenhagen, and collaborators discovered that the ants adjust the protein and carbohydrate concentration of the mulch they provide to minimize the amount of mushrooms that their non-domesticated fungal cultivars produce. When they provide mulches rich in carbohydrates, the fungus can produce both hyphae and mushrooms, but carefully provisioned doses of protein can prevent the fungi from making mushrooms. However, this strategy of keeping their fungus in line requires that the total output of their fungus gardens remain low.-"Just as human farmers harvest their vegetables before they go to seed, ants want their fungus to minimize the amount of energy it puts into creating inedible mushrooms full of spores. It is best for the ants if the fungus grows more of the fungal hyphae that fill up the chambers in their underground gardens and serve as food for the ants and their larvae.-""In a study of Mycocepurus smithii, an ancestor of the leaf-cutters that has not yet domesticated its fungal crop, at the Smithsonian research center in Gamboa, Panama, Jonathan Shik, a Marie Curie Post-Doctoral Fellow in Jacobus Boomsma's lab at the University of Copenhagen, and collaborators discovered that the ants adjust the protein and carbohydrate concentration of the mulch they provide to minimize the amount of mushrooms that their non-domesticated fungal cultivars produce. When they provide mulches rich in carbohydrates, the fungus can produce both hyphae and mushrooms, but carefully provisioned doses of protein can prevent the fungi from making mushrooms. However, this strategy of keeping their fungus in line requires that the total output of their fungus gardens remain low."-Comment: the parallelism with human agriculture is amazing. The ant colonies show a group cleverness and one must wonder did the ants work out this arrangement on their own or were they guided? They originally lived on leaves. How did they find a somewhat compliant fungus?

Natures wonders: moth camouflage

by David Turell @, Friday, September 09, 2016, 19:39 (2748 days ago) @ David Turell

We see butterflies with patterns that suggest predators parts. In this case it is a moth who has a whole mural: - http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/08/30/a-mural-on-moth-wings/ - "Do you see the mural? - "Mimicry is common in insects. Some adopt the cryptic appearance of sticks or leaves, some ape the stripes of stinging wasps, and some sport the colors of poisonous butterflies. There are caterpillars that look like bird droppings, and beetles that look like caterpillar frass. I've even seen a blister beetle that mimics a harvester ant running backward dragging a seed. - "But Macrocilix maia is a first. It's the only mimic insect I know that paints an entire scene. It looks like a watercolor. Two red-eyed muscomorph flies feed from fresh bird droppings, complete with light glinting off their wings. I've never seen anything like it! - "The scant published research on the mural moth is systematic in nature, with nary a mention of the incredible mimicry. In fact, the photo-sharing site Flickr has outpaced any academic work: photographer Allan Lee reports in 2009 that the moth reinforces the imagery with a pungent odor. That's the extent of our knowledge. Macrocilix maia is a Ph.D. project waiting to happen." - Comment: Are we just seeing as pattern we recognize because our brain sees patterns automatically, or is this just a coincidence? It should be studied. Since mimicry is so common, it may be a real result of true evolution, which raises the issue of how many steps were taken in evolution to paint this? Or are we viewing an other saltation?

Natures wonders: ant dual navigations systems

by David Turell @, Friday, September 09, 2016, 23:06 (2747 days ago) @ David Turell

Desert ants use two systems to navigate, step counting and visual memory: - http://phys.org/news/2016-09-ants-dual.html - "Prior research with Cataglyphis bi-color desert ants initially suggested that they found their way back to their nests using optic flow—where they observe the passing terrain as they travel as a means of gauging distance. But a more recent study found that the ants actually counted their steps to keep track of how far they had gone. Getting back to the nest from foraging trips in short order is critical for the ants because the intense desert heat will kill them if they take too long. In this new effort, the research pair has found that the ants actually have both types of navigational skills at their disposal. - "To learn more about what is actually going on with the ants, the team noted that interior colony ants—those that perform housekeeping rather than forage—were actually carried by foragers when it was time to move to a different nest. But what would happen if something happened to the forager during the trip—would the interior ant be able to find its way back to the nest, and if so, how? - "Logically, the ants being carried would have difficulty counting steps because they were not taking any. But testing showed that if an interior ant lost its host during a journey to a new site, it was able to find its way back home anyway. To find out if it was using optic flow, the researchers applied yellow paint over the eyes of several volunteers, blinding them. Such ants would either have to rely on counted steps to get back home, or they would not be able to do so at all. After several trials the researchers found the latter to be the case—without their eyes to guide them, the ants wandered lost; thus their navigation was based on optic flow, which meant the ants have a dual navigation system to help them survive." - Comment: One has to wonder how this dual system developed. Step-wise is problematic if survival is an issue.

Natures wonders: female zebra finch recognizes mate

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 01:36 (2744 days ago) @ David Turell

Zebra finches are very social and live in large flocks. But they mate for life so recognition is important, and they have it:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/female-zebra-finches-recognize-their-mates-faces/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160912-"One study that received a lot of media attention a few years ago showed that wasps could recognise each other's' faces. Now, a recent study just published in Animal Behaviour has found that zebra finches also recognise each other's faces. Zebra finches are socially monogamous, building nests and breeding together for multiple breeding seasons. However, when not breeding they exist in flocks of up to 300 birds. Therefore, it would seem highly likely that individuals would be able to recognise their mates in order to mate with them again the following season. It's been known that females do know the sound of their male partner (what he sounds like when he sings his song), but the researchers wanted to know if females could also identify their partners from his visual appearance.-***-"Once trained to peck at the screen for a food reward, the female was then trained to peck at a photo of her mate for a food reward. She was also shown photos of an unknown male, and was not rewarded for pecking at him. To test whether the female had actually learned to identify the male, and not just a single photo, the female was then shown four new photos: two of her male and two of the unknown male. The females pecked at the photos of their partners, showing that they had learned what these males looked like.-***-"Interestingly, it seems that zebra finch females were able to recognise the faces of males when they lived with them in small flocks, but not when they lived with them in larger flocks. What's more, they were much better at recognising the face of their male partner than of another male in their small flock.-"Why might it be that it's harder to train females to recognise males from larger groups? One possibility is that because even when zebra finches live in larger flocks, they tend to make smaller sub-groups that they hang around in. Thus the males that were shown to the females from the larger group may have been very socially distant to them. It is also likely that in ‘real life' the females also use other cues to recognise males (like their songs) and that the visual cue on the screen isn't as salient as seeing the males in real life (just as for us, sometimes it can be harder to recognise someone in a photo than in real life)."-Comment: I don't find this at all surprising, knowing that birds have sharp vision.

Natures wonders: female bonobos rule

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 13, 2016, 13:05 (2744 days ago) @ David Turell

The ladies run the show among bonobos, in a highly sexual society. They are as closely related to us as are the chimps, where males have ruled, but their society is very different:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/bonobos-apes-matriarchy.html?emc=edit_th_20160913&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0-
"Describing results from their long-term field work in the September issue of Animal Behaviour, Dr. Tokuyama and her colleague Takeshi Furuichi reported that the female bonobos of Wamba often banded together to fend off male aggression, and in patterns that defied the standard primate rule book.-"Adult females responded to a broad range of male provocations — unwanted sexual overtures, food disputes, pushing, kicking, vocal threats, persistent pestiness — by forming coalitions of two or more females, who would then jointly take on their male tormentors.-"Remarkably, the female partners in a bonobo posse cooperated with one another despite lacking any ties of blood or even close friendship. As the so-called dispersing sex, female bonobos must leave their birthplaces before puberty and find another social set to join, which means that none of the adult females in a given bonobo community are kin.-"Moreover, female bonobos rarely formed coalitions with their preferred girlfriends — the individuals they spent the most time with and groomed the most ardently. Instead, the researchers found, coalitions arose when a senior female would step in and take the side of a younger peer caught up in an escalating conflict with a resident male.-"By delivering the formidable luster of her social standing, as well as an extra pair of hands, the intervening senior pretty much guaranteed that the skirmish would break her way.-"The new results add depth and complexity to our emerging understanding of Pan paniscus, the enigmatic, lithe great ape with the dark licorice eyes, who lives only in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is seriously endangered. The bonobo is a sister species to the more widespread common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, and the two share equal footing as our nearest primate kin.-"Yet the apes have followed distinctly different behavioral paths. Chimpanzee society is male-dominated and features strong bonds between adult males and feeble ties between females.-"In the bonobo world, by contrast, female camaraderie prevails, while the bonds between males are weak. “It's a matriarchy,” said Amy Parish, a primatologist at the University of Southern California. “Females are running the show.”-***-"Bonobos are famed for their hypersexuality and the way they use sex as an all-purpose problem solver in every possible situation, permutation and combination. When bonobos come upon a great patch of fruit, for example, and tensions rise over feeding priority, the bonobos will decompress with a quick round of genito-genital rubbing and similar acts: males with females, males with males, females with females, juveniles with adults.-***-"Bonobos tongue-kiss, practice oral sex, have intercourse face-to-face, and make sex toys. Frances White, a biological anthropologist at the University of Oregon, once watched a female bonobo turn a stick into a kind of knobby “French tickler,” with which she then stimulated herself. “They're not always family friendly,” Dr. White said.-"Such erotic antics have earned bonobos a reputation as laid-back “hippie apes,” a label that researchers say belies the primate's strategic intelligence and capacity for brutality. Dr. Parish, who studies bonobos in captivity, has seen the young offspring of dominant females flaunt their inherited power by marching over to lesser-ranking female adults, prying their jaws open and extracting the food from their mouths-***-"Nevertheless, bonobos are far less violent than chimpanzees, and female bonobos clearly benefit from life in a constructed sisterhood. Female chimpanzees cannot pick and choose a partner from among the available males, but must mate with all of them. Female bonobos can reject suitors without fearing for their lives. Infanticide is common among chimpanzees, but unheard-of among bonobos.-***-"Male chimpanzees remain in their natal home, so their male-male bonds are built on the standard evolutionary principle of kin selection. Female chimpanzees end up surrounded by nonrelatives in adulthood, so they mind their own business.-***-"Differing ecological conditions may have helped set the stage for the behavioral divergence. By this hypothesis, bonobos evolved in a region with a comparatively abundant and reliable food source, which meant that females could forage in view of one another without coming to blows.-***-"Chimpanzees evolved in drier climates, where food was scarce and foraging females had to compete with one another for limited goods. Who has time for friends?-***-"As for male bonobos, they may be subordinate themselves to females in cliques, and they may have no interest in hanging out with the guys. But they have a secret social weapon: their mothers. Male bonobos stay with their mothers for life, and as her status grows with age, so does his.-Comment: The difference in environment may be the key to the difference in bonobo and chimp. What humans don't realize is male sex drive really gives the females the ultimate power.

Natures wonders: trees fight off nibbling deer

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 22:28 (2742 days ago) @ David Turell

Young trees in Germany were studied for their defense mechanisms against young deer nibbling on young trees:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/09/13/trees-know-when-deer-are-eating-them-and-how-to-fight-back/?wpisrc=nl_science&wpmm=1-"In a study published in the most recent edition of the journal Functional Ecology, scientists in Leipzig, Germany describe the brilliant way that wild maple and beech trees figure out when roe deer are eating them — and enact a strategy to make sure the critters don't return for another snack.-"The stakes are high for young trees. If they can head off the threat from deer early, the saplings have a chance of catching up with their unbitten peers and making it to adulthood. But too much nibbling will make the trees stunted, or condemn them to death.-"So the plants have evolved a complex set of responses specifically to deal with herbivore threats. Whenever a branch is snipped — by a deer, insect or human — trees released "wound hormones" called jasmonates. These chemicals help with the recovery process. They also play a role in interplant communication; when one plant releases jasmonates, their neighbors start to ramp up their defenses against disease and insect attacks as well. It's like a forest-wide alarm system.-"But the trees studied in Leipzig seemed able to recognize specific threats, and tailor their response accordingly. When a roe deer was eating their branches, the trees released a second set of chemicals: first the hormone salicylic acid, then bitter chemicals called tannins. The salicylic acid boosts protein production, allowing the trees to regrow what was lost, and the tannins make the trees distasteful to deer, which prevents further snacking.-"'On the other hand, if a leaf or a bud snaps off without a roe deer being involved, the tree stimulates neither its production of the salicylic acid signal hormone nor the tannic substances. Instead, it predominantly produces wound hormones," Bettina Ohse, lead author of the study, explained in a statement.-"To test whether this was truly a tailored response to a roe deer threat, the scientists in Leipzig attempted do some outsmarting of their own. They simulated roe deer snacking by clipping the trees, then trickling deer saliva onto the broken branches with a tiny pipette. The fake deer attack sparked the same defensive response as an actual bite from a deer, suggesting to the scientists that trees are able to recognize deer saliva and respond to it. Now, Ohse and her team are performing the experiment on other tree species, to see whether some have better defensive mechanisms than others."-Comments: All organisms have enemies and counteractive responses to them. The trees show complex automatic chemical responses recognizing deer. Bacteria, molds and fungi produce antibiotics against their enemies. Humans and other animals with similar response systems modify cellular DNA to produce antibodies to experienced attacks. These are very complex reactions, which chance is very unlikely to produce through Darwinian evolutionary theory..

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 22:55 (2742 days ago) @ David Turell

Another view of the same phenomenon:-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/09/14/these-strange-subterranean-cities-are-eerily-like-our-own-but-theyre-ruled-by-ants/?wpisrc=nl_science&wpmm=1-"Between 55 and 60 million years ago, an ancient insect evolved the ability to feed a fungus and live off of its spores. Now there are some 250 ant species that farm fungi — tending to them, weeding them, ensuring that they have the nutrients they need. They depend on the fungus for food, and in turn, the fungus depends on the ants to grow.-***-"Ant colonies illustrate a phenomenon called emergence: Parts of a system acting in very simple ways can produce collective behaviors that are incredibly sophisticated, without anyone telling them how. The same phenomenon explains how individual birds can form a flock, and how the millions of neurons in our nervous systems can create consciousness. Many entomologists argue that social insects like ants should be studied on the scale of the colony, rather than the individual — it's by acting as a community that these creatures do what they do. (My bold)-"The original ant 130 million years ago was social," Schultz said, "and on that foundation of sociality all kinds of ant lineages have evolved very, very complicated behaviors."-***-"An agricultural ant colony begins with a single member, the queen. She seeds her garden with spores carried from her mother's home, and gives birth to the workers who will cultivate it. As the new colony grows, worker ants fertilize the fungus with bits of plant material collected from the outside — flower pollen, chewed up leaves. The most massive colonies can defoliate an entire tree in a matter of days, given the opportunity (though trees have evolved their own defenses).-"Some species have learned to "herd" aphid "cattle." The ants keep their bugs docile with tranquilizing chemicals the ants secrete from their feet (there are probably more than a few human cattle ranchers who wish they could do the same), then feed on the honeydew that the aphids excrete, much the way that humans drink cows' milk.-"Schultz and his colleagues have reconstructed the evolution of these abilities by comparing the genomes of more primitive species with those of advanced ones. DNA analysis of the ants' fungi shows that the crops' evolution mirrors that of the species that farms them. Many of the ant species have adaptations that make them better farmers, including crevasses on their bodies containing microbes that produce an antibiotic they can apply to their crops. Likewise, the fungi have evolved to become more appealing to their ants.-***-"As was the case with humans, insects became sedentary when they became farmers. Initially, farming wasn't as profitable as being a hunter-gatherer — both primitive ants and early subsistence farmers are thought to have been malnourished — but as agriculture became more advanced, it became more productive. These more sophisticated farms were able to sustain larger populations, which promoted division of labor, which gave rise to incredibly complex civilizations. -***-"Among both ant and human farming communities, all participants in the relationship have been irrevocably changed by it. Farming ants and their fungus have fundamentally different DNA than their non-farming relatives. Human farmers have evolved genetic adaptations that allow us to digest milk and metabolize fats; our crops, meanwhile, bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors.-"That said, ant farmers are not directly comparable to people. They're not consciously manipulating their fungi (indeed, Schultz said, you can imagine a scenario in which the fungi rule the relationship, bending millions of tiny ant servants to their will). Ant agriculture is a product of natural selection, of innumerable accumulated genetic accidents. New strategies aren't learned, they're evolved. But humans have consciousness and culture, and that allowed us to achieve in a few thousand years what took ants five hundred thousand centuries to accomplish. Even though ants have been farming for much longer, Peregrine said, there isn't much they can teach us about agriculture that we don't already know." (my bold)-Comment: Ants and fungi are an evolved, learned symbiotic relationship, but the key point is an integrated society acts like a giant single organism in ants and in humans with amazing productivity.. My bolded statements make the point. There is the usual vast difference in kind in how quickly humans learned agriculture compared to ants.

Natures wonders: tap dancing mating bird routine

by David Turell @, Monday, September 19, 2016, 19:43 (2738 days ago) @ David Turell

A weird way to attract a mate:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106230-tap-dancing-songbirds-drum-with-their-feet-to-attract-mates/-"It is not just about speed. The only songbird known to perform a rapid tap dance during courtship makes more noise with its feet during its routines than at other times.-"The blue-capped cordon-bleu (Uraeginthus cyanocephalus) from East Africa is blessed with the attributes of a Broadway star: striking good looks, a strong singing voice - and fine tap-dancing skills.-"The dances are so fast that they went unnoticed until 2015, when Masayo Soma at Hokkaido University in Japan and her colleagues captured the performances on high-speed film. The bird's speciality is a left-right-left shuffle ­- only with the feet striking the perch up to 50 times a second.-"The vision of some birds operates at a faster rate than that of humans, so the cordon-bleu's dance may simply be about creating an impressive visual performance. But it could also be about winning over a potential mate with rhythm.-"To explore the idea, Soma and her colleagues recorded audio of the courtship dances, which both males and females perform.-"They found that the tap dances are unusually loud: the feet strike the branch with enough force to generate sound averaging 30 decibels. This typically drops to just 20 decibels when a bird's feet strike the branch as it hops around when it is not performing, which means the step sounds are not just a by-product of movement.
All this suggests that the sounds generated by the tap dances might be deliberate and an important signal for attracting a mate.-“'We have no doubt that their tap-dancing constitutes a very important part of courtship,” says Soma. But unravelling exactly how important will be difficult, she adds.-"Christopher Clark at the University of California, Riverside studies the non-verbal communications of animals, sometimes called “sonations”. He says the new study provides a reasonable case that cordon-bleus' tap dances belong in the sonation category. But he thinks more research could strengthen the idea.-“'The way they could improve the certainty that this behaviour is a sonation would be to do playback experiments,” he says. If cordon-bleus respond to the sounds of dances in the same way they do to the sound and motion of the dances, we can be confident that it is the rhythm of the dances that is most important to the birds.-"If cordon-bleus do join the sonation club, they will take their surprise place alongside other birds that use their wings, tails and bills to generate meaningful sounds. This club was thought to have evolved thanks to strong sexual selection on males that mate with several females - and so exclude monogamous songbirds such as these."-Comment: Stamp your foot to get attention? I don't understand what just-so story would explain why this instinct develops in evolution. Nothing demands this appear.

Natures wonders: trees react to danger, communicate

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 05:29 (2737 days ago) @ David Turell

This article describes how trees react to danger and communicate, and much more:-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792036/Do-trees-brains.html-"There's increasing evidence to show that trees are able to communicate with each other. More than that, trees can learn.
If that's true — and my experience as a forester convinces me it is — then they must be able to store and transmit information. -***-"It sounds incredible, but when you discover how trees talk to each other, feel pain, nurture each other, even care for their close relatives and organise themselves into communities, it's hard to be sceptical.-***-"The other beeches around the stump had been pumping sugar into it for centuries to keep it alive, through their tangled roots.
Most individual trees of the same species growing in the same copse or stand will be connected through their root systems. It appears that helping neighbours in times of need is the rule, which leads to the conclusion that forests are super-organisms, much like ant colonies.-"But the support they give each other is not random. Research by Professor Massimo Maffei at the University of Turin shows trees can distinguish the roots of their own species from other plants, and even pick out their own relations from other trees. Some are so tightly connected at the roots that they even die together, like a devoted married couple.-***-"I have observed oak, fir and spruce stumps as well as beeches that have survived long after the tree was felled. But it's not just silent support that trees offer each other.
Dr Suzanne Simard of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver has discovered that they can also send warnings using chemical signals and electrical impulses through the fungal networks that stretch under the soil between sets of roots — networks known as the 'wood wide web'.
These fungi operate like fibre-optic internet cables. Their thin filaments penetrate the earth, weaving through it in almost unbelievable density. One teaspoon of forest soil contains many miles of these tendrils.
Over centuries, if left undisturbed, a single fungus can cover many square miles and create a network throughout an entire forest. Through these links, trees can send signals about insects, drought and other dangers.-***-"This might help to explain how swarms of insect pests are able to identify trees becoming weak. It's conceivable that some caterpillars and beetles tune in to the warnings flowing from tree to tree, then test which individuals are failing to pass on the message, by taking a bite of their leaves or bark.-***-"There's one more way that animals communicate, through sound. I was dubious at first that trees could deliberately make noises, but the latest scientific research is persuading me otherwise.
Dr Monica Gagliano from the University of Western Australia has been monitoring roots with highly sensitive apparatus, and believes they crackle at a frequency of 220 hertz, which the human ear hears as a low A note.
When this note was played back to seedlings, their roots tilted towards the sound. It appears they could hear it, and were responding.-***-"...think about how umbrella thorn acacias on the African savannah defend themselves against giraffes.
When they start picking at foliage, the acacias begin pumping foul-tasting toxins into the leaves to deter them. It happens in minutes, which for a tree is instantaneous. The giraffes get the message and move on.
But they don't go to the next acacia. They wander at least 100 yards before trying their luck again. The reason is astonishing. As they come under attack, the acacias give off a warning gas called ethylene that signals a crisis to neighbouring trees.
That triggers other acacias to dump toxins into their own leaves, as a defensive measure.
And the giraffes have learned that when one tree tastes bad, others in the vicinity will, too.-"The exception is when the wind picks up and only trees downwind detect the ethylene in the air, and react. Giraffes know it too, and head upwind.
Elms and pines use a different tactic. When an insect eats a leaf, electrical signals travel from the damaged area to the roots — just as human tissue sends pain signals along the nervous system.
It takes at least an hour for the roots to react and unleash the defences, by flowing bitter compounds into the leaf to send the attacker packing. But something even more amazing is also happening: the tree identifies the attacker by its saliva. Armed with this, the tree releases phero-mones to summon specific predators, to prey on the insects. For example, elms and pines call on parasitic wasps that lay their eggs inside leaf-eating caterpillars, condemning them to slow, painful deaths. Trees are prepared to wait for revenge."-Comment: I view these reactions as automatic and amazing. They require some biochemical planning, not as complex as speciation. I'm not sure if God helped or they learned to do it n their own.

Natures wonders: trees react to danger, communicate

by BBella @, Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 18:01 (2737 days ago) @ David Turell

This article describes how trees react to danger and communicate, and much more:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792036/Do-trees-brains.html-Wonderful article!-> 
> "There's increasing evidence to show that trees are able to communicate with each other. More than that, trees can learn.
> If that's true — and my experience as a forester convinces me it is — then they must be able to store and transmit information." 
> 
> ***-Great that science is able to recognize how the trees protect themselves and adapt to predators. But try as they might, scientist cannot and will not find where (within the physical tree itself) this "information" is stored - unless they consider Sheldrake's morphogenic field, which gives a very convincing answer as to the where question seldom asked.

Natures wonders: trees react to danger, communicate

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 20, 2016, 19:15 (2737 days ago) @ BBella

David: This article describes how trees react to danger and communicate, and much more:
> > 
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3792036/Do-trees-brains.html
> 
> BBella: Wonderful article!
> 
> > 
> > "There's increasing evidence to show that trees are able to communicate with each other. More than that, trees can learn.
> > If that's true — and my experience as a forester convinces me it is — then they must be able to store and transmit information." 
> > 
> > ***
> 
> Great that science is able to recognize how the trees protect themselves and adapt to predators. But try as they might, scientist cannot and will not find where (within the physical tree itself) this "information" is stored - unless they consider Sheldrake's morphogenic field, which gives a very convincing answer as to the where question seldom asked.-I would place the instructions in the trees' DNA or other layers of the genome.

Natures wonders: surfing oceanic crabs mating habits

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 21, 2016, 20:13 (2735 days ago) @ David Turell

Some couples live by a loggerhead sea turtle's tail, and are monogamous; other live on debris and play the field:- https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106508-surfing-on-a-turtles-tail-makes-swinging-c... Oceanic crab, Planes minutus
Habitat: Turtles and floating debris in the north Atlantic
Surfing the world's oceans on the back of a turtle may sound like a life of luxury, but for a small crab it also means restricting itself to a single mate.
A species of small oceanic crab, Planes minutus often makes its home on the shells of loggerhead turtles. They tuck themselves into a tiny space above the turtle's tail and below the shell, just the right size for a pair of crabs - a male and a female living in a simple monogamous relationship.
But these crabs will also make their homes on floating debris, where they nestle among stalked barnacles, and often enjoy a more swinging, polyamorous lifestyle.-"Joseph Pfaller, at the University of Florida in Gainsville, wondered what influenced the crabs' choice of mating system. He found that the overall size of the turtle or the floating debris didn't matter - just the size of the refuge that the crabs occupied.-"If its home was small enough to easily defend against rivals, like on a turtle's tail or a small patch of barnacles, they would choose monogamy.
But once it got too large to effectively protect and there were more crabs around, the crabs would opt to play the field instead.-"Switching hosts to seek out new mating options is not an option - turtles and floating debris are few and far between and for an ocean-going crab P. minutus are pretty poor swimmers, says Pfaller.-"Miranda Dyson, from the UK's Open University, says this shows how the crabs adapt their mating strategy to whatever conditions they happen to grow up in.
“If you find yourself on a large refuge you stay because you can mate with lots of other crabs and the benefits associated with promiscuity outweigh the costs of confrontations with other crabs over mating opportunities,” she says. “Conversely, if you find yourself on a small refuge, there is no scope for promiscuity so the best thing to do is to stay put and defend your refuge.”
"
Pfaller says the research shows how the ecological conditions in which an animal lives can dictate how it interacts with its own species, such as how it chooses to mate. And it shows that monogamy is a more common mating strategy than we thought.
“We tend to think of monogamy as something that birds and mammals do, but if the conditions are right, anything can be monogamous,” he says."-Comment: Life's organisms are opportunistic.

Natures wonders: smart fish

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 22, 2016, 19:54 (2735 days ago) @ David Turell

A wonderful article on the capacity of fish to do clever maneuvers. Thesev stories are much like the fish discussed on the book Natures IQ which I've mentioned before:- http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/fish-can-be-smarter-than-primates-"Here&... an example of fish intelligence, courtesy of the frillfin goby, a small fish of intertidal zones of both eastern and western Atlantic shores. When the tide goes out, frillfins like to stay near shore, nestled in warm, isolated tide pools where they may find lots of tasty tidbits. But tide pools are not always safe havens from danger. Predators such as octopuses or herons may come foraging, and it pays to make a hasty exit. But where is a little fish to go? Frillfin gobies deploy an improbable maneuver: They leap to a neighboring pool.-"How do they do it without ending up on the rocks, doomed to die in the sun? With prominent eyes, slightly puffy cheeks looking down on a pouting mouth, a rounded tail, and tan-gray-brown blotchy markings along a 3-inch, torpedo-shaped body, the frillfin goby hardly looks like a candidate for the Animal Einstein Olympics. But its brain is an overachiever by any standard. For the little frillfin memorizes the topography of the intertidal zone—fixing in its mind the layout of depressions that will form future pools in the rocks at low tide—while swimming over them at high tide.-"The goby's skill was demonstrated by the late biologist Lester Aronson at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City. Around the time that rats were wowing scientists with their cognitive mapping skills, Aronson constructed an artificial reef in his laboratory. He compelled his gobies to jump by poking a predator-mimicking stick into one of his constructed tide pools. Fishes who had had the opportunity to swim over the room at “high tide” were able to leap to safety 97 percent of the time. Naive fishes who'd had no high-tide experience were only successful at about chance level: 15 percent. With just one high-tide learning session the little gobies still remembered their escape route 40 days later.-"A recent study has found that the brains of rock pool-dwelling goby species are different from those of goby species that hide in the sand and don't need to jump to safety: The brains of the jumpers have more gray matter devoted to spatial memory, whereas the sand dwellers have a greater neural investment in visual processing.-
"Forming cognitive maps and recalling them weeks later illustrates more than a frillfin goby's prodigious talent for avoiding a leap of faith. It also exposes the human prejudice to underestimate creatures that we don't understand."-Comment: There are many more examples, much like the ones I used in my second book, where I presented them as lifestyles provided by God. Read the whole article for amazing observations.

Natures wonders: trees and water supply stress

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 22, 2016, 20:44 (2734 days ago) @ David Turell

A great description on how trees learn to handle deluge and draughts:-http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/the-harsh-hidden-lessons-of-tree-school-"A mature beech tree can send more than 130 gallons of water a day coursing through its branches and leaves, and this is what it does as long as it can draw enough water up from below. However, the moisture in the soil would soon run out if the tree were to do that every day in summer. In the warmer seasons, it doesn't rain nearly enough to replenish water levels in the desiccated soil. Therefore, the tree stockpiles water in winter.-"In winter, the tree is not consuming as much water, because most plants take a break from growing at that time of year. Together with below ground accumulation of spring showers, the stockpiled water usually lasts until the onset of summer. But in many years, water then gets scarce. After a couple of weeks of high temperatures and no rain, forests usually begin to suffer. The most severely affected trees are those that grow in soils where moisture is usually particularly abundant. These trees don't know the meaning of restraint and are lavish in their water use, and it is usually the largest and most vigorous trees that pay the price for this behavior.-***-"If a tree does not pay attention and do what it's told, it will suffer. Splits in its wood, in its bark, in its extremely sensitive cambium (the life-giving layer under the bark): It doesn't get any worse than this for a tree. It has to react, and it does this not only by attempting to seal the wound. From then on, it will also do a better job of rationing water instead of pumping whatever is available out of the ground as soon as spring hits without giving a second thought to waste. The tree takes the lesson to heart, and from then on it will stick with this new, thrifty behavior, even when the ground has plenty of moisture—after all, you never know!-***-"A much more obvious lesson in tree school is how trees learn to support themselves. Trees don't like to make things unnecessarily difficult. Why bother to grow a thick, sturdy trunk if you can lean comfortably against your neighbors? As long as they remain standing, not much can go wrong. In natural forests, it is the death from old age of a mighty mother tree that leaves surrounding trees without support. That's how gaps in the canopy open up, and how formerly comfortable beeches or spruce find themselves suddenly wobbling on their own two feet—or rather, on their own root systems. Trees are not known for their speed, and it takes some species many years before they stand firm once again after such disruptions.-***-" If trees are capable of learning (and you can see they are just by observing them), then the question becomes: Where do they store what they have learned and how do they access this information? After all, they don't have brains to function as databases and manage processes. It's the same for all plants, and that's why some scientists are skeptical and why many of them banish to the realm of fantasy the idea of plants' ability to learn. 
"Gagliano studies mimosas, also called “sensitive plants.” Mimosas are tropical creeping herbs. They make particularly good research subjects, because it is easy to get them a bit riled up and they are easier to study in the laboratory than trees are. When they are touched, they close their feathery little leaves to protect themselves. Gagliano designed an experiment where individual drops of water fell on the plants' foliage at regular intervals. At first, the anxious leaves closed immediately, but after a while, the little plants learned there was no danger of damage from the water droplets. After that, the leaves remained open despite the drops. Even more surprising for Gagliano was the fact that the mimosas could remember and apply their lesson weeks later, even without any further tests.-"It's a shame you can't transport entire beeches or oaks into the laboratory to find out more about learning. But, at least as far as water is concerned, there is research in the field that reveals more than just behavioral changes: When trees are really thirsty, they begin to scream. If you're out in the forest, you won't be able to hear them, because this all takes place at ultrasonic levels. Scientists at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research recorded the sounds, and this is how they explain them: Vibrations occur in the trunk when the flow of water from the roots to the leaves is interrupted. This is a purely mechanical event and it probably doesn't mean anything.1 And yet?-"We know how the sounds are produced, and if we were to look through a microscope to examine how humans produce sounds, what we would see wouldn't be that different: The passage of air down the windpipe causes our vocal chords to vibrate. When I think about the research results, in particular in conjunction with the crackling roots I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that these vibrations could indeed be much more than just vibrations—they could be cries of thirst. The trees might be screaming out a dire warning to their colleagues that water levels are running low."-Comment: We don't know trees learn, but I would guess DNA studies may find epigenetic changes. We know they release warning gases which require biochemical manufacture, something which be guided by genes.

Natures wonders: beluga whale breath holding

by David Turell @, Friday, September 23, 2016, 01:33 (2734 days ago) @ David Turell

They have extra stores of myoglobin in their muscles, a protein that resembles hemoglobin closely and can hold large stores of oxygen as a result: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106782-how-baby-beluga-whales-dive-deeper-and-lon... - "...belugas, one of only three whale species that live in the Arctic year-round.
Their life amid the sea ice means the young whales do swim wild and free - from an early age, baby belugas must follow their mothers under the sea ice, where air holes are transient and scarce. - "Now we are learning how baby belugas achieve that: they are born with more mature diving muscles than any other marine mammals studied so far and they develop more rapidly over their first year of life. - *** - "They found that belugas are born with much higher stores of myoglobin, an oxygen-binding protein, than other cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises), making them better prepared for diving at birth than other species. Myoglobin allows oxygen to be stored and slowly released if an animal needs to hold its breath.
The researchers showed that myoglobin in baby beluga whales increased by some 450 per cent between birth and their first birthday, to levels similar to those of fully grown adults. In fact, belugas have adult levels of myoglobin in their muscles by 14 months of age. - "It means belugas are in some respects mature before they wean. That is unique among cetaceans, whose muscles mature after weaning, typically between 2 and 3 years of age.
This, in theory, would allow young belugas to double the amount of time spent under water within a year of their birth, the researchers say. They calculate that both the dive length and depth increased dramatically over the first year of life, from 3.6 minutes and 216 metres at birth to 8.5 minutes and 512 metres. - "It's an “extraordinary result”, says Jeremy Goldbogen, a comparative physiologist at Stanford University in California. “It significantly increases our understanding of how these animals cope with living in environments that require extreme physiological adaptations such as prolonged breath-holds to find food and avoid predators.”
Using this new data on the physiology of beluga's muscle tissue, the researchers then calculated how long adult belugas could hold their breath. - "They found that an adult male and female can hold their breath for a maximum of 13.6 and 12.5 minutes respectively, allowing them to dive to 812 and 755 metres deep. Observations in the wild confirm that belugas are diving to these depths." - Comment: Since myoglobin is a standard constituent of all vertebrate muscles, this is a logical evolutionary adaptation to the deep diving required in the Arctic.

Natures wonders: lobster larvae eat jelly fish,survive

by David Turell @, Friday, September 23, 2016, 19:04 (2734 days ago) @ David Turell

Jelly fish tentacles contain poison, which you have felt if ever encountering them. Certain lobster larvae can eat them and survive by enveloping the barbs in a membrane:-https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/why-lobster-larvae-harpoon-proof-their-poo/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160923-"To see the larva of a spiny or slipper lobster is to see an alien creature who devours jellyfish whole -- tentacles first.-"These bizarre larvae - an anomaly among crustaceans -- are called phyllosomas (literally, sheet or leaf body). The larvae have the appearance of transparent squished spiders with silver dollar bodies. Such larvae can reach palm-sized before they dramatically moult into a form that actually resembles a small lobster.
Not all lobsters do this, however. Phyllosomas occur only in the group of lobsters called spiny(rock), slipper, or coral lobsters, which are not closely related to true lobsters.-***-"There's only one little problem. The tentacles that these phyllosomas slurp up like ramen are loaded with harpoon cells that explosively inject venom, as anyone who has suffered a painful jellyfish sting can attest.-***-"The team tested these hypotheses by checking to see whether the nematocysts in Japanese smooth fan lobster larva poo were either discharged or surrounded by a membrane. Then they injected larvae with purified venom to see what happened.
The nematocysts in the feces had indeed been discharged, ruling out that idea that they were just reeeeeally careful chewing their food.-***-"And injecting crude venom extract into the phyllosomas was fatal nine out of ten times. (my bold)-"But the feces were indeed covered with a sheath that the scientists interpreted as a peritrophic membrane, a secreted barrier made of organic material, but not whole cells, that shields the gut from food that fights back. No discharged nematocysts were seen outside this layer.-"One question I have that is not answered by this study is how the larvae digest their food if it is sealed inside a seemingly impenetrable membrane. Perhaps the membrane has a micropore structure to allow digested food particles - but not toxic jellyfish harpoons -- to pass through, a bit like the bag around boil-in-bag rice?
Or perhaps the membrane has openings that aer far away from the fecal pellet - beyond the reach of an individual nematocyst.-"Or perhaps only the nematocysts are somehow segregated into sealed sacks, while the rest of the jellyfish is left outside for digestion. But if that is true, how does the gut know how to precisely separate the nematocysts from the rest of the jellyfish and place them so carefully in the membranes?-"However they do it, it is amazing. These jellyfish-eating lobster larvae are somehow making internal biohazard bags that prevent suicide by sushi."-Comment: My bolded statement shows that this process could have been evolved among the survivors who tried this type of meal. But the author's comments show how difficult this is to evolve, because the special proteins to make the membrane have to be found by a chance hunt and peck evolutionary process a well as developing a gut mechanism invented to produce the membrane, which requires the organization of other coordinated complex proteins. Saltation?

Natures wonders: complex fly, parasitized ants and beetles

by David Turell @, Monday, September 26, 2016, 18:13 (2731 days ago) @ David Turell

A complex relationship in which flies parasitize ants which are then eaten by beetles:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47103/title/Behavior-Brief/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34880620&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--pwrYqY0c2ScK_CpCu8JpfHjbt6ZXWvUVkjXzQ_JnCQ4Q10Uf_i5_8i9XNFTqE7TcYqvyNlTMfMSxQVVpu35NJhZEjzQ&_hsmi=34880620-"Azteca ants (Azteca sericeasur) live on coffee plantations in the south of Mexico, where they're at the center of a complex ecological web.-"Kate Mathis of the University of Arizona and colleagues have been untangling this web for the last six years, starting with an investigation into the phorid flies (Pseudacteon) that parasitize these ants. The team discovered that the flies locate ants by eavesdropping on their communication system, following the scent of an alarm pheromone and then laying eggs inside the ants.-"But phorid flies are not the only ones trying to find the ants. During experiments in which Mathis released alarm pheromones to document the behavior of the flies, tiny beetles (Myrmedonota xipe) kept crowding in on the experiment and causing a nuisance, the scientists found.-"Upon closer investigation, the team realized that the beetles prey upon the parasitized and debilitated ants. In a container full of both healthy and parasitized ants, the researchers watched the beetles go straight for the weaker targets, following the alarm pheromone. “When the beetles tried to attack healthy ants, they were swiftly rebuffed. But when they attacked parasitized ants, the ant essentially stood still as the beetle ate it alive,” Mathias wrote."-Comment: I judge God's help in these situations by looking at the complexity involved. By that standard I think God may have helped the flies learn how to parasitize ants, but the beetles eating behaviour may well be a learned epigenetic instinct.

Natures wonders: complex fly, parasitized ants and beetles

by David Turell @, Monday, September 26, 2016, 18:20 (2731 days ago) @ David Turell

This shows how frigate birds stay aloft so long by riding thermals: - http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?mode=posting&id=22993&back=entry - Frigatebirds spend weeks or even months at a time cruising above open ocean, spearing fish from the surface. Their voyages take them far from any place to rest, and the birds can't swim, which has made their feats of endurance a biological puzzle.
 
Ornithologist Henri Weimerskirch of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and colleagues fixed GPS trackers, accelerometers, and heart rate monitors to frigatebirds to track their travels and energy expenditure. In a study published this summer (July 1) in Science, the researchers reported that the birds spent about as little energy soaring hundreds of miles every day as they would sitting at rest. - Their trick is to ride thermal currents upward for thousands of feet and then glide down while the enormous birds prowl for prey, the authors found. An instinctive sense for atmospheric patterns appears to guide the birds' flight pattern, as they reliably skirt equatorial doldrums, where updrafts are few and far between. - The birds displayed another feat of aerial acumen: flying into the center of cumulus clouds where turbulent currents push them as high as 2.5 miles. “It's the only bird that is known to intentionally enter into a cloud,” Weimerskirch told NPR's All Things Considered, adding: “there is no other bird flying so high relative to the sea surface.” - Comment: Using my same judgmental requirements, once again this looks like a learned instinctual behaviour, because flying into a cloud does not affect survival and can develop an epigenetic learned pattern.

Natures wonders: how viruses enter and win

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 27, 2016, 22:20 (2729 days ago) @ David Turell

This study shows how viruses enter the body and defeat immunity in the lymph nodes prior to vaccination:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-09-scientists-insect-borne-viruses-suppress-immune.html-" [R]esearch led by the University of Glasgow has discovered how arboviruses are able to suppress the immune system responses in the initial stages of infection.-***-"The team used the Bluetongue Virus (BTV) - a disease which, though not a threat to humans can be devastating in sheep and other ruminants - to reveal how an arbovirus first interacts with its host after initial infection. The research found that BTV subverted the host's immune system by inducing a temporary immunosuppression (suppression of the immune system's natural response) resulting in a delayed antibody production.-"The study reveals that BTV enters the animal's system through the skin via a midge bite, and then travels to the lymph nodes where it begins to suppress the natural immune system response. Researchers found that the virus disrupts key cells, known as follicular dendritic cells, that play a vital role in triggering the immune response of the host.
 
"'Data from the study also indicated that the severity of the virus's suppression of the immune system was correlated with the clinical outcome from infection.-***-"'These viruses cause acute infection and, therefore, improving our understanding about what happens during the very early stages of disease is vital. The characterization of the complex interactions between virus and host are critical for better understanding the development of arbovirus infections."-"Bluetongue, which particularly affects sheep and cattle, causes symptoms such as fever, weight loss and haemorragic lesions in various organs including the tongue, which can turn blue. The subsequent reduction in milk and meat production in the infected animals can be devastating to farmers.-"Earlier this year, the UK Government issued a warning to UK farmers about the high possibility of BTV spreading to the UK from France. Experts have predicted that infected midges being blown across the channel, combined with increasing summer temperatures, could provide the ideal conditions for another outbreak of the disease here in the UK - with the South of England at particular risk. As a result, Defra announced in June that stocks of a vaccine would be made available in limited supply to UK farmers."-Comment: How did this develop through evolution? First, the targeted animals had to evolve. Then the virus attacked, but also first had to evolve at some point in time. Just how did the virus learn, after entering the skin, to find lymph nodes by traveling the blood vessels, and then suppress the immunity by invading the specific immunity cells to stop them. Again smells of saltation. Did God do this? dhw's take will be the viruses did it themselves.

Natures wonders: virus addendum

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 28, 2016, 01:32 (2729 days ago) @ David Turell

No one knows how viruses started. The evidence shows that they arrived with the early bacteria, all three types. They are obligate parasites in that they cannot survive on their own but must live in living cells, either unicellular or multi. They have a metabolism to use energy and they take over the DNA of cells to manufacture replicate organisms, which burst out and infect other cells to start the process again. They use the blood stream for travel which is where the female mosquito steps in to get a meal, picks up virus and at the next meal transfers the virus particle. The way the mosquito gets blood is to secrete anticoagulant which is how the virus transfers. -The Bluetongue virus is unrelated to the animals it enters, but somehow it learned to find lymph nodes to suppress antibodies and the virus currently carries that information/ instructions in their partial genome. How? Before this virus defense mechanism developed the few survivors that made it to the lymph nodes and damaged them passed on epigenetic information to their progeny, and the process was taken on. Thus it has a specific lifestyle that requires all the steps above. This arrangement is seen all through life with malaria as a good comparison. -I've given a suggestion for development. How to analyze for an answer? By definition their lifestyle dictates viruses had to appear after life started. Did God start them? Why? Is it a mistake He could not control?

Natures wonders: heat sensing in snakes and bats

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 28, 2016, 15:22 (2729 days ago) @ David Turell

These animals have special sensors for heat. Human sensors are different:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46824/title/Sensory-Biology-Around-the-Animal-Kingdom/#-"Many animals are able to sense heat in the environment, but vampire bats and several types of snakes are the only vertebrates known to have highly specialized systems for doing so. Humans and other mammals sense external temperature with heat-sensitive nerve fibers, but pit vipers, boa constrictors, and pythons have evolved organs in their faces that the animals use to detect infrared (IR) energy emitted by prey and to select ecological niches. And vampire bats have IR receptors on their noses that let them home in on the most blood-laden veins in their prey.-"'Infrared sense is basically a souped-up [version] of thermoreception in humans,” says David Julius, a professor and chair of the physiology department at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), who studies this sense in snakes. The difference is, snakes and vampire bats “have a very specialized anatomical apparatus to measure heat,” he says.-"These IR-sensing apparatuses, known as pit organs, have evolved at least twice in the snake world—once in the ancient family that includes pythons and boas (family Boidae) and once in the pit vipers (subfamily Crotalinae), which includes rattlesnakes. Pythons and boas have three or more simple pits between scales on their upper and sometimes lower lips; each pit consists of a membrane that is lined with heat-sensitive receptors innervated by the trigeminal nerve. Pit vipers, by contrast, typically have one large, deep pit on either side of their heads, and the structure is more complex, lined with a richly vascularized membrane covering an air-filled chamber that directs heat onto the IR-sensitive tissue. This geometry maximizes heat absorption, Julius notes, and also ensures efficient cooling of the pit, which reduces thermal afterimages.-***-"In 2010, Julius and Elena Gracheva, now at Yale University, identified the heat-sensitive ion channel TRPA1 (transient receptor potential cation channel A1) that triggers the trigeminal nerve signal in both groups of snakes. The same channels in humans are activated by chemical irritants such as mustard oil or by acid, and the resulting signal is similar to those produced by wounds on the skin, Gracheva says. In snakes, these channels have mutated to become sensitive to heat as well.-"Vampire bats—which, true to their name, feed on the blood of other creatures—are the only mammals known to have a highly developed infrared sense. Like snakes, the bats have an innervated epithelial pit, which is located in a membrane on the bats' noses. In 2011, Julius, Gracheva, and their colleagues identified the key heat-sensitive ion channel in vampire bats as TRPV1. In humans, this channel is normally triggered by temperatures above 43 °C, but in the bats, it is activated at 30 °C, the researchers found.-"More than 30 years ago biologists Peter Hartline, now of New England Biolabs in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and Eric Newman, now at the University of Minnesota, found that information from the snake pit organ activates a brain region called the optic tectum (known in mammals as the superior colliculus), which is known to process visual input. The pit organ appears to act like a pinhole camera for infrared light, producing an IR image, Newman says. However, it's impossible to know whether snakes actually “see” in infrared.-“'Unfortunately we don't have a sensory map [of the brain] in snakes or vampire bats,” Gracheva agrees. “I don't think we have enough data to say [these animals] can superimpose a sensory picture onto the visual picture, though it definitely would make sense.'”-Comment: These organs help hunting warm-blooded prey, and the complexity of the receptors again suggests saltation.

Natures wonders: birds naturally avoid each other

by David Turell @, Friday, September 30, 2016, 19:47 (2727 days ago) @ David Turell

In flight birds avoid head on crashes with each other by using the same avoidance mechanisms, turn right: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107414-budgies-reveal-the-rule-that-means-birds-n... - "How do birds avoid crashing into each other when approaching head-on? They have an in-built preference for veering right. - *** - "Mandyam Srinivasan at the University of Queensland, Australia, and his colleagues uncovered the simple trick when filming pairs of budgerigars flying towards each other in a narrow tunnel. - "During more than 100 tests, the birds moved to each other's left hand side in 84 per cent of cases, and zero crashes were observed.
The budgerigars also tended to fly past each other at different heights, which prevented mid-air collisions on the rare occasions that one of the birds veered left. - "Group hierarchy may dictate which bird moves up and which moves down, Srinivasan says. “It looks like the dominant birds prefer to go lower,” he says. “Maybe it's more energy efficient and easier to go lower than higher, so the non-dominant bird is forced to gain altitude.” - "These crash-avoidance strategies have evolved over 150 million years in birds." - Comment: The could well be a learned behavior from the survivors with right turn behaviors.

Natures wonders: gecko habits at high altitude

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 01, 2016, 18:41 (2726 days ago) @ David Turell

They respond to their cold climate with natural and logical adaptive behaviour: - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107607-high-living-geckos-survive-snowy-peaks-by-... - "..although most geckos thrive in tropical climates, the Atlas Day gecko has adapted to life in the mountain tops, where it lives through cold winters.
The higher they go, the bigger they grow, as there is less competition for resources. But this might change as global warming makes its habitat more available to other species. - "Abdellah Bouazza at Cadi Ayyad University in Marrakech, Morocco, and his colleagues have been investigating how the cold-blooded lizard is able to survive the freezing heights. - "To understand their heat-conservation strategies, Bouazza and his colleagues studied the geckos in their natural environment from March to July, the most critical period for reproduction. Although the lizards stayed sheltered at night in rock fissures, they emerged in the morning to bask in the sun on exposed rocks. “They always seek out warm spots that are sheltered from the wind,” says Bouazza. - "Since rocks store heat, they can be up to 10°C warmer than the ambient temperature. The team found that staying glued to a rock allowed geckos to warm up: as the temperature of a rock increased, so did a gecko's body. - *** - "But expectant females may have an additional trick. The team noticed marked colour changes in dark Atlas Day geckos when it was cold, which would help them better absorb rays from the sun. But they suspect Atlas Day females change colour more dramatically when carrying eggs. “We hope to investigate further,” says Bouazza.
Unlike most geckos, this species is active during the day. They are even occasionally seen running around on rocks surrounded by snow. - "Mathew Vickers, at the National Centre for Scientific Research in Moulis, France, thinks the geckos evolved to diurnality to help them survive in this cold climate. “Nocturnal geckos persist in warm places or where they can find warm refuges for the day time,” he says. - "Geckos are known to be territorial but living in a cold climate seems to make them more social, too. Several animals are often found basking in the same spot and sharing the same shelter, but only when it's cold - presumably for thermal benefits. Females communally lay eggs in warm crevices, which is not unique among geckos but the full benefits are not yet known. - *** - "Bouazza and his team are currently investigating the effect of altitude on the size of this species. So far, they have found that individuals, and eggs laid by females, are bigger and heavier with increasing altitude, which they attribute to more available food and less competition.
“The size difference is impressive,” says Bouazza, who presented the team's latest findings at the African Congress for Conservation Biology in El Jadida, Morocco, last month." - Comment: It looks like a reasoned learned behaviour, just like our black Texas cows under a tree for shade on hot days.

Natures wonders: seabirds dive safely at 50 MPH

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 06, 2016, 01:45 (2721 days ago) @ David Turell

A study shows that body and head design are perfect for such speeds:-http://phys.org/news/2016-10-birds-safely-high.html-"In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jung and his coworkers investigate the biomechanics of gannets' dives. They found that the birds' head shape, neck length and musculature, and diving speeds work in concert to ensure that the force of the water doesn't buckle their slim necks.-"Previous studies of the diving birds have focused on ecological aspects of this hunting behavior, called "plunge diving." Jung's is the first paper to explore the underlying physics and biomechanical engineering that allow the birds to plunge beneath the water without injury.-"To analyze the bird's body shape and neck musculature, the team used a salvaged gannet provided by the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. They also created 3-D printed replicas of gannet skulls from the collection at the Smithsonian Institution, which helped them measure the forces on the skull as it enters the water.-"The primary force acting on the gannet's head as it plunges beneath the water is drag, which increases with speed. To analyze what other parameters affect the force the bird experiences, the researchers created a simplified model from a 3-D printed cone on a flexible rubber "neck," and plunged this system into a basin of water, varying the cone angle, neck length, and impact speed. High-speed video showed whether the neck buckled.-"Their analysis revealed that the transition from stability to buckling depends on the geometry of the head, the material properties of the neck, and the impact speed; at typical gannet diving speeds, the birds' narrow, pointed beak and neck length kept the drag force in a safe range.-"What we found is that the gannet has a certain head shape, which reduces the drag compared to other birds in the same family," Jung said.
The researchers also discovered that the birds further reduce the risk of buckling by contracting their neck muscles before impact, straightening the S-shaped neck."-Comment: Nature keeps it record of showing us great living designs. If this was developed by birds trying it out, only the successful survivors would gradually improve the design. Seems unlikely, and again saltation has to be considered.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 06, 2016, 20:54 (2720 days ago) @ David Turell

A neat trick to get pollination for a plant:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108328-flower-hijacks-the-fragrance-of-attacked-bees-to-imprison-flies/-"Stop and smell the dying bees. The scent of a South African plant mimics the chemicals honeybees release when they're under attack.-"Scavenging flies on the lookout for a meal are then tricked into pollinating the plant's flowers.-"Many plants attract insect pollinators by exuding substances meant to mimic the sexy smell of potential mates or the alluring aroma of rotting flesh.-"Dötterl and his colleagues focused on solving the mystery for Ceropegia sandersonii, a South African plant that produces “pitfall flowers”, umbrella-shaped blossoms that keep pollinators trapped within their petals for about a day, before releasing them, now packed with pollen.-"To identify the plant's pollinators, the team gathered the insects they found imprisoned within its flowers. The most common was a type of small fly that dines on the drippings left by spiders as they kill and consume honeybees.
The team wondered if the plant could be exploiting the fly's culinary preferences to bait the insect.-“'What does a honeybee eaten by a spider and this flower have in common?” Dötterl asks.
To find out, the scientists simulated an attack by squeezing the honeybees with their fingers or poking them with a narrow glass cylinder, then collecting the defensive compounds the bees released. The team also extracted the chemicals given off by the plant, and found several compounds in common.-"Flies can perceive about half of those compounds, as subsequent experiments showed.
When the researchers left vials containing a blend of four of the overlapping substances outside, they lured in about half a dozen flies each in under an hour, while similar control vials of acetone were left alone.-“'They really look for a combination of compounds,” Dötterl says, referring to the scavenging flies. That makes sense because the individual chemicals are common in nature - many plants emit one or two of them - but the mixture is unique. “We found no other organism, other than the honeybee and this flower, which releases all four compounds together,” Dötterl adds.-"The team's use of multiple methods provides convincing evidence for how the flowers attract the flies, says Manfred Ayasse at the University of Ulm in Germany.
“It's a new fascinating example of chemical mimicry in plants that try to attract pollinators, and try to cheat them,” Ayasse says.-"It's also a good example of an intricate pollination system, says Jeremy McNeil at Western University in London, Ontario.-“'It goes to show that there are many ways to get a pollinator,” McNeil says. “The more we look, I think we're going to discover more and more.'”-Comment: How did chance evolution make this work? I have no idea, but the arrangement is very complex. Without pollination this plant won't survive. Let's assume this fly was pollinating but not often enough. To make the scent the plant had to know the flies' preferences in meals. How did it learn that? Not trial and error as Darwin might suggest. Saltation.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by dhw, Friday, October 07, 2016, 13:22 (2720 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for some more superb examples, first of animal intelligence, re apes:.-QUOTES: “This is the first time that any nonhuman animals have passed a version of the false belief test," Krupenye said.
"The findings suggest the ability is not unique to humans, but has existed in the primate family tree for at least 13 to 18 million years, since the last common ancestors of chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and humans."-David's comment: I'm not surprised. Humans and apes all started at the same place in evolution. But look how far we developed a difference and they are the same. Why? God.-The same ability, but look at the degree to which we have developed it. A natural consequence of our enhanced degree of consciousness. How did the earliest forms of consciousness come into being? Who knows? Maybe God.-Re Capuchin monkeys:
QUOTE: What this meant was that the monkeys were able to keep track of not only where the food would be, but how much to expect at each patch based on how much time had passed. And this means that they possess memory skills that up till now, only humans were believed to have."-David's comment: Squirrels do the same thing in nut storage. I'm not surprised at the findings.-Nor am I. It just goes to show yet again that we have inherited these skills from our fellow animals, but look at the degree to which we have developed them as a result of our enhanced consciousness.-David's comment (on dead bee scent): How did chance evolution make this work? I have no idea, but the arrangement is very complex. Without pollination this plant won't survive. Let's assume this fly was pollinating but not often enough. To make the scent the plant had to know the flies' preferences in meals. How did it learn that? Not trial and error as Darwin might suggest. Saltation.-Saltation does not explain how organisms learn! Learning entails sentience plus intelligence. Even trial and error entails intelligence, but the quicker the organism learns, the greater the intelligence. You are not surprised when monkeys (and squirrels) manifest signs of intelligence once thought to be exclusively the province of humans, and yet when other organisms show signs of intelligence, e.g. weaverbirds tying complicated knots, wasps and flies working out complex methods of surviving, or even plants learning from experience, these are just misleading outward signs - God has to preprogramme them or personally teach them to perform such feats.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Friday, October 07, 2016, 22:09 (2719 days ago) @ dhw


> David's comment (on dead bee scent): How did chance evolution make this work? I have no idea, but the arrangement is very complex. Without pollination this plant won't survive. Let's assume this fly was pollinating but not often enough. To make the scent the plant had to know the flies' preferences in meals. How did it learn that? Not trial and error as Darwin might suggest. Saltation.
> 
> dhw: Saltation does not explain how organisms learn! Learning entails sentience plus intelligence. Even trial and error entails intelligence, but the quicker the organism learns, the greater the intelligence. -Just how does a plant learn what as insect likes? Scent proteins are a special class, called esters, in a huge group of protein molecules in biochemistry. How does the plant know how to search for the right molecule? I have no answer except God. How much intelligence do you expect in plants without a brain?-> dhw:You are not surprised when monkeys (and squirrels) manifest signs of intelligence once thought to be exclusively the province of humans, and yet when other organisms show signs of intelligence, e.g. weaverbirds tying complicated knots, wasps and flies working out complex methods of surviving, or even plants learning from experience, these are just misleading outward signs - God has to preprogramme them or personally teach them to perform such feats.
 
Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by dhw, Saturday, October 08, 2016, 12:52 (2719 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment (on dead bee scent): How did chance evolution make this work? I have no idea, but the arrangement is very complex. Without pollination this plant won't survive. Let's assume this fly was pollinating but not often enough. To make the scent the plant had to know the flies' preferences in meals. How did it learn that? Not trial and error as Darwin might suggest. Saltation.

dhw: Saltation does not explain how organisms learn! Learning entails sentience plus intelligence. Even trial and error entails intelligence, but the quicker the organism learns, the greater the intelligence. 

DAVID: Just how does a plant learn what an insect likes? Scent proteins are a special class, called esters, in a huge group of protein molecules in biochemistry. How does the plant know how to search for the right molecule? I have no answer except God. How much intelligence do you expect in plants without a brain?

Enough intelligence to learn from their experience and apply that knowledge to fashion a method of survival.

DAVID: Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.

I have noted many times your firm belief that only organisms with a brain are capable of learning and processing information and working out their own methods of survival - although some, like the weaverbird, still have to rely on God to teach them how to build their nests. I wonder how many biologists and botanists agree with you that every single mode of plant survival has also had to be planned by God.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 08, 2016, 15:36 (2719 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.
> 
> dhw: I have noted many times your firm belief that only organisms with a brain are capable of learning and processing information and working out their own methods of survival - although some, like the weaverbird, still have to rely on God to teach them how to build their nests. I wonder how many biologists and botanists agree with you that every single mode of plant survival has also had to be planned by God.-I don't do consensus thinking. I make up my own conclusions.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by dhw, Sunday, October 09, 2016, 13:08 (2718 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.

dhw: I have noted many times your firm belief that only organisms with a brain are capable of learning and processing information and working out their own methods of survival - although some, like the weaverbird, still have to rely on God to teach them how to build their nests. I wonder how many biologists and botanists agree with you that every single mode of plant survival has also had to be planned by God.


DAVID: I don't do consensus thinking. I make up my own conclusions.

Which is admirable. But it does slightly diminish the impact of your claims that your conclusions are based on science.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 09, 2016, 21:45 (2717 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.
> 
> dhw: I have noted many times your firm belief that only organisms with a brain are capable of learning and processing information and working out their own methods of survival - although some, like the weaverbird, still have to rely on God to teach them how to build their nests. I wonder how many biologists and botanists agree with you that every single mode of plant survival has also had to be planned by God.
> 
> 
> DAVID: I don't do consensus thinking. I make up my own conclusions.
> 
> dhw: Which is admirable. But it does slightly diminish the impact of your claims that your conclusions are based on science.

I don't use the Bible and I am trained to understand the science. I can read results and reach conclusions. Remember, from outside the bacteria there are two possibilities. One is correct. I'm based on the science I read.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2016, 12:17 (2717 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Note my acceptance for animals learning involves them having a brain and the degree of complexity the new task involves.

dhw: I have noted many times your firm belief that only organisms with a brain are capable of learning and processing information and working out their own methods of survival - although some, like the weaverbird, still have to rely on God to teach them how to build their nests. I wonder how many biologists and botanists agree with you that every single mode of plant survival has also had to be planned by God.

DAVID: I don't do consensus thinking. I make up my own conclusions.

dhw: Which is admirable. But it does slightly diminish the impact of your claims that your conclusions are based on science.

DAVID: I don't use the Bible and I am trained to understand the science. I can read results and reach conclusions. Remember, from outside the bacteria there are two possibilities. One is correct. I'm based on the science I read.


No disagreement here, and very cleverly worded. Yes, there are two possibilities, and yes, one of them is correct. The one that you choose is based on your subjective interpretation of the science you read, which is equally open to the opposite interpretation. If you can claim that your conclusion is based on science, then others can also claim that their conclusion is based on science. Not much help, is it?

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Monday, October 10, 2016, 18:00 (2717 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't use the Bible and I am trained to understand the science. I can read results and reach conclusions. Remember, from outside the bacteria there are two possibilities. One is correct. I'm based on the science I read.
> 
> 
> dhw: No disagreement here, and very cleverly worded. Yes, there are two possibilities, and yes, one of them is correct. The one that you choose is based on your subjective interpretation of the science you read, which is equally open to the opposite interpretation. If you can claim that your conclusion is based on science, then others can also claim that their conclusion is based on science. Not much help, is it?-Science by consensus is not a way to interpret reality. The folks in 1903 didn't accept Einstein. It took Edington in 1919 to convince them.

Natures wonders: mock viper changes eye appearance

by David Turell @, Monday, October 10, 2016, 20:35 (2716 days ago) @ David Turell

This snake mimics a real viper as it changes pupil shape. How did it learn to do this? -https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108575-snake-fools-attackers-by-changing-its-eyes-to-look-like-a-viper/-“'Thailand is the land of mimics for snakes,” says Strine. “Most of the highly venomous snakes also have a non-venomous mimic counterpart.”-"This is true of the mock viper, which has the triangular head, cryptic colour pattern and enlarged front teeth of its lethal relation. But it also appears to have gone a step further and evolved to change the shape of its rounded pupils into the vertical slits typical of a venomous viper when attacked.-"Strine's team was intrigued by the event and wanted to see it again. So, over the last four years of a biodiversity project in Thailand, they captured 36 individuals showing this behaviour.-"One question is whether it evolved as part of the snake's elaborate mimicry. “We are not even sure if it is a defensive strategy or just something that happens when the viper is gripped,” Strine says.-"Another possibility is that vertical pupils appear less conspicuous, helping the snake obscure the outline of its head. Or it could be that constricting its pupils improves the mock viper's vision, so increasing the accuracy of its defensive strike.-“'I would love to look at this behaviour in a controlled lab setting because it may be that the behaviour has limitations based on aggressor species, stimuli and other environmental factors,” Strine says.-“'It's a very interesting observation but, as the authors say, it raises lots of questions,” says Gonçalo Rosa at the University of Nevada in Reno. “If this is indeed a defensive strategy for mock vipers, it is possible that we might find it in other species that share their habitat with true vipers.'”-Comment: It certainly does raise questions as to how it evolved. Did this snake watch real vipers and learned how to change pupil shape? Not likely. When they evolved did they share common genes from a common ancestor? But this is a separate species, and this commonality is not mentioned in the article. Back to God stepping in? No clear explanation.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by dhw, Tuesday, October 11, 2016, 15:16 (2716 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't use the Bible and I am trained to understand the science. I can read results and reach conclusions. Remember, from outside the bacteria there are two possibilities. One is correct. I'm based on the science I read.

dhw: No disagreement here, and very cleverly worded. Yes, there are two possibilities, and yes, one of them is correct. The one that you choose is based on your subjective interpretation of the science you read, which is equally open to the opposite interpretation. If you can claim that your conclusion is based on science, then others can also claim that their conclusion is based on science. Not much help, is it?

DAVID: Science by consensus is not a way to interpret reality. The folks in 1903 didn't accept Einstein. It took Edington in 1919 to convince them.Agreed.

So the argument that lots of scientists agree with you that bacteria are not intelligent carries no weight whatsoever. You are left with your own subjective view, just like your opponents, and your view is not based on science but on your subjective interpretation of science.

Natures wonders: plant dead bee scent attracts flies

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 11, 2016, 19:50 (2716 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So the argument that lots of scientists agree with you that bacteria are not intelligent carries no weight whatsoever. You are left with your own subjective view, just like your opponents, and your view is not based on science but on your subjective interpretation of science.

Of course my final opinion is subjective. My point is individual opinion is worth more than consensus, as Einstein proves. I don't believe the global warming garbage either and have lots of skeptical scientists with me. No theory is proof.

Natures wonders: ragworm farming for food

by David Turell @, Friday, October 14, 2016, 20:05 (2712 days ago) @ David Turell

They actually plant seeds and wait for growth:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109058-worms-seen-farming-plants-to-be-eaten-late...

"Marine worms have been spotted growing sprouts in their burrows, a type of cultivation never seen before in animals other than humans.

"Ragworms (Hediste diversicolor) were thought to consume the seeds of cordgrass, an abundant plant in the coastal habitats where they live. But the seeds have a tough husk, so it was a mystery how the worms could access the edible interior.

"Zhenchang Zhu at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research in Yerseke and his team have now discovered the worms’ surprising trick: they bury the seeds and wait for them to germinate, later feeding on the juicy sprouting shoots.

"The worms have a varied diet. They prey on small invertebrates and suck up plant debris from soil, the most abundant source of food in their environment.

"But sprouts, which are rich in protein, fats and amino acids, are more nutritious, even compared to the raw seeds. “The process of sprouting improves the digestibility and quality of the food,” says Zhu.

"Zhu and his team think the ragworms started cultivating sprouts partly because of a lack of high-quality food sources in their habitat.

"To test the effects of sprout consumption, they gave 20 worms different diets. Although the worms were initially about the same size, those that ate sprouts gained more weight, growing by 25 per cent, compared with 5 per cent for those that stuck to raw seeds and sediment."

"Ted Schultz, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, thinks that sprout cultivation could be important to the worms’ survival, and that this is a sophisticated adaptation because they must wait to harvest the food rather than consuming it immediately.

“'The behaviour will likely be favoured by evolution, and future generations of ragworms will also store seeds and reap the deferred benefits,” he says. “It’s the beginning of agriculture.”

"Ragworms are not the first animals to take up farming. Some beetles, termites and ants have cultivated fungus since long before humans started growing crops. And there are likely to be further examples: Zhu and his team think the ragworms may be cultivating bacteria in their burrows as a source of food, too.

"The researchers also suspect that earthworms could be sprout-growers, because they are thought to supplement their diets with seeds. “They have similar problems finding high-quality food,” says Zhu."

Comment: Same issue, learned behavior that becomes instinct is most likely, but saltation is a possibility.

Natures wonders: no photsynthesis, no pollination

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 15, 2016, 18:40 (2712 days ago) @ David Turell

The plant lives off a fungus food supply and develops closed flowers that self-fertilize internally:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161014092115.htm

A new species of plant has been discovered on the subtropical Japanese island of Kuroshima (located off the southern coast of Kyushu in Kagoshima prefecture) and named it Gastrodia kuroshimensis.... However, G. kuroshimensis was a particularly special discovery because it is both completely mycoheterophic, deriving its nutrition not from photosynthesis but from host fungi, and completely cleistogamous, producing flowers that never bloom.

***

G. kuroshimensis was a particularly special discovery because it is both completely mycoheterophic, deriving its nutrition not from photosynthesis but from host fungi, and completely cleistogamous, producing flowers that never bloom.

Cleistogamy, literally meaning 'a closed marriage', refers to plants that produce flowers in which self-fertilization occurs within closed buds. This mechanism of reproduction has intrigued botanists since the time of Darwin, and is now recognized as an important mechanism of self-pollination that is found in a diverse range of plant taxa. However, most cleistogamous species also produce chasmogamous (cross-pollinating) flowers. Cleistogamous flowers are considered a bet-hedging strategy, since they require less resources than chasmogamous flowers, and because they can provide reproductive assurance by setting seeds in the absence of pollinators and under disadvantageous environmental conditions. In addition, cleistogamous flowers can also promote adaptation to local habitats, as both maternal sets of genes can be passed onto the progeny, purging deleterious alleles (gene variants which are generally harmful). However, this is a somewhat risky strategy as the progeny are also less able to adapt to changes in spatially and temporally heterogeneous habitats.

The evolution of complete cleistogamy is therefore somewhat of a mystery. Chasmogamous flowers are an important factor in the success of most plants as even a small degree of outcrossing can result in a relatively rapid decline in linkage disequilibrium across the genome, and is sufficient to overcome the negative effects associated with an absence of effective recombination, such as the accumulation of deleterious mutations and a slowdown in the rate of adaptation. The discovery of G. kuroshimensis, therefore, provides a useful opportunity to further investigate the ecological significance, evolutionary history, and genetic mechanisms underlying the evolution of complete cleistogamy.

Comment: The symbiosis with a fungus is not unusual, but the reproductive method is like the hermaphroditic reproduction seen in animals. An odd twist to the usual evolutionary developments. It indicates that evolutionary progress is open to many, many roads that lead to survival.

Natures wonders: no photsynthesis, no pollination

by dhw, Monday, October 17, 2016, 12:48 (2710 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: The symbiosis with a fungus is not unusual, but the reproductive method is like the hermaphroditic reproduction seen in animals. An odd twist to the usual evolutionary developments. It indicates that evolutionary progress is open to many, many roads that lead to survival.

It is indeed truly amazing how many different ways organisms arrange their own modes of survival. And we must always remember that vast numbers of them have NOT survived. It all seems to point to autonomous, inventive intelligences which sometimes succeed and sometimes fail in the great higgledy-piggledy of life’s history.

Natures wonders: no photsynthesis, no pollination

by David Turell @, Monday, October 17, 2016, 15:09 (2710 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: The symbiosis with a fungus is not unusual, but the reproductive method is like the hermaphroditic reproduction seen in animals. An odd twist to the usual evolutionary developments. It indicates that evolutionary progress is open to many, many roads that lead to survival.

dhw: It is indeed truly amazing how many different ways organisms arrange their own modes of survival. And we must always remember that vast numbers of them have NOT survived. It all seems to point to autonomous, inventive intelligences which sometimes succeed and sometimes fail in the great higgledy-piggledy of life’s history.

Yes 99% of all species are gone, yet bacteria are still here. The disappearance is in multicellular organisms, which are the vehicle for complexity as evolution finally creates H. sapiens. I see a drive for complexity as less than perfect organisms are cast aside by adverse conditions.

Natures wonders: bird migration diural time switch

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 18, 2016, 18:42 (2709 days ago) @ David Turell

Birds with a diurnal activity pattern switch abruptly at migration time:

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-blackbirds-abruptly-fly-by-night-behaviour-migration.html

"Each year, billions of songbirds set out on autumn evenings to fly to their wintering grounds, necessitating a change of daily rhythm for the usually diurnal animals. Scientists had always assumed that the birds gradually adjusted their rhythm, but new technology has now enabled researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Radolfzell, with international partners, to observe free-living blackbirds at the onset of migration. They discovered that the birds change abruptly from diurnal to nocturnal activity immediately before departure.

"Setting out on a journey in the dead of night is something most people find difficult. When diurnal songbirds like the European blackbird (Turdus merula) set off on autumn nights on the long journey to warmer climes, they too must spring into action at an unaccustomed time. They take to the air on starry nights between dusk and midnight, requiring a change from daytime to night-time activity.

***

"The miniaturisation of radio-telemetry solved this problem for the ornithologists, who attached the two-gramme devices to the birds' backs, like a kind of rucksack. Some of these birds would migrate and others would remain at the same location through the winter. Measurements revealed that the daytime and night-time activities of a partially migratory blackbird population were no different between migrants and residents in the days before departure. Furthermore, the free-living blackbirds did not display any pre-migratory agitation before their autumn departure. On the contrary, they switched abruptly to a nocturnal rhythm at the time of departure. "The blackbirds get off to a flying start, going from zero to a hundred just like that. It's suddenly time for them to head off at night and travel through the following nights - although they're actually diurnal birds", says Jesko Partecke."

Comment: This abrupt switch in diurnal activity patter has got to be under strict genetic control and is instinctual. Since birds follow warmer weather, did they learn this pattern and epigenetically altered their genome, or was this a directed change by God.

Natures wonders: hungry rats use tools for treats

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 22, 2016, 01:51 (2705 days ago) @ David Turell

Another animal is shown to use tools:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109999-smart-lab-rats-filmed-using-hooked-tools-t...

"Rats have been filmed for the first time using hooked tools to get chocolate cereal – a manifestation of their critter intelligence.

"Akane Nagano and Kenjiro Aoyama, of Doshisha University in Kyotanabe, Japan, placed eight brown rats in a transparent box and trained them to pull small hooked tools to obtain the cereal that was otherwise beyond their reach.

"In one experiment they gave them two similar hooked tools, one of which worked well for the food retrieval task, and the other did not. The rats quickly learned to choose the correct tool for the job, selecting it 95 per cent of the time.

"The experiments showed that the rats understood the spatial arrangement between the food and the tool. The team’s study is the first to demonstrate that rats are able to use tools, says Nagano.

"The rats did get a little confused in the final experiment. When the team gave them a rake that looked the part but with a bottom was too soft and flimsy to move the cereal, they still tried to use it as much as the working tool that was also available. But, says Nagano, it is possible their eyesight was simply not good enough for them to tell that the flimsy tool wasn’t up to the task. (my bold)

"The rodents’ crafty feat places them in the ever-growing club of known tool-using animals such as chimps, bearded capuchin monkeys, New Caledonian crows, alligators and even some fish.

“'I think this is a really important study that urges us to keep open minds about the evolution of tool behaviour,” says Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado, Boulder. “These tool-using abilities occur in a wider range of species than most people would imagine.”

"The results also add to previous research on rats’ cognitive and emotional, capacities, which, as Bekoff points out, people tend to ignore. “We know that rats display empathy, we know that rats like to be tickled and feel joy,” he says. “They are smart and emotional beings.'”

Comment: Note the bolded paragraph. This is an overstated result. The rats were trained. They didn't work it out for themselves as crows and chimps do. The excuse that their eyesight confused them about the soft tool, is trying to excuse the fact that they simply were following training in a blind fashion (pun intended), not real tool users who initiate the ability.

Natures wonders: huge warbler migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 21:11 (2700 days ago) @ David Turell

The birds cover a huge flight pattern from Turkey to Africa and back again:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026144352.htm

"Biologists at the University of Utah recently used light-weight geolocation technology to follow a species of songbird on its 10,000-kilometer migration from the Middle East to sub-Saharan Africa.

***

"...the development of "geolocators" has allowed for the production of extremely light-weight tracking units. Rather than using satellites, geolocators use the amount of sunlight to infer the timing of sunset and sunrise. From this information scientists can use the time the sun rose to deduce the bird's longitude, and the length of the day to deduce latitude. Because these devices do not communicate with satellites, the size of the battery -- and hence the weight -- can be greatly reduced.

***

"The study revealed that during the fall, the birds flew roughly 3,600 kilometers from Turkey into South Sudan, crossing the Middle East, Arabia and Sahara deserts. There the birds spent four months in central African wetlands before relocating 2,100 kilometers southeast to the Indian Ocean coast. In April the birds began moving back to Turkey, travelling 5,500 kilometers over the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. These movements resulted in an annual journey of over 11,000 kilometers or roughly the distance from Alaska to Chile (or roughly the distance from Utah to the tip of South America). This is the second-longest recorded migration for Great Reed Warblers ever recorded."

Comment: Note this migration pattern is very unusual. It is not a simple back and forth but makes a giant triangular circle pattern. We know how birds in general can use the magnetic field, sun position patterns, etc. but why did they decide on three directions? This is another mystery in understanding migration pattern and this is a giant one. Again the issue of God helping.

Natures wonders: plants adapt to very low light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 22:55 (2700 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants use sunlight to make their food by photosynthesis, which takes carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere and converts it into organic carbon compounds for food.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/10/24/this-plant-grows-...

"It may be an article of faith that plant life on our planet must be verdant: Plants make energy with chloroplasts, chloroplasts are full of chlorophyll, and chlorophyll is green. But that hasn't always been the case. Studies have suggested that the earliest photosynthetic organisms were plum-colored, because they relied on photosynthetic chemicals that absorbed different wavelengths of light.

"And a new paper in the journal Nature Plants describes how a shimmering blue plant can still exist: Begonia pavonina, or the “peacock begonia,” dwells in the dim rain forests of southeast Asia and has adapted to the low levels of sunlight there by developing leaves that are an iridescent azure.

"The unusual coloring comes from photosynthetic structures called iridoplasts, explained co-author Heather Whitney, an expert in plant surface interactions at the University of Bristol in England. Like chloroplasts, these structures provide the cellular machinery for photosynthesis. They collect light and use it to synthesize molecules that store energy. And for that light gathering, they also rely on chlorophyll — a pigment that absorbs red and blue light and reflects green (giving plants their typical appearance).

"But when Whitney and her colleagues examined B. pavonina cells under a microscope, they noticed that the iridoplasts had a very strange shape. They were layered on top of one another, membrane upon membrane separated by a thin film of liquid, almost like a stack of pancakes held together with maple syrup.

***

“'The light that is passing through gets slightly bent — it's called interference,” Whitney said. “So you have this sort of iridescent shimmer.”

"This layering of iridoplasts causes the light that hits them to bend over and over again, creating a very dramatic sheen. More important, it enables the structure to absorb the types of light available in the dark landscape beneath the forest canopy — long wavelengths like red and green. Only blue light gets reflected back, and that's what human admirers see.

"Whitney and her colleagues also think the layering causes light to react more slowly with the photosynthetic chemicals in the structure, allowing yet more efficient light gathering to take place.

"To Whitney, the finding offers further evidence of plants' incredible versatility. Because they are unable to move when conditions are unfavorable, they must find other ways of adapting to the world around them. Often that adaptation is chemical — like the evolution of a purple photosynthetic chemical on early Earth, which was well suited to the wavelengths of light that were available at the time.

“'But plants aren't just factories” stuck using the same types of equipment for generation after generation, Whitney said. Iridoplasts show they can alter their machinery, using those structural adaptations to manipulate light."

Comment: This is an adaptation that could well be epigenetic. It is a neat structural trick to intensify the available light.  

Natures wonders: Assassin bugs stalk spiders on webs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 23:17 (2700 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 23:24

They carefully cross the web with the spider not recognizing the attack until they become lunch:

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-giraffe-assassin-bugs-outwit-spider.html

"Assassin bugs earned their name by stealthily sneaking up on prey and driving their beaks into the bodies of their victims, quickly killing them by sucking out their innards. The giraffe variety has a long neck and survives by sneaking up on spiders in their webs and killing and eating them. But scientists have wondered how the bugs manage the feat without being detected by the spiders. Spider webs are more than just nets used to catch flying insects; they are also transmitters of tiny movements that cause very small vibrations—this is how a spider knows if a bug has been trapped so that it can quickly hurry over and kill it before it escapes. But giraffe assassin bugs somehow make their way across a web without causing vibrations, allowing them to sneak up on their prey.

"To solve the riddle, Soley captured several specimens and brought them back to his lab for testing. He also captured several spider specimens and coaxed them into spinning webs in the lab, as well. He aimed a laser at the webs as the assassin bugs stalked the spiders and filmed the results.The video revealed that the bugs used their foretarsi (tips of front legs) to grab hold of single strands of the web and then to gently pull them apart, tearing the web. The bugs then carefully released the torn strands, avoiding recoil, and moved on to another, making a beeline for the unsuspecting spider. The laser vibrometry sensor revealed that this technique allowed the assassin bugs to make their way to the spider without causing ripples in the web.

"Soley also found that the assassin bugs prefer to stalk their prey when there is a slight breeze (in the lab he used a fan), which causes the web strands to shake, making it more difficult for the spider to detect subtle vibrations. He also noticed that the bugs varied the timing of slicing the web, which made it even more difficult for the spider to sense impending doom."

Comment: This behaviour might have developed by a series of attempts to sneak up, but unless done with the stealth currently demonstrated it was probably mostly fatal. Did lucky ones pass it on? How? Was there observation by bystanders? All seems implausible. Perhaps God helped. Another take says it doesn't always work:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110313-spider-eating-bug-muffles-web-vibrations-t...

"This stealth is crucial because a single reckless move can be fatal. In up to 10 per cent of cases, the spider detects the bug and launches a counter-attack, Soley says. “Spiders have silk and venom, so they can work the prey from a distance, bite them and weaken them before finishing the job.”

"The insect’s ability to trick spiders is unusual, says Mark Elgar at the University of Melbourne. “This is interesting because there are numerous examples of spiders using intriguing methods of capturing insect prey, but rather fewer instances of clever ways in which insects capture spiders."

Natures wonders: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 23:44 (2700 days ago) @ David Turell

A single celled animal self-sacrifices itself and releases viral making protein to kill attacking virus:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110407-kamikaze-cells-wage-biowarfare-and-fight-v...

"The single-celled predator, Cafeteria roenbergensis, is common in coastal waters around the world, where it snacks on bacteria... But Cafeteria has a deadly enemy of its own, the giant CroV virus.

***

"...giant viruses, discovered only in 2003, are more like living cells than normal viruses. They have the machinery to make proteins, which means they are vulnerable to viral attack themselves. For example, maviruses infect CroVs, forcing them to make more maviruses instead of CroVs, as Matthias Fischer, now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, discovered in 2011.

"That, of course, is good news for Cafeteria, because mavirus halts the spread of CroV.

"And Cafeteria has evolved to exploit the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rather than waiting for maviruses to arrive by chance when CroVs attack, it actually carries the genes that code for mavirus inside its own genome.

"These genes are usually dormant, but they get turned on when Cafeteria is invaded by CroV. “It acts as an inducible antiviral defence system,” write Fischer and his colleague Thomas Hackl in a new preprint paper.

"The infected Cafeteria cell still dies – but when it breaks apart it releases maviruses rather than CroVs, preventing the spread of the infection. This, then, is altruistic behaviour, which turns out to be surprisingly common among microbes. For instance, some bacteria kill themselves as soon as they are infected by viruses to prevent the infection spreading.

"Other microbes form spore-bearing structures, with the cells making the stalk sacrificing themselves to give the spore-forming cells at the top a chance of surviving.

"Cafeteria may not be the only animal to use living bioweapons to defend itself. A wide range of animals, from sea anemones to crocodiles, harbour genetic elements called Maverick transposons that closely resemble the mavirus genes. It’s possible that some of these organisms can also unleash viruses that attack giant viruses.

"It is common for viral genes to end up inside the genomes of animals. In fact, our genomes are littered with the mutant remains of viruses and genetic parasites.

"Many viruses deliberately insert their genes into the genomes of the animals they attack, so they can lie dormant and emerge when conditions are favourable. In response, most animals have evolved ways of shutting down genes that code for viruses.

"It is, however, extremely unusual for an animal to deliberately trigger virus production, as Cafeteria does – but then mavirus is unusual, too, because it targets another virus rather than Cafeteria itself.

Comment: Another 'how did it develop' problem. Does the Cafeteria do this to protect others of its type? Or is it simply a byproduct of getting killed. And if that is true how did it develop and get passed on to subsequent generations. Death doesn't pass on bacterial inheritance, only cell splitting to daughter cells does that. God did it?

God's Natures wonder: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by David Turell @, Friday, November 04, 2016, 20:08 (2691 days ago) @ David Turell

A single celled animal self-sacrifices itself and releases viral making protein to kill attacking virus:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110407-kamikaze-cells-wage-biowarfare-and-fight-v...


"The infected Cafeteria cell still dies – but when it breaks apart it releases maviruses rather than CroVs, preventing the spread of the infection. This, then, is altruistic behaviour, which turns out to be surprisingly common among microbes. For instance, some bacteria kill themselves as soon as they are infected by viruses to prevent the infection spreading.

"Many viruses deliberately insert their genes into the genomes of the animals they attack, so they can lie dormant and emerge when conditions are favourable. In response, most animals have evolved ways of shutting down genes that code for viruses.

"It is, however, extremely unusual for an animal to deliberately trigger virus production, as Cafeteria does – but then mavirus is unusual, too, because it targets another virus rather than Cafeteria itself.

Comment: Another 'how did it develop' problem. Does the Cafeteria do this to protect others of its type? Or is it simply a byproduct of getting killed. And if that is true how did it develop and get passed on to subsequent generations. Death doesn't pass on bacterial inheritance, only cell splitting to daughter cells does that. God did it?

No comment so far on this. It is a very precise problem. If you, a single-celled organism die in a defense mechanism, how is it fixed into evolution for daughter cells to carry if the only way to pass on inheritance is splitting onto two daughters? This has got to be God as the causative agent!

God's Natures wonder: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by dhw, Saturday, November 05, 2016, 12:43 (2691 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A single celled animal self-sacrifices itself and releases viral making protein to kill attacking virus:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110407-kamikaze-cells-wage-biowarfare-and-fight-v...

QUOTE: "The infected Cafeteria cell still dies – but when it breaks apart it releases maviruses rather than CroVs, preventing the spread of the infection. This, then, is altruistic behaviour, which turns out to be surprisingly common among microbes. For instance, some bacteria kill themselves as soon as they are infected by viruses to prevent the infection spreading."

David's comment: Another 'how did it develop' problem. Does the Cafeteria do this to protect others of its type? Or is it simply a byproduct of getting killed. And if that is true how did it develop and get passed on to subsequent generations. Death doesn't pass on bacterial inheritance, only cell splitting to daughter cells does that. God did it?
DAVID: No comment so far on this. It is a very precise problem. If you, a single-celled organism die in a defense mechanism, how is it fixed into evolution for daughter cells to carry if the only way to pass on inheritance is splitting onto two daughters? This has got to be God as the causative agent!

You will have to help me on this, because I may have misunderstood your comment. What is passed on? If it’s the defence mechanism – i.e. the altruistic self-sacrifice – it’s behavioural inheritance, and any form of behaviour that is advantageous could be passed on by cell memory (Sheldrake’s “morphic field” for the Cafeteria?). Where did cell memory come from? Maybe God.

What is of great interest to me is the altruism, which we also find very strikingly in other social organisms like ants. The fact that it is “surprisingly common among microbes” is perhaps not so surprising once we accept the possibility that microbes are intelligent beings. We humans pride ourselves on our altruism, as if somehow it is unique to our species, but once more it is a trait passed down to us from the very earliest of organisms – just like its counterpart of “me first”!

God's Natures wonder: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 05, 2016, 14:26 (2691 days ago) @ dhw


David's comment: Another 'how did it develop' problem. Does the Cafeteria do this to protect others of its type? Or is it simply a byproduct of getting killed. And if that is true how did it develop and get passed on to subsequent generations. Death doesn't pass on bacterial inheritance, only cell splitting to daughter cells does that. God did it?
DAVID: No comment so far on this. It is a very precise problem. If you, a single-celled organism die in a defense mechanism, how is it fixed into evolution for daughter cells to carry if the only way to pass on inheritance is splitting onto two daughters? This has got to be God as the causative agent!

dhw: You will have to help me on this, because I may have misunderstood your comment. What is passed on? If it’s the defence mechanism – i.e. the altruistic self-sacrifice – it’s behavioural inheritance, and any form of behaviour that is advantageous could be passed on by cell memory (Sheldrake’s “morphic field” for the Cafeteria?). Where did cell memory come from? Maybe God.

The point I'm making is at the starting point of this species. The first individuals with this capacity die in the process of defending themselves. How do the dead pass on the ability, if dying in the process of defense? The origin of this species must involve a large number of individuals at the start, all with this ability to explain the start. Some are attacked and die. Others then survive and reproduce. This speciation must be a saltation.


dhw: What is of great interest to me is the altruism, which we also find very strikingly in other social organisms like ants.

Altruism requires making judgmental thought, that is what you are implying. In this organism, no way. It is automatic.

God's Natures wonder: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by dhw, Sunday, November 06, 2016, 13:43 (2690 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The point I'm making is at the starting point of this species. The first individuals with this capacity die in the process of defending themselves. How do the dead pass on the ability, if dying in the process of defense? The origin of this species must involve a large number of individuals at the start, all with this ability to explain the start. Some are attacked and die. Others then survive and reproduce. This speciation must be a saltation.

I don’t understand why the species has to begin with this capacity. As I understand it, the process would have begun when some existing Cafeteria were first attacked by the CroVs. It’s not the origin of a species but the origin of a means of countering an enemy:

QUOTE: And Cafeteria has evolved to exploit the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rather than waiting for maviruses to arrive by chance when CroVs attack, it actually carries the genes that code for mavirus inside its own genome.

These genes are usually dormant, but they get turned on when Cafeteria is invaded by CroV. “It acts as an inducible antiviral defence system,” write Fischer and his colleague Thomas Hackl in a new preprint paper.

The infected Cafeteria cell still dies – but when it breaks apart it releases maviruses rather than CroVs, preventing the spread of the infection. This, then, is altruistic behaviour, which turns out to be surprisingly common among microbes. For instance, some bacteria kill themselves as soon as they are infected by viruses to prevent the infection spreading.

Isn’t this just a very original form of immunisation? When CroV strikes, the dormant mavirus gene is turned on, and although the individual dies, this prevents the spread of infection to other individuals. Why would this have required a new species? Surely all mechanisms for immunity help to preserve a species, not create one.

dhw: What is of great interest to me is the altruism, which we also find very strikingly in other social organisms like ants.
DAVID: Altruism requires making judgmental thought, that is what you are implying. In this organism, no way. It is automatic.

Some scientists believe that even microorganisms are sentient, cognitive, conscious, intelligent, decision-making beings (though of course not humanly conscious and intelligent). I think we may have had this discussion before!

God's Natures wonder: Cell conducts anti-viral warfare

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 06, 2016, 15:15 (2690 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The point I'm making is at the starting point of this species. The first individuals with this capacity die in the process of defending themselves. How do the dead pass on the ability, if dying in the process of defense? The origin of this species must involve a large number of individuals at the start, all with this ability to explain the start. Some are attacked and die. Others then survive and reproduce. This speciation must be a saltation.

I don’t understand why the species has to begin with this capacity. As I understand it, the process would have begun when some existing Cafeteria were first attacked by the CroVs. It’s not the origin of a species but the origin of a means of countering an enemy:

QUOTE: And Cafeteria has evolved to exploit the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rather than waiting for maviruses to arrive by chance when CroVs attack, it actually carries the genes that code for mavirus inside its own genome.

These genes are usually dormant, but they get turned on when Cafeteria is invaded by CroV. “It acts as an inducible antiviral defence system,” write Fischer and his colleague Thomas Hackl in a new preprint paper.

The infected Cafeteria cell still dies – but when it breaks apart it releases maviruses rather than CroVs, preventing the spread of the infection. This, then, is altruistic behaviour, which turns out to be surprisingly common among microbes. For instance, some bacteria kill themselves as soon as they are infected by viruses to prevent the infection spreading.

dhw:Isn’t this just a very original form of immunisation? When CroV strikes, the dormant mavirus gene is turned on, and although the individual dies, this prevents the spread of infection to other individuals. Why would this have required a new species? Surely all mechanisms for immunity help to preserve a species, not create one.

I've explained my concept of new species in my entry today on Wolfe: Sunday, November 06, 2016, 14:57. You are again thinking of the Darwin approach of a tiny number of new individuals starting a new species, I think it is a God saltation of many new individuals.

Natures wonders: hungry cockatoos use tools for treats

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 17, 2016, 01:09 (2679 days ago) @ David Turell

Like clever corvids, this parrot species uses tools in the lab. It is not known if they do it in the wild:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2112896-creative-cockatoos-skilfully-make-tools-fr...

"It’s toolmaking with intent. Goffin’s cockatoos in the lab use their beaks to carefully cut out a tool from a sheet of cardboard before using it to retrieve an out-of-reach nut.

"In 2012, a male Goffin’s cockatoo named Figaro proved to be smarter than the average bird: he worked out that he could get to a nut just beyond his reach by tearing a long splinter off a chunk of wood and using it to rake the food.

"The behaviour – which some other cockatoos also picked up later – seemed to suggest the intentional creation of tools with a specific design for reaching food. But there were some doubters.

“'There were questions on whether the elongated shape of the tool was intentional,” says Alice Auersperg at the University of Vienna in Austria, who described Figaro’s behaviour in 2012. “He could just have bitten the material out of frustration and ended up with a functional tool due to the age lines of the wood.”

"In other words, wood naturally tears into the shape of a nut-retrieving tool, making it unclear whether the birds set out deliberately to fashion tools of the right shape for the task, or whether they just stumbled upon one that works well.

***

"All four birds quickly worked out how to strip the leaves off the twig and turn it into an effective tool. Three of the four had previously worked out how to tear long splinters off the block of wood for nut retrieval and were able to do it in this trial too. But both of these materials naturally lend themselves to forming long and thin tools perfect for nut retrieval.

"In contrast, cardboard doesn’t naturally tear into long, thin shapes. Surprisingly, though, Figaro and one other male cockatoo could still fashion a perfect nut-retrieving tool using the material.

"Instead of simply pulling off chunks of cardboard at random, both birds used their sharp beaks to make a series of perforations in the cardboard sheet that created the shape of a long and thin prodding tool. They could then easily detach it from the sheet and use it to retrieve the nut.

"Auersperg says the test with the cardboard makes a stronger case that the birds can “see” a useful tool in a piece of material and then set about making it.
The fact that Goffin’s cockatoos are not known to use tools in the wild makes this behaviour even more impressive.

"In 2002, a New Caledonian crow called Betty became a worldwide sensation for her ability to bend a piece of wire into a hook to retrieve an inaccessible reward. This seemed to make her some sort of animal genius. Earlier this year, though, a team led by Christian Rutz at the University of St Andrews, UK, found evidence that New Caledonian crows do, in fact, occasionally fashion similar bent tools in the wild.

"Rutz says careful study of birds in the wild might show that Goffin’s cockatoos are natural toolmakers too – although Figaro and his friends may have worked out how to make tools spontaneously. “Both of the options remain a possibility,” he says."

Comment: Corvids do it in the wild, so this is something these bird brains can handle. Very impressive.

Natures wonders: hungry cockatoos use tools for treats

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 20:14 (930 days ago) @ David Turell

Another new report:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2288714-wild-cockatoos-make-utensils-out-of-tree-b...

"Some wild cockatoos whittle tree branches into utensils that they use to open and dig into the seed-laden pits, or stones, of tropical fruit.

***

“'They definitely knew the fruit, and they knew what to do with it,” says O’Hara.

***

"O’Hara’s team filmed one bird pushing a piece of wood against a sea mango. But deep in the rainforest, the researchers found perhaps their hardest evidence of the parrots’ tool use in the wild: a half-eaten sea mango on the jungle floor, complete with a whittled wood fragment still thrust into its pit."

Comment: Cardboard or wood they know how to make and use tools.

Natures wonders: insect teeth with zinc protein molecules

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:09 (929 days ago) @ David Turell

Teh metal adds to the strength:

https://theconversation.com/zinc-infused-proteins-are-the-secret-that-allows-scorpions-...

"Many small animals grow their teeth, claws and other “tools” out of materials that are filled with zinc, bromine and manganese, reaching up to 20% of the material’s weight. My colleagues and I call these “heavy element biomaterials,” and in a new paper, we suggest that these materials make it possible for animals to grow scalpel-sharp and precisely shaped tools that are resistant to breaking, deformation and wear.

***

"It’s not surprising that materials that could make sharp tools would evolve in small animals. A tick and a wolf both need to puncture the same elk skin, but the wolf has vastly stronger muscles. The tick can make up for its tiny muscles by using sharper tools that focus force onto smaller regions.

"But, like a sharp pencil tip, sharper tool tips break more easily. The danger of fracture is made even worse by the tendency for small animals to extend their reach using long thin tools – like those pictured above. And a chipped claw or tooth may be fatal for a small animal that doesn’t have the strength to cut with blunted tools.

"But we found that heavy element biomaterials are also particularly hard and damage-resistant.

"From an evolutionary perspective, these materials allow smaller animals to consume tougher foods. And the energy saved by using less force during cutting can be important for any animal. These advantages may explain the widespread use of heavy element biomaterials in nature – most ants, many other insects, spiders and their relatives, marine worms, crustaceans and many other types of organisms use them."

Comment: The researchers do not know exactly how the metals are so helpful, and will study more. To me this is obviously a designed solution becasue of its specificity.

Natures wonders: insect uses resin to catch prey

by David Turell @, Friday, May 12, 2023, 23:23 (311 days ago) @ David Turell

A sticky substance holds the prey long enough to kill:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-a-rare-example-of-insects-using-tools-...

"In Australia, assassin bugs use a lethal tool to ensnare snacks: resin from spinifex grass. Recent research shows that the crawly critters slather themselves in the gluey gum to catch and keep their prey.

***

"The authors say this makes assassin bugs "a particularly promising case for understanding the ecological and behavioral conditions that facilitated the otherwise unlikely evolution of tool-use."

"Because tool use requires a level of complex cognition, it was once thought to be a way to set humans apart from other animals, but researchers are now finding more and more examples of tool use across the animal kingdom.

"Humans were even using tools before our thumbs fully developed dexterity, and it seems the earliest tools were not even human-made. Dolphins protect their beaks with sea sponges, pigs use sticks, and even brainy birds and bees are in on it.

"Scientists had a hunch that assassin bugs' hunting success would increase if they coated themselves in the sticky resin of plants, but this had not been tested in experiments.

***

"The researchers put the insects in a glass jar with a stick and introduced two kinds of prey: flies and ants. Then they used makeup removal pads to carefully wipe the resin off the insects' bodies, and the experiment was repeated.

"The bugs were generally more successful at catching ants than flies, and importantly, they were more effective at catching prey when they had resin on their bodies, regardless of the type of prey.

"Resin-covered insects were 26 percent more successful at capturing either type of prey than their unarmed counterparts. Flies are tricky to catch even on a good day, and without resin, 64 percent of the flies that Gorareduvius touched got away."

Comment: the insects live in this resin-producing grass. How much is accidental and how much is instinct is not clear. The authors don't describe the insects rubbing them themselves all over with resin.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 14:47 (2533 days ago) @ David Turell

Another story on the age of this style of ant/fungus farming:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-agricultural-revolution-in-a-changing-climate-m...

"Now a team of scientists from the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History have identified when and where the planet’s first farmers – ants – made a revolutionary leap in their own agricultural evolution, developing farming practices rivalling modern human agriculture by domesticating fungal crops to the point where the fungi’s survival and evolution became dependent on their formic farmers.

"The transition to this higher form of ant agriculture from a lower, “primitive” practice, which involved subterranean farming of fungi that also existed in the wild, occurred about 30 million years ago, following the Terminal Eocene Event when the planet’s climate cooled considerably, according to the new research, published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"The findings, using phylogenics – the analysis of complete genome sets to identify evolutionary events – overturn prevailing theories that the transition took place in the same habitat where ant farming began: the rainforests of South America, where fungus-farming ants (known as the Attini tribe) originated shortly after the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass-extinction event around 60 million years ago, believed to have been caused by a meteorite impact.

"It was during the “nuclear winter” aftermath of the impact, when relying on food sources not requiring immediate photosynthesis became a better path for survival, that ants feeding on certain fungi lost their ability to synthesise arginine, a crucial amino acid for producing proteins, and became dependent on the fungi for it, “committing them to agrarian life”.

"Though this initial transition occurred in the humid South American rainforest, the authors found that “the ancestors of most major attine lineages, including the ancestors of higher fungus farmers and leaf-cutter ants, probably evolved in dry or seasonally dry habitat”. They hypothesise that moving into dry habitats may have been the trigger causing the farmed fungus to diverge from its wild relatives.

"The scientists, led by entomologist Ted Schultz, the Smithsonian museum’s curator of ants, postulate that the wet conditions of rainforests conducive to “wild” fungi limited the dependence of fungal crops on their ant farmers. As the climate cooled and drier habitats became more common, however, cultivated fungi became dependent for survival on the climate-controlled conditions of underground agricultural ant colonies, and unable to escape and mix it up with wild fungi. “If things are getting a little too dry, the ants go out and get water and they add it,” Schultz explains. “If you’ve been carried into a dry habitat, your fate is going to match the fate of the colony you’re in.”

"Schultz argues that studying the co-evolution of ant farmers and their fungal partners may offer important lessons to inform our own challenges with agricultural adaptation to a changing climate. “These higher agricultural ant societies have been practicing sustainable, industrial-scale agriculture for millions of years,” he says. “[It] provides all the nourishment needed for their societies using a single crop that is resistant to disease, pests and droughts.'”

Comment: This practice was known but now is shown to be so old it comes from the Chicxulub asteroid. The relationship to climate changes shows the adaptability of ants. Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Thursday, April 13, 2017, 10:05 (2532 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Schultz argues that studying the co-evolution of ant farmers and their fungal partners may offer important lessons to inform our own challenges with agricultural adaptation to a changing climate. “These higher agricultural ant societies have been practicing sustainable, industrial-scale agriculture for millions of years,” he says. “[It] provides all the nourishment needed for their societies using a single crop that is resistant to disease, pests and droughts.'”

DAVID’s comment: This practice was known but now is shown to be so old it comes from the Chicxulub asteroid. The relationship to climate changes shows the adaptability of ants. Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure.

The adaptability of bacteria is even more astonishing, since they seem to be able to thrive in virtually every type of environment. But in their case you are quite sure God has not even “helped” – he has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single decision they take. Brained organisms chauvinism.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 13, 2017, 22:06 (2531 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: This practice was known but now is shown to be so old it comes from the Chicxulub asteroid. The relationship to climate changes shows the adaptability of ants. Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure.

dhw: The adaptability of bacteria is even more astonishing, since they seem to be able to thrive in virtually every type of environment. But in their case you are quite sure God has not even “helped” – he has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single decision they take. Brained organisms chauvinism.

A brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face, and that can fool an outside observer into thinking a bacteria is intrinsically intelligent of its own.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Friday, April 14, 2017, 11:31 (2531 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: This practice was known but now is shown to be so old it comes from the Chicxulub asteroid. The relationship to climate changes shows the adaptability of ants. Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure.
dhw: The adaptability of bacteria is even more astonishing, since they seem to be able to thrive in virtually every type of environment. But in their case you are quite sure God has not even “helped” – he has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single decision they take. Brained organisms chauvinism.
DAVID: A brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face, and that can fool an outside observer into thinking a bacteria is intrinsically intelligent of its own.

Great. There is virtually no environmental problem a bacterium can’t solve. So at last we have brained organisms (which include ants) capable of solving virtually all the problems posed by the environment, and it is only bacteria that need to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally instructed by your God. Thank you for this massive concession to animal intelligence.

Dhw (under “RNA control of genes”): My post pointed out that all the basic needs you had listed are shared by humans. I did not equate basterial lifestyle with ours, as should be clear from the passage you have quoted. The fact that some organisms lead simpler lives than others does not mean your God has had to preprogramme or personally direct every single decision they make. However, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument can be applied to every form of life. Perhaps we are all variations of the Stepford wives and don’t know it.
DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that seemingly intelligent activity can be the result of intelligent controls offered by well-designed DNA.

So it is quite possible that you and I are a form of Stepford wife.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Friday, April 14, 2017, 15:25 (2531 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:Great. There is virtually no environmental problem a bacterium can’t solve. So at last we have brained organisms (which include ants) capable of solving virtually all the problems posed by the environment, and it is only bacteria that need to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally instructed by your God. Thank you for this massive concession to animal intelligence.

You didn't note this comment by me: "Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure." Yes ants have a 'mound mind' and bees have a 'hive mind'. Organized societal controls.


Dhw (under “RNA control of genes”): My post pointed out that all the basic needs you had listed are shared by humans. I did not equate basterial lifestyle with ours, as should be clear from the passage you have quoted. The fact that some organisms lead simpler lives than others does not mean your God has had to preprogramme or personally direct every single decision they make. However, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument can be applied to every form of life. Perhaps we are all variations of the Stepford wives and don’t know it.
DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that seemingly intelligent activity can be the result of intelligent controls offered by well-designed DNA.

So it is quite possible that you and I are a form of Stepford wife.

Yeah, with copious free will, or haven't you noticed. You jumped the discussion from bacterial lifestyle to human lifestyle, which is an effective debate trick, but that is all it is.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Saturday, April 15, 2017, 12:47 (2530 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Great. There is virtually no environmental problem a bacterium can’t solve. So at last we have brained organisms (which include ants) capable of solving virtually all the problems posed by the environment, and it is only bacteria that need to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally instructed by your God. Thank you for this massive concession to animal intelligence.
DAVID: You didn't note this comment by me: "Ant planning ( they have brains) with or without God's help? Hard to know for sure." Yes ants have a 'mound mind' and bees have a 'hive mind'. Organized societal controls.

Your comment was preceded by: “The relationship to climate changes shows the adaptability of ants.” My reply was: “The adaptability of bacteria is even more astonishing, since they seem to be able to thrive in virtually every type of environment. But in their case you are quite sure God has not even “helped” – he has preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single decision they take. Brained organisms chauvinism.” You then wrote:
A brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face, and that can fool an outside observer into thinking a bacteria is intrinsically intelligent of its own.” If that is the case, since ants have brains, you have answered your own question: your God gave ants brains to solve environmental problems – he did not have to help – and the same should apply to all organisms with brains. No “help” needed. Congratulations to the monarch, the cuttlefish, and maybe even those fish that first tested out life on dry land.

DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that seemingly intelligent activity can be the result of intelligent controls offered by well-designed DNA.
Dhw: So it is quite possible that you and I are a form of Stepford wife.
DAVID: Yeah, with copious free will, or haven't you noticed. You jumped the discussion from bacterial lifestyle to human lifestyle, which is an effective debate trick, but that is all it is.

Once again you have missed the point. I had given free will as an example of your God creating a system whereby he did not exercise control. Under “Purpose and design” I made this perfectly clear: "(Free will would illustrate the same principle - unless you believe your God has made us variants of the Stepford wives)". Giving an example is not a debate trick. If you insist that intelligent behaviour could be a cover for automatism, the principle must be valid for all forms of intelligence - which is why some people deny that we have free will. Through this example you have inadvertently confirmed that God is willing and able to sacrifice control.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 15, 2017, 15:05 (2530 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: since ants have brains, you have answered your own question: your God gave ants brains to solve environmental problems – he did not have to help – and the same should apply to all organisms with brains. No “help” needed. Congratulations to the monarch, the cuttlefish, and maybe even those fish that first tested out life on dry land.

Yes, I think ants can solve simple problems of daily living. But you've gone a giant step too far in your congratulations: the monarch migrates thousands of miles to the same places each year that have milkweed, through eight or so repeated metamorphoses of phenotypes. Not done by brain power, but by God-give genetic instructions. No one has explained insect metamorphosis.

dhw; If you insist that intelligent behaviour could be a cover for automatism, the principle must be valid for all forms of intelligence - which is why some people deny that we have free will. Through this example you have inadvertently confirmed that God is willing and able to sacrifice control.

You have extended a so-called principal to an illogical conclusion. Intelligent action is seen at all levels of activity, simple and high complex, which alters the interpretation of what is intelligent action and what isn't. Bacterial lifestyle is simplicity itself. Your lifestyle is highly complex, yet you might have no free will? Your broad principal doesn't work.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Sunday, April 16, 2017, 14:42 (2529 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...since ants have brains, you have answered your own question: your God gave ants brains to solve environmental problems – he did not have to help – and the same should apply to all organisms with brains. No “help” needed. Congratulations to the monarch, the cuttlefish, and maybe even those fish that first tested out life on dry land.
DAVID: Yes, I think ants can solve simple problems of daily living. But you've gone a giant step too far in your congratulations: the monarch migrates thousands of miles to the same places each year that have milkweed, through eight or so repeated metamorphoses of phenotypes. Not done by brain power, but by God-give genetic instructions. No one has explained insect metamorphosis.

So 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed the monarch’s repeated metamorphosis and navigation in order to keep life going until he achieved his one and only purpose of producing humans. And yet “a brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face…” Bearing in mind the absolutely amazing variety of problems faced by brainless bacteria – almost infinitely greater than the range of those faced by butterflies – I’m a little surprised at your authoritative announcement that a butterfly brain can’t solve the problem of finding milkweed without God’s specific instructions or personal guidance.

DAVID’s comment (under “Natures wonders”) : ...the issue is not that the brain works efficiently, it is how did this spider reach its current form, bit by bit or all at once? All at once by design seems most logical.

Same problem. With my theist hat on, I can’t help wondering why a brain given by your God (whose sole purpose was to produce humans) which can solve any of the problems bacteria solve, should be unable to design its own variation on existing methods and mechanisms for capturing its prey.

dhw: If you insist that intelligent behaviour could be a cover for automatism, the principle must be valid for all forms of intelligence - which is why some people deny that we have free will. Through this example you have inadvertently confirmed that God is willing and able to sacrifice control.
DAVID: You have extended a so-called principal to an illogical conclusion. Intelligent action is seen at all levels of activity, simple and high complex, which alters the interpretation of what is intelligent action and what isn't.

No it doesn’t. If a bacterium solves a problem, that is intelligent action. But you insist that each intelligent action is preprogrammed or dabbled by your God.

DAVID: Bacterial lifestyle is simplicity itself. Your lifestyle is highly complex, yet you might have no free will? Your broad principal doesn't work.

Free will was an example of how your God might willingly give up control over his creations. With your insistence that your God preprogrammes even brainy organisms to look intelligent though they’re not, and that God knows the outcome of all his processes in advance, you leave wide open the possibility of predestination – the belief that “God has decided everything that will happen and that people cannot change this” (Longman). That is why I gave the example of free will, which I know you believe in, to illustrate that maybe he sacrificed control and therefore does NOT know everything in advance.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 16, 2017, 16:09 (2529 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed the monarch’s repeated metamorphosis and navigation in order to keep life going until he achieved his one and only purpose of producing humans. And yet “a brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face…”

You understand the 'brain' in that sentence is God's.

dhw:Bearing in mind the absolutely amazing variety of problems faced by brainless bacteria – almost infinitely greater than the range of those faced by butterflies

How do you know that bacterial lives are more complex than butterflies? Extremophiles are fully adapted to their environments and handle them in a simple matter as a result.

dhw: I’m a little surprised at your authoritative announcement that a butterfly brain can’t solve the problem of finding milkweed without God’s specific instructions or personal guidance.

It's not finding the milkweed that is amazing, it's the travelling thousands of miles between patches by an amazing migratory mechanism that is at issue, while the bacteria exists in a cubic millimeter. Further, you made no comment about metamorphosis, because God is the only answer for that complex biological event.


DAVID’s comment (under “Natures wonders”) : ...the issue is not that the brain works efficiently, it is how did this spider reach its current form, bit by bit or all at once? All at once by design seems most logical.

dhw: Same problem. With my theist hat on, I can’t help wondering why a brain given by your God (whose sole purpose was to produce humans) which can solve any of the problems bacteria solve, should be unable to design its own variation on existing methods and mechanisms for capturing its prey.

Your theist hat is wildly askew. You skipped my comment about bit by bit. Either a jumping spider can plot its leap trajectory from the beginning of its life or it doesn't eat. This is design at its finest.


DAVID: Bacterial lifestyle is simplicity itself. Your lifestyle is highly complex, yet you might have no free will? Your broad principal doesn't work.

dhw: Free will was an example of how your God might willingly give up control over his creations. With your insistence that your God preprogrammes even brainy organisms to look intelligent though they’re not, and that God knows the outcome of all his processes in advance, you leave wide open the possibility of predestination – the belief that “God has decided everything that will happen and that people cannot change this” (Longman). That is why I gave the example of free will, which I know you believe in, to illustrate that maybe he sacrificed control and therefore does NOT know everything in advance.

I agree we have free will given by God, and He understood in advance all the mistakes we would make. They are obvious given any thought about it. Predestination is a real stretch, which implies knowing which specific human will rape or murder. Individual free will denies that capability.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Monday, April 17, 2017, 13:11 (2528 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed the monarch’s repeated metamorphosis and navigation in order to keep life going until he achieved his one and only purpose of producing humans. And yet “a brain can program and produce a DNA that can answer any problem a bacteria might face…”
DAVID: You understand the 'brain' in that sentence is God's.

Oh good heavens, no, that is not what I understood at all! I didn’t think you were telling me your immaterial God had a brain! And of course he can do whatever he likes. I thought you were referring to brains in general, because you believe that only brainy organisms are intelligent whereas brainless organisms have been preprogrammed.

dhw: Bearing in mind the absolutely amazing variety of problems faced by brainless bacteria – almost infinitely greater than the range of those faced by butterflies
DAVID: How do you know that bacterial lives are more complex than butterflies? Extremophiles are fully adapted to their environments and handle them in a simple matter as a result.

That is my point! I did not say their lives were more complex. I am talking about the range of problems they can solve – extremophiles being the most “extreme” example. Brainless bacteria can solve virtually every environmental problem thrown at them. Brainy monarch butterflies would not be able to live in those extreme environments.

dhw: …I’m a little surprised at your authoritative announcement that a butterfly brain can’t solve the problem of finding milkweed without God’s specific instructions or personal guidance.
DAVID: It's not finding the milkweed that is amazing, it's the travelling thousands of miles between patches by an amazing migratory mechanism that is at issue, while the bacteria exists in a cubic millimeter. Further, you made no comment about metamorphosis, because God is the only answer for that complex biological event.

ALL migratory mechanisms and ALL biological metamorphoses are amazingly complex, including and perhaps above all the metamorphosis of sperm and egg into a conscious living person. I am not disputing the wonderfulness of Nature’s wonders. I am disputing the suggestion that every single one of them had to be personally designed by your God in order to keep life going until he produced humans.

Dhw (re the jumping spider): With my theist hat on, I can’t help wondering why a brain given by your God (whose sole purpose was to produce humans) which can solve any of the problems bacteria solve, should be unable to design its own variation on existing methods and mechanisms for capturing its prey.
DAVID: Your theist hat is wildly askew. You skipped my comment about bit by bit. Either a jumping spider can plot its leap trajectory from the beginning of its life or it doesn't eat. This is design at its finest.

Two possible answers: firstly, I don’t think it’s impossible for the spider to have caught its prey by other means before it perfected its jumping techniques. Secondly, as organisms can sometimes change their own structure very rapidly in order to adapt, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to do the same in order to innovate, using their possibly God-given intelligence. And finally, I don't believe your God specifically designed the jumping spider in order to keep life going until he produced humans.

DAVID: I agree we have free will given by God […] Predestination is a real stretch, which implies knowing which specific human will rape or murder. Individual free will denies that capability.

And therefore illustrates the principle that your God is willing to create a system whereby his creations are free to do their own thing. If he does it for humans, he might also have done it for the whole evolutionary process (with the option of dabbling). See the “asteroid” thread on the subject of possible motivation.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Monday, April 17, 2017, 23:30 (2527 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:I thought you were referring to brains in general, because you believe that only brainy organisms are intelligent whereas brainless organisms have been preprogrammed.

Brainy organisms are intelligent to some degree. Bacteria are automatically controlled by their genomes.

DAVID: How do you know that bacterial lives are more complex than butterflies? Extremophiles are fully adapted to their environments and handle them in a simple matter as a result.

dhw: That is my point! I did not say their lives were more complex. I am talking about the range of problems they can solve – extremophiles being the most “extreme” example. Brainless bacteria can solve virtually every environmental problem thrown at them. Brainy monarch butterflies would not be able to live in those extreme environments.

The mechanisms given them for automatic adaptation and the simplicity of their lifestyles make bacteria adapt to extreme conditions. Butterflies are too fragile to do that.

dhw: I am disputing the suggestion that every single one of them had to be personally designed by your God in order to keep life going until he produced humans.

I know that.


Dhw (re the jumping spider): With my theist hat on, I can’t help wondering why a brain given by your God (whose sole purpose was to produce humans) which can solve any of the problems bacteria solve, should be unable to design its own variation on existing methods and mechanisms for capturing its prey.
DAVID: Your theist hat is wildly askew. You skipped my comment about bit by bit. Either a jumping spider can plot its leap trajectory from the beginning of its life or it doesn't eat. This is design at its finest.

dhw: Two possible answers: firstly, I don’t think it’s impossible for the spider to have caught its prey by other means before it perfected its jumping techniques. Secondly, as organisms can sometimes change their own structure very rapidly in order to adapt, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to do the same in order to innovate, using their possibly God-given intelligence.

Yes they might have had simplistic techniques for hunting early on. Did they rapidly add so many eyes, and train their brain in calculus to make their jumps accurate? Very unlikely. Saltation is a better concept.


DAVID: I agree we have free will given by God […] Predestination is a real stretch, which implies knowing which specific human will rape or murder. Individual free will denies that capability.

dhw: And therefore illustrates the principle that your God is willing to create a system whereby his creations are free to do their own thing. If he does it for humans, he might also have done it for the whole evolutionary process (with the option of dabbling).

Free will involves brains that can plan. You are stretching that to include planning an evolution in phenotype! Not at all likely.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 09:25 (2527 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:I thought you were referring to brains in general, because you believe that only brainy organisms are intelligent whereas brainless organisms have been preprogrammed.
DAVID: Brainy organisms are intelligent to some degree. Bacteria are automatically controlled by their genomes.

We’d better forget your statement about God’s brain being able to design anything a bacterium can come up with, even though he hasn’t got a brain. We are left with your usual authoritative statement about bacteria, with your absolute refusal to consider the possibility that bacteria’s intelligent behaviour might just possibly be the result of bacteria’s intelligence.

DAVID: The mechanisms given them for automatic adaptation and the simplicity of their lifestyles make bacteria adapt to extreme conditions. Butterflies are too fragile to do that.

Why do you insist on inserting “automatic”? It is blindingly obvious that bacteria possess the mechanisms to enable them to adapt to extreme conditions, since we know they adapt to extreme conditions. That does not mean their adaptation is automatic, especially since researchers have noted that when exposed to certain tests, some bacteria die before the others come up with a solution. And of course butterflies are too fragile to withstand extreme conditions. They are even too fragile to withstand what we would regard as non-extreme conditions, which is why they have come up with the solution of migration. If they hadn’t, they would have died out. None of this proves that God makes all the decisions for bacteria and butterflies.

DAVID: Either a jumping spider can plot its leap trajectory from the beginning of its life or it doesn't eat. This is design at its finest.
dhw: Two possible answers: firstly, I don’t think it’s impossible for the spider to have caught its prey by other means before it perfected its jumping techniques. Secondly, as organisms can sometimes change their own structure very rapidly in order to adapt, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to do the same in order to innovate, using their possibly God-given intelligence.
DAVID: Yes they might have had simplistic techniques for hunting early on. Did they rapidly add so many eyes, and train their brain in calculus to make their jumps accurate? Very unlikely. Saltation is a better concept.

I don’t know, and nor do you, but I’d have thought the rapid perfection of a new variation is more likely than immediate perfection. The guppy experiment showed that evolutionary change can take place rapidly over just a few generations.

DAVID: Free will involves brains that can plan. You are stretching that to include planning an evolution in phenotype! Not at all likely.

I know you consider that unlikely. Personally, I consider it more likely than your God directly designing – or providing the very first cells with programmes for – every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, including every decision taken by every bacterium, in the history of life on Earth. I offered free will as an example of your God deliberately sacrificing control, just as he might have done in setting up autonomous mechanisms for evolution (leaving himself the option of a dabble).

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 15:43 (2527 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Why do you insist on inserting “automatic”? It is blindingly obvious that bacteria possess the mechanisms to enable them to adapt to extreme conditions, since we know they adapt to extreme conditions. That does not mean their adaptation is automatic, especially since researchers have noted that when exposed to certain tests, some bacteria die before the others come up with a solution.

You have forgotten that the variability of bacteria means that only some will solve the problem presented and continue to live and reproduce.

dhw: And of course butterflies are too fragile to withstand extreme conditions. They are even too fragile to withstand what we would regard as non-extreme conditions, which is why they have come up with the solution of migration. If they hadn’t, they would have died out. None of this proves that God makes all the decisions for bacteria and butterflies.

Of course in your mind Texas butterflies enjoying our milkweed, didn't like our winters with little milkweed. But they must have known about Mexican milkweed in warmer climates so they simply took off south to look for it. Pipedream.


DAVID: Either a jumping spider can plot its leap trajectory from the beginning of its life or it doesn't eat. This is design at its finest.
dhw: Two possible answers: firstly, I don’t think it’s impossible for the spider to have caught its prey by other means before it perfected its jumping techniques. Secondly, as organisms can sometimes change their own structure very rapidly in order to adapt, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to do the same in order to innovate, using their possibly God-given intelligence.
DAVID: Yes they might have had simplistic techniques for hunting early on. Did they rapidly add so many eyes, and train their brain in calculus to make their jumps accurate? Very unlikely. Saltation is a better concept.

I don’t know, and nor do you, but I’d have thought the rapid perfection of a new variation is more likely than immediate perfection. The guppy experiment showed that evolutionary change can take place rapidly over just a few generations.

Great difference in comparisons. Guppy change was only bigger or smaller bodies, not multiple complex eyes and calculus calculations for the leap.


DAVID: Free will involves brains that can plan. You are stretching that to include planning an evolution in phenotype! Not at all likely.

dhw: I know you consider that unlikely. Personally, I consider it more likely than your God directly designing – or providing the very first cells with programmes for – every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, including every decision taken by every bacterium, in the history of life on Earth. I offered free will as an example of your God deliberately sacrificing control, just as he might have done in setting up autonomous mechanisms for evolution (leaving himself the option of a dabble).

You think God has severely limited capacity to design. If God can make a universe from His thoughts, He can do anything else. We differ on His powers. Your approach is, 'let the kids do it." Mine is, "I'll baby sit and guide them".

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 12:25 (2526 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you insist on inserting “automatic”? It is blindingly obvious that bacteria possess the mechanisms to enable them to adapt to extreme conditions, since we know they adapt to extreme conditions. That does not mean their adaptation is automatic, especially since researchers have noted that when exposed to certain tests, some bacteria die before the others come up with a solution.
DAVID: You have forgotten that the variability of bacteria means that only some will solve the problem presented and continue to live and reproduce.

Variability is my point! In your scenario some bacteria did not inherit God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for bacterial solutions to all problems, or your God has only given personal instructions to the lucky few. In mine, some have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to work out a solution, while others can’t do it.

DAVID: Of course in your mind Texas butterflies enjoying our milkweed, didn't like our winters with little milkweed. But they must have known about Mexican milkweed in warmer climates so they simply took off south to look for it. Pipedream.

I suggest that in all such cases, the original organisms knew they couldn’t stay where they were and took off in various directions. The successful ones survived, the others perished, but the survivors passed on the information, which eventually became standard practice. Your very important post on homing pigeons (thank you for that and the others on different natural wonders) makes precisely that point:

QUOTE: "Homing pigeons may share the human capacity to build on the knowledge of others, improving their navigational efficiency over time, a new study has found. The ability to gather, pass on and improve on knowledge over generations is known as cumulative culture. Until now humans and, arguably some other primates, were the only species thought to be capable of it.

For some of us, “cumulative culture” is by no means a startling new discovery. It’s only common sense that if intelligent beings make useful discoveries, they will pass them on. Even lowly bacteria solve problems and pass on the solutions.

Dhw: (re jumping spiders) I’d have thought the rapid perfection of a new variation is more likely than immediate perfection. The guppy experiment showed that evolutionary change can take place rapidly over just a few generations.
DAVID: Great difference in comparisons. Guppy change was only bigger or smaller bodies, not multiple complex eyes and calculus calculations for the leap.

Agreed. Nobody knows how the complexities of evolution came about. I am simply suggesting that since we do know there is a mechanism for rapid change, that same mechanism (an inventive intelligence – perhaps God-given) may also account for those complexities.

DHW: I offered free will as an example of your God deliberately sacrificing control, just as he might have done in setting up autonomous mechanisms for evolution (leaving himself the option of a dabble).
DAVID: You think God has severely limited capacity to design.

Absolutely not! That was YOUR idea, to account for what you thought might be the “delay” in the fulfilment of what you insist was his one and only purpose.
DAVID: If God can make a universe from His thoughts, He can do anything else.

I agree and, if he exists, his powers would include the ability to design an autonomous, inventive mechanism – let’s call it intelligence – that would enable organisms (including humans) to do their own designing.

DAVID: We differ on His powers. Your approach is, 'let the kids do it." Mine is, "I'll baby sit and guide them".

There is no loss of power if God has deliberately given organisms the ability to “do it” themselves. Your approach is God thinking: “All I want to do is design humans, which I can do without any difficulty, and so I’ll design weaverbirds’ nests, monarch butterfly metamorphosis and navigation, jumping spiders, plus every other natural wonder in order to keep life going until I design the only thing I actually want to design.” It didn’t make sense before, and it still doesn’t make sense.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 16:16 (2526 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Of course in your mind Texas butterflies enjoying our milkweed, didn't like our winters with little milkweed. But they must have known about Mexican milkweed in warmer climates so they simply took off south to look for it. Pipedream.

dhw: I suggest that in all such cases, the original organisms knew they couldn’t stay where they were and took off in various directions. The successful ones survived, the others perished, but the survivors passed on the information, which eventually became standard practice.

The butterflies fly thousands of moles over water to get to the milkweed. They just don't mosey over. It requires metabolic preparation. Do you have another suggestion to describe how this became established?

dhw: For some of us, “cumulative culture” is by no means a startling new discovery. It’s only common sense that if intelligent beings make useful discoveries, they will pass them on. Even lowly bacteria solve problems and pass on the solutions.

With bacteria, they pass it on by splitting in two, no societal culture involved.


Dhw: (re jumping spiders) I’d have thought the rapid perfection of a new variation is more likely than immediate perfection. The guppy experiment showed that evolutionary change can take place rapidly over just a few generations.
DAVID: Great difference in comparisons. Guppy change was only bigger or smaller bodies, not multiple complex eyes and calculus calculations for the leap.

dhw: Agreed. Nobody knows how the complexities of evolution came about. I am simply suggesting that since we do know there is a mechanism for rapid change, that same mechanism (an inventive intelligence – perhaps God-given) may also account for those complexities.

Not the complexities of that spider. that is advanced speciation, not epigenetics as in the guppies.


DAVID: If God can make a universe from His thoughts, He can do anything else.

dhw: I agree and, if he exists, his powers would include the ability to design an autonomous, inventive mechanism – let’s call it intelligence – that would enable organisms (including humans) to do their own designing.

If we could find any evidence of self-design by organisms that would help our discussion. Tony thinks it is by following God's principles. The gaps in species forms as shown in the whale series implies only God's saltation works.


DAVID: We differ on His powers. Your approach is, 'let the kids do it." Mine is, "I'll baby sit and guide them".

dhw: There is no loss of power if God has deliberately given organisms the ability to “do it” themselves. Your approach is God thinking: “All I want to do is design humans, which I can do without any difficulty, and so I’ll design weaverbirds’ nests, monarch butterfly metamorphosis and navigation, jumping spiders, plus every other natural wonder in order to keep life going until I design the only thing I actually want to design.” It didn’t make sense before, and it still doesn’t make sense.

If God evolves His desired goals, that takes time and requires the bush of natures balanced life

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Thursday, April 20, 2017, 12:59 (2525 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The butterflies fly thousands of miles over water to get to the milkweed. They just don't mosey over. It requires metabolic preparation. Do you have another suggestion to describe how this became established?

I was responding to your suggestion that they already knew about Mexican milkweed. I think it is perfectly logical to assume that when organisms can’t cope with an environmental change, they search for an environment they CAN live in. The origin of all these migrations would be the same, with some individuals finding what they are looking for, and the successful solution to the problem being passed on to subsequent generations. Nobody knows how the first migrants “prepared” their metabolism. Perhaps your God gave them personal instructions, although the only thing he wanted to do was design humans. But I don’t quite follow the logic of that suggestion.

dhw: For some of us, “cumulative culture” is by no means a startling new discovery. It’s only common sense that if intelligent beings make useful discoveries, they will pass them on. Even lowly bacteria solve problems and pass on the solutions.
DAVID: With bacteria, they pass it on by splitting in two, no societal culture involved.

Bacteria communicate, and often form groups. In any case, cell memory would explain how information can be passed from one generation to another.

dhw: Nobody knows how the complexities of evolution came about. I am simply suggesting that since we do know there is a mechanism for rapid change, that same mechanism (an inventive intelligence – perhaps God-given) may also account for those complexities.
DAVID: Not the complexities of that spider. that is advanced speciation, not epigenetics as in the guppies.

Once again: nobody knows the mechanism for speciation. I am suggesting that the mechanism for adaptation may also be the mechanism for innovation. It is a hypothesis based on something we actually do know.

DAVID: If we could find any evidence of self-design by organisms that would help our discussion. Tony thinks it is by following God's principles. The gaps in species forms as shown in the whale series implies only God's saltation works.

If we could find evidence of God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, or of his personal courses given to weaverbirds, monarch butterflies, cuttlefish, spiders etc., it would help our discussions. Following God’s principles could mean that God gave organisms the means to do their own designing within certain natural limits. Your all-powerful God would be perfectly capable of designing a mechanism enabling organisms to saltate.

DAVID: If God evolves His desired goals, that takes time and requires the bush of natures balanced life.

I see you have now pluralized goal. But yes indeed, evolution takes time. And if God’s goal was to produce a bush of life, with different organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders coming and going in an endlessly varied spectacle, with humans perhaps the pièce de resistance to provide the greatest variety of all (so far), it would take time. That doesn’t mean your God designed the bush for the sake of humans.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 20, 2017, 19:09 (2525 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The butterflies fly thousands of miles over water to get to the milkweed. They just don't mosey over. It requires metabolic preparation. Do you have another suggestion to describe how this became established?

dhw: I was responding to your suggestion that they already knew about Mexican milkweed.

I have no idea how you believed I thought the Texas monarchs knew about Mexico. The butterflies at one end of the migration, before it began, did not know about the other end of the migratory path, unless God told them. That is a key point.

dhw: I think it is perfectly logical to assume that when organisms can’t cope with an environmental change, they search for an environment they CAN live in. The origin of all these migrations would be the same, with some individuals finding what they are looking for, and the successful solution to the problem being passed on to subsequent generations. Nobody knows how the first migrants “prepared” their metabolism. Perhaps your God gave them personal instructions, although the only thing he wanted to do was design humans. But I don’t quite follow the logic of that suggestion.

You are skipping over the necessary preparation for the long across ocean flights. It cannot have happened by chance or by metamorphic thought patterns. I don't follow your logic at all.

DAVID: With bacteria, they pass it on by splitting in two, no societal culture involved.

dhw: Bacteria communicate, and often form groups. In any case, cell memory would explain how information can be passed from one generation to another.

They do communicate chemical signals and biochemical processes they contain are passed along automatically in the splitting process.


DAVID: If we could find any evidence of self-design by organisms that would help our discussion. Tony thinks it is by following God's principles. The gaps in species forms as shown in the whale series implies only God's saltation works.

dhw: If we could find evidence of God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, or of his personal courses given to weaverbirds, monarch butterflies, cuttlefish, spiders etc., it would help our discussions. Following God’s principles could mean that God gave organisms the means to do their own designing within certain natural limits. Your all-powerful God would be perfectly capable of designing a mechanism enabling organisms to saltate.

Again Tony's point with god watching.


DAVID: If God evolves His desired goals, that takes time and requires the bush of natures balanced life.

dhw: I see you have now pluralized goal. But yes indeed, evolution takes time. And if God’s goal was to produce a bush of life, with different organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders coming and going in an endlessly varied spectacle, with humans perhaps the pièce de resistance to provide the greatest variety of all (so far), it would take time. That doesn’t mean your God designed the bush for the sake of humans.

The bush provides the energy for life to take time to evolve to produce humans. If God directly produced humans without the bush, what would humans eat?

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Friday, April 21, 2017, 14:06 (2524 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have no idea how you believed I thought the Texas monarchs knew about Mexico. The butterflies at one end of the migration, before it began, did not know about the other end of the migratory path, unless God told them.

No, not “believed”. You had made the following sarcastic comment:
DAVID: Of course in your mind Texas butterflies enjoying our milkweed, didn't like our winters with little milkweed. But they must have known about Mexican milkweed in warmer climates so they simply took off south to look for it. Pipedream.

Of course it’s a pipedream. That’s why I pointed out that organisms would set off in search of a solution – as opposed to knowing the solution in advance.

dhw: Nobody knows how the first migrants “prepared” their metabolism. Perhaps your God gave them personal instructions, although the only thing he wanted to do was design humans. But I don’t quite follow the logic of that suggestion.
DAVID: You are skipping over the necessary preparation for the long across ocean flights. It cannot have happened by chance or by metamorphic thought patterns. I don't follow your logic at all.

I am not skipping. I said that nobody knows. Then in the same sarcastic vein as your pipedream comment, I put forward one of only two answers that you have ever offered: God gave them personal lessons (“God told them”). The other is that he preprogrammed the monarch-metamorphosis-migration instruction manual 3.8 billion years ago, although his only desire was to produce humans. No, “I don’t follow your logic at all.”

I have shifted the discussion on bacteria to your new post under “biological complexity”, except for this exchange:
Dhw: Your all-powerful God would be perfectly capable of designing a mechanism enabling organisms to saltate.
DAVID: Again Tony's point with god watching.

I thought it was you who told us that your hidden God was watching. At last you seem to be agreeing that if God exists, he may have designed the autonomous intelligence that designs saltations and then sat back to watch the great variety produced by his invention. But you will no doubt dismiss the idea again tomorrow.

DAVID: If God evolves His desired goals, that takes time and requires the bush of natures balanced life.
dhw: […] That doesn’t mean your God designed the bush for the sake of humans.
DAVID: The bush provides the energy for life to take time to evolve to produce humans. If God directly produced humans without the bush, what would humans eat?

I would suggest that your now unlimited God was perfectly capable of providing food for humans without personally designing the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s migration, the spider’s eye, the parasitic wasp, the cuttlefish’s camouflage etc., plus all the other wonders and life forms that have come and gone. And so maybe he did not design them at all, or maybe if he did design them, he did not design them in order to provide food for humans.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Friday, April 21, 2017, 22:29 (2523 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, April 21, 2017, 23:02


dhw: I am not skipping. I said that nobody knows. Then in the same sarcastic vein as your pipedream comment, I put forward one of only two answers that you have ever offered: God gave them personal lessons (“God told them”). The other is that he preprogrammed the monarch-metamorphosis-migration instruction manual 3.8 billion years ago, although his only desire was to produce humans. No, “I don’t follow your logic at all.”

The logic is the Texas monarchs had no idea where to find milkweed for the wintertime in Texas, but they did. Somehow they prepared metabolically for the long journey. God must have helped in my view. Logical. Setting out helter-skelter simply leads to death.


I have shifted the discussion on bacteria to your new post under “biological complexity”, except for this exchange:
Dhw: Your all-powerful God would be perfectly capable of designing a mechanism enabling organisms to saltate.
DAVID: Again Tony's point with god watching.

dhw: I thought it was you who told us that your hidden God was watching. At last you seem to be agreeing that if God exists, he may have designed the autonomous intelligence that designs saltations and then sat back to watch the great variety produced by his invention. But you will no doubt dismiss the idea again tomorrow.

I'm sure He watches and adjusts as necessary. I've agreed that an IM might exist to create the changes under His guidelines. I think tony agrees.


DAVID: If God evolves His desired goals, that takes time and requires the bush of natures balanced life.
dhw: […] That doesn’t mean your God designed the bush for the sake of humans.
DAVID: The bush provides the energy for life to take time to evolve to produce humans. If God directly produced humans without the bush, what would humans eat?

dhw: I would suggest that your now unlimited God was perfectly capable of providing food for humans without personally designing the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s migration, the spider’s eye, the parasitic wasp, the cuttlefish’s camouflage etc., plus all the other wonders and life forms that have come and gone. And so maybe he did not design them at all, or maybe if he did design them, he did not design them in order to provide food for humans.

You cannot get around the fact that all organisms needed food energy until humans arrived, and all including humans still do.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Saturday, April 22, 2017, 11:32 (2523 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I put forward one of only two answers that you have ever offered: God gave them personal lessons (“God told them”). The other is that he preprogrammed the monarch-metamorphosis-migration instruction manual 3.8 billion years ago, although his only desire was to produce humans. No, “I don’t follow your logic at all.”
DAVID: The logic is the Texas monarchs had no idea where to find milkweed for the wintertime in Texas, but they did. Somehow they prepared metabolically for the long journey. God must have helped in my view. Logical. Setting out helter-skelter simply leads to death.

You have missed my point. Originally, they would have set out “helter-skelter”, and many would have died. But those that found the milkweed would have passed on the information, and so the route would have become established. Nobody knows how they survived the long journey, but I really don’t know why your God would have given them courses in physical training and navigation when all he wanted to do was produce humans.

Dhw: Your all-powerful God would be perfectly capable of designing a mechanism enabling organisms to saltate.
DAVID: Again Tony's point with god watching.
dhw: […] At last you seem to be agreeing that if God exists, he may have designed the autonomous intelligence that designs saltations and then sat back to watch the great variety produced by his invention. But you will no doubt dismiss the idea again tomorrow.
DAVID: I'm sure He watches and adjusts as necessary. I've agreed that an IM might exist to create the changes under His guidelines. I think tony agrees.

“Guidelines” is one of your nice woolly expressions. If God created an autonomous inventive mechanism (intelligence), it would have worked autonomously. “Adjusts as necessary”? Do you mean the monarch turned left instead of right so God redirected it? The weaverbird’s knot came undone, so God gave it a twiddle? What other “guidelines” do you have in mind for the autonomous mechanism?

DAVID: The bush provides the energy for life to take time to evolve to produce humans. If God directly produced humans without the bush, what would humans eat?
dhw: I would suggest that your now unlimited God was perfectly capable of providing food for humans without personally designing the weaverbird’s nest […]And so maybe he did not design them at all, or maybe if he did design them, he did not design them in order to provide food for humans.
DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that all organisms needed food energy until humans arrived, and all including humans still do.

I do not see how the blindingly obvious fact that all organisms needed food, still need food, and will go on needing food proves that God designed the weaverbird’s nest and every other natural wonder throughout the history of life so far, only in order that humans could have food.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 02:13 (2522 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] I put forward one of only two answers that you have ever offered: God gave them personal lessons (“God told them”). The other is that he preprogrammed the monarch-metamorphosis-migration instruction manual 3.8 billion years ago, although his only desire was to produce humans. No, “I don’t follow your logic at all.”
DAVID: The logic is the Texas monarchs had no idea where to find milkweed for the wintertime in Texas, but they did. Somehow they prepared metabolically for the long journey. God must have helped in my view. Logical. Setting out helter-skelter simply leads to death.

dhw: You have missed my point. Originally, they would have set out “helter-skelter”, and many would have died. But those that found the milkweed would have passed on the information, and so the route would have become established. Nobody knows how they survived the long journey, but I really don’t know why your God would have given them courses in physical training and navigation when all he wanted to do was produce humans.

You miss the whole point. Without the physical training they could never have gotten across the Gulf of Mexico to that special set of mountains with the milkweed. And then get back following Spring again across the Gulf to those special spots in Texas, of which my ranch is one. And then again, who gave them the guidance mechanism to follow the same paths back and forth. And again you are skipping all the metamorphoses which have to carry the memory of what the first discoverers imparted to the next generation, four changes of form removed.

DAVID: I'm sure He watches and adjusts as necessary. I've agreed that an IM might exist to create the changes under His guidelines. I think tony agrees.

dhw: “Guidelines” is one of your nice woolly expressions. If God created an autonomous inventive mechanism (intelligence), it would have worked autonomously. “Adjusts as necessary”? Do you mean the monarch turned left instead of right so God redirected it? The weaverbird’s knot came undone, so God gave it a twiddle? What other “guidelines” do you have in mind for the autonomous mechanism?

Definite instructions of how to proceed with speciation, not twiddling over a messy knot.

DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that all organisms needed food energy until humans arrived, and all including humans still do.

dhw: I do not see how the blindingly obvious fact that all organisms needed food, still need food, and will go on needing food proves that God designed the weaverbird’s nest and every other natural wonder throughout the history of life so far, only in order that humans could have food.

No, it is clear to see everyone who is alive has to eat, from bacteria to humans. Why do you insist it is just for humans? My point is it took time for humans to evolve and the bush of life provides a balance of nature with a source of food, so everyone has food.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 10:42 (2522 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You miss the whole point. Without the physical training they could never have gotten across the Gulf of Mexico to that special set of mountains with the milkweed. And then get back following Spring again across the Gulf to those special spots in Texas, of which my ranch is one. And then again, who gave them the guidance mechanism to follow the same paths back and forth. And again you are skipping all the metamorphoses which have to carry the memory of what the first discoverers imparted to the next generation, four changes of form removed.

You wrote “Setting out helter-skelter simply leads to death”, and I pointed out that the original migrants would probably have set out helter-skelter and many would have died, but those who found the milkweed survived and passed on the information. I have now said repeatedly that no one knows how they found the physical strength to make the long journey, but I am not convinced that your God would have preprogrammed them or personally tutored them for the sake of producing humans. I am not skipping the metamorphoses. I have no idea why four generations are needed before migration, but it is clear that the information IS passed on. What is your theory about the four changes?

DAVID: I'm sure He watches and adjusts as necessary. I've agreed that an IM might exist to create the changes under His guidelines. I think tony agrees.
dhw: Guidelines” is one of your nice woolly expressions. If God created an autonomous inventive mechanism (intelligence), it would have worked autonomously. “Adjusts as necessary”? Do you mean the monarch turned left instead of right so God redirected it? The weaverbird’s knot came undone, so God gave it a twiddle? What other “guidelines” do you have in mind for the autonomous mechanism?
DAVID: Definite instructions of how to proceed with speciation, not twiddling over a messy knot.

But you do not confine your divine preprogramming/dabbling to speciation. You insist that only God could have designed all the natural wonders you have listed, including the weaverbird’s nest. That is one of the major disagreements between us. Either the bird designed it autonomously or God did. But no, according to you, God gave it “guidelines”.

dhw: I do not see how the blindingly obvious fact that all organisms needed food, still need food, and will go on needing food proves that God designed the weaverbird’s nest and every other natural wonder throughout the history of life so far, only in order that humans could have food.
DAVID: No, it is clear to see everyone who is alive has to eat, from bacteria to humans. Why do you insist it is just for humans? My point is it took time for humans to evolve and the bush of life provides a balance of nature with a source of food, so everyone has food.

It is YOU who insist that it is just for humans! We do not need to be told that it took time for humans to evolve, or that every organism needs food, or that the bush of life provides food – though not for everyone, because sometimes there is not enough food and so some species die out. These are all self-evident observations. The disagreement is over YOUR insistence that God’s one and only purpose was the production of humans and EVERYTHING ELSE WAS RELATED TO THAT. Your words, not mine!

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 15:35 (2522 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: You wrote “Setting out helter-skelter simply leads to death”, and I pointed out that the original migrants would probably have set out helter-skelter and many would have died, but those who found the milkweed survived and passed on the information. I have now said repeatedly that no one knows how they found the physical strength to make the long journey, but I am not convinced that your God would have preprogrammed them or personally tutored them for the sake of producing humans.

You are tying together two concepts unreasonably. The monarchs know how to prepare for the journey, since we know how they do it, which source I feel is design by God. You don't know how the preparation was developed. And the second part we've covered the need for a balance of nature so evolution can proceed. That is a time issue.

dhw: I am not skipping the metamorphoses. I have no idea why four generations are needed before migration, but it is clear that the information IS passed on. What is your theory about the four changes?

These are miraculous changes engineered by God.

DAVID: Definite instructions of how to proceed with speciation, not twiddling over a messy knot.


dhw: But you do not confine your divine preprogramming/dabbling to speciation. You insist that only God could have designed all the natural wonders you have listed, including the weaverbird’s nest. That is one of the major disagreements between us. Either the bird designed it autonomously or God did. But no, according to you, God gave it “guidelines”.

You have forgotten the big 'if'. IF God gave an IM to organisms it would have guidelines. It is a theoretical consideration. There may be no IMs!

DAVID: No, it is clear to see everyone who is alive has to eat, from bacteria to humans. Why do you insist it is just for humans? My point is it took time for humans to evolve and the bush of life provides a balance of nature with a source of food, so everyone has food.

dhw: It is YOU who insist that it is just for humans! We do not need to be told that it took time for humans to evolve, or that every organism needs food, or that the bush of life provides food – though not for everyone, because sometimes there is not enough food and so some species die out. These are all self-evident observations. The disagreement is over YOUR insistence that God’s one and only purpose was the production of humans and EVERYTHING ELSE WAS RELATED TO THAT. Your words, not mine!

You are the one who doesn't seem to recognize all the eco-niches in the balance of nature. And humans are the ultimate purpose. Once you accept that God is purposeful, it all falls into place.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by dhw, Monday, April 24, 2017, 14:46 (2521 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …I am not convinced that your God would have preprogrammed them or personally tutored them for the sake of producing humans.
DAVID: You are tying together two concepts unreasonably. The monarchs know how to prepare for the journey, since we know how they do it, which source I feel is design by God. You don't know how the preparation was developed. And the second part we've covered the need for a balance of nature so evolution can proceed. That is a time issue.

We know evolution needs time, but time for what? According to you, God specially designed the butterfly’s preparations so that evolution could proceed to his only goal: humans. It still doesn’t make sense, no matter how hard you try to gloss it over.

dhw: The weaverbird’s knot came undone, so God gave it a twiddle? What other “guidelines” do you have in mind for the autonomous mechanism?
DAVID: Definite instructions of how to proceed with speciation, not twiddling over a messy knot.
dhw: But you do not confine your divine preprogramming/dabbling to speciation. You insist that only God could have designed all the natural wonders you have listed, including the weaverbird’s nest. ..]
DAVID: You have forgotten the big 'if'. IF God gave an IM to organisms it would have guidelines. It is a theoretical consideration. There may be no IMs!

How often do I have to repeat that it is a hypothesis, like your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine private tuition for weaverbird nests. But if God gave organisms autonomous intelligence, it would not need guidelines. You now say your God would not have “guided” the bird to tie the knots, so what “guidelines” do you envisage, or do you now agree that the bird may have designed its own nest?

DAVID: No, it is clear to see everyone who is alive has to eat, from bacteria to humans. Why do you insist it is just for humans? My point is it took time for humans to evolve and the bush of life provides a balance of nature with a source of food, so everyone has food.
dhw: It is YOU who insist that it is just for humans! We do not need to be told that it took time for humans to evolve, or that every organism needs food, or that the bush of life provides food – though not for everyone, because sometimes there is not enough food and so some species die out. These are all self-evident observations. The disagreement is over YOUR insistence that God’s one and only purpose was the production of humans and EVERYTHING ELSE WAS RELATED TO THAT. Your words, not mine!
DAVID: You are the one who doesn't seem to recognize all the eco-niches in the balance of nature. And humans are the ultimate purpose. Once you accept that God is purposeful, it all falls into place.

I recognize all the niches. I accept that if God exists, he is purposeful, but I do not accept your authority to state that humans are the ultimate purpose and everything else is related to that. (See “Purpose and design”)

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 00:27 (2520 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have forgotten the big 'if'. IF God gave an IM to organisms it would have guidelines. It is a theoretical consideration. There may be no IMs!

dhw: How often do I have to repeat that it is a hypothesis, like your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine private tuition for weaverbird nests. But if God gave organisms autonomous intelligence, it would not need guidelines. You now say your God would not have “guided” the bird to tie the knots, so what “guidelines” do you envisage, or do you now agree that the bird may have designed its own nest?

The IM is a very tenuous hypothesis, somewhat possible, never probable. I don't know exactly how God instructed the weaverbird, but He had to based on the complexity of the knots. Envisioning guidelines, beyond the generalization, is impossible. What would you suggest?

Natures wonders: whale series

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 22, 2017, 01:32 (2523 days ago) @ David Turell

David: If we could find any evidence of self-design by organisms that would help our discussion. Tony thinks it is by following God's principles. The gaps in species forms as shown in the whale series implies only God's saltation works.

Lets look at the whale series again:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-an...

"Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

"Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

***

"As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time.  Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

"Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

"With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less."

Comment: The planning required for these changes is very complex and requires intricate and complicated coordination for it all to work. Only God's mind can do it in the known time frame.

Natures wonders: whale series; a new one found

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 01, 2017, 01:34 (2453 days ago) @ David Turell

This 30 million year old whale had two kinds of teeth:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139203-missing-link-whale-could-filter-feed-and-h...

"How did the largest creatures ever to live on Earth evolve to feed on minuscule ones? A fossil skull belonging to a whale that could both filter feed and catch large prey reveals the first step in this process.

"Baleen whales like the blue whale suck in enormous mouthfuls of water and then force it out through the baleen filter hanging from their upper jaw, retaining prey such as krill and small fish. But early whales had big, sharp teeth for catching large prey, so how one branch of the family evolved into filter feeders with baleen “sieves” made out of keratin – the same stuff as fingernails – has been a mystery.

"The current idea is that the ancestors of baleen whales lost their normal teeth and only later evolved a “sieve”. But the skull of a previously unknown species of whale suggests instead that they started filter feeding by adapting teeth to act as sieves.

"The 30-million-year-old skull was found on the bottom of South Carolina’s Wando river by a scuba diver about a decade ago. It has now been analysed.

" This early whale, dubbed Coronodon havensteini by the team, had sharp, pointed front teeth that it used to catch large prey, like other early whales. But it also had unusual saw-like back teeth.

“'The wear indicates they were not used for shearing food or for biting off chunks of prey,” says Geisler. “It took us some time to come to the realisation that these large teeth were framing narrow slots for filter feeding.”

"The whale probably couldn’t suck in big mouthfuls of water like today’s baleen whales, though. Instead, the team think it was a ram feeder, opening its mouth and charging at shoals of small prey.

"Modern leopard seals have evolved similar feeding habits: they can filter feed on krill as well as catching larger prey like penguins. In fact, it was predicted that leopard seals filter feed based on the shape of their teeth before it was actually observed.

"The skull doesn’t reveal how baleen evolved, however. This is hard to study because baleen doesn’t fossilise as well as bone. But the boom in fossil finds may yet reveal more about how it happened, just as recent discoveries have given us a nearly complete picture of how whales evolved from cat-sized hoofed land mammals.

“'This study, if upheld by more evidence – which people will now be looking for – would nicely illuminate one of the previously more mysterious parts of the transition from some dog-like creature paddling by the shore 50 million years ago or so, to the blue whale,” says palaeobiologist Jan Zalasiewicz of the University of Leicester, UK."

Comment: This new find just adds to mystery of why whales bothered to evolve.

Natures wonders: whale series; a new one found

by dhw, Saturday, July 01, 2017, 12:02 (2453 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: This new find just adds to mystery of why whales bothered to evolve.

Or, if we follow the David Turell theory of evolution, it deepens the mystery of why God, whose sole purpose was to produce homo sapiens, bothered to preprogramme (or dabble) all these different types of pre-whale and whale.

Natures wonders: whale series; a new one found

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 01, 2017, 15:09 (2453 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: This new find just adds to mystery of why whales bothered to evolve.

dhw: Or, if we follow the David Turell theory of evolution, it deepens the mystery of why God, whose sole purpose was to produce homo sapiens, bothered to preprogramme (or dabble) all these different types of pre-whale and whale.

And it all started with a cat-sized hoofed animal who lived on a shoreline and liked to swim!

Natures wonders: whale series; how they sleep

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 16:18 (741 days ago) @ David Turell

Mentioned before but topic came up again:

https://www.newsweek.com/how-do-whales-sleep-1684977

"Whales, like all mammals, need sleep in order to survive. But they are also air breathers, meaning they cannot become fully unconscious while in the water.

"There are around 90 different types of whale, which can hold their breath for around an hour or so, depending on the species.

"However, they usually travel up to the surface to take a breath out their blowhole every 15 minutes, and as such are never fully submerged in the water for very long.

***

"'It's an interesting dilemma for wholly aquatic air-breathers. To deal with living in the water full-time, while having to breathe air at the surface, they have evolved into voluntary breathers, as a way to prevent accidentally inhaling water at inopportune moments," Rose said.

"Rose said whales consciously control their blowholes with "powerful muscles," meaning they have to be awake and alert at all times to prevent themselves from drowning.

"'They do not breathe autonomously, as terrestrial animals do," Rose said. "If they were unconscious, which means being fully asleep, they would not breathe and would drown. So [whales] have solved the problem with unihemispheric sleep: that is, they shut down only one half of the brain at a time, keeping one-half conscious and breathing."

"Whales have some of the largest brains on the planet. Sperm whales and killer whales in particular have the biggest brain of any living mammal. This means they can actively decide which part of their brains to use at a given time.

"Rose said this peculiar way of sleeping can be seen most clearly in captive whales, as they are easier to see. When whales are "sleeping" they can be seen keeping one eye closed while the other remains open.

"'The behavioral state is in fact known as resting, rather than sleeping, for this reason. They continue to swim, slowly and regularly—in tight synchronous formation for social cetaceans—occasionally floating still for a few seconds, up to a couple of minutes, perhaps, often very near the surface," she said.

"This sleeping technique varies slightly between species, however. Rose said that some species, like sperm whales, enter a deeper sleep where they hang in groups, vertically, not too far below the surface for just over an hour before they surface to breathe.

"Other species, such as the humpback whales, have been observed resting motionless at the surface of the water for increments of only 30 minutes. Humpbacks cannot sleep for much longer than this without losing too much of their body temperature."

Comment: half brain sleep was mentioned before, but this article gives so many interesting points, it needed presentation. The usual question arises: with so many required adaptations needed simultaneously, design is required, much as in irreducible complex systems.

Natures wonders: whale series; how they see

by David Turell @, Friday, July 29, 2022, 17:34 (599 days ago) @ David Turell

Study of adaptive whale eyes to see in deep dark waters when deep diving:

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-whales-eyes-glimpse-evolution-sea.html

"Their findings show that the common ancestor of living whales was already a deep diver, able to see in the blue twilight zone of the ocean, with eyes that swiftly adjusted to dim conditions as the whale rushed down on a deep breath of surface air.

"'In the evolution of whale diving, there's been a long-standing question of when deep-sea foraging evolved," says Belinda Chang, a professor in the Faculty of Arts & Science's departments of ecology and evolutionary biology, and cell and systems biology. "And it seems that based on our data, this happened before toothed and baleen whales diverged. The common ancestor of all living cetaceans was deeper diving—and then later species evolved all the diverse foraging specializations we see in modern whales and dolphins today."

***

"Whales evolved from mammals that share a common ancestor with hippos and that were partially aquatic. The great mystery of their transition to deep-sea foraging was how quickly this ability developed. Dungan and Chang looked at whale fossils on a molecular level and focused on the rhodopsin protein, which absorbs light and sends a signal that travels through the retina to the brain.

***

"'One of the most intriguing aspects of this iconic land-to-sea evolutionary transition is that the qualities of the visual environment completely changed," says Chang. "This helped to define which genes would be the most interesting for us to target in our studies."

"'The fossil record is the gold standard for understanding evolutionary biology," says Dungan. "But despite what Jurassic Park would have you believe, extracting DNA from fossil specimens is rare because the condition tends to be poor. So, if you're interested in how genes and DNA are evolving, you rely on mathematical modeling and a strong sample of genes from living organisms to complement what we understand from the fossil record."

"Dungan and Chang were astonished by the biochemical properties of the resurrected protein compared to land mammals. Early whale rhodopsin was more sensitive to the blue light that penetrates deepest into the ocean, to a degree that exceeded expectations. Its biochemical properties also suggested that the retinas of early whales could respond rapidly to changes in light levels."

Comment: since a very early ancestor of modern whales had a special set of genes to allow for the necessary type of rhodopsin for the specialized vision for deep diving, I find it as more evidence of design for future use

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 09, 2018, 22:26 (2140 days ago) @ David Turell

More information about leafcutter ants:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509104921.htm

"Leafcutter ants are found only in the Americas. More than 40 species range from Argentina to the southern United States, and they are a dominant ecological player in any forest or grassland they inhabit.

"'They aren't the only ants that grow fungi, but if you compare leafcutter ants with other ants that grow fungi, there are many differences," Mueller said. "For starters, no other ants use freshly cut leaves to grow their fungi."

"Ants that grow fungus on dead and decaying leaves have been around even longer than leafcutters, probably about 50 million years, Solomon said. But leafcutters' ability to use living leaves was a quantum leap in evolutionary terms because it opened up the entire ecosystem. For example, Solomon said, the ability to consume plant matter they cannot directly digest allows a nest of leafcutters to consume about as much vegetation each year as a full-grown cow.

"'Once you can use fresh leaves, it gives you access to so much more food," Solomon said. "If you can grow and raise your crop on any leaf that's growing out there, then the sky's the limit."

"In comparison with other fungus-growing ants, leafcutter colonies are enormous, Solomon said.

"'They're on the order of millions of individuals. Some leafcutter colonies are so large that they show up on photos taken by satellites in space."

Leafcutters also have specialized tasks. Individual worker ants come in different sizes, and they have different jobs.

"'Some are specialized on raising the young," Solomon said. "Others are specialized on removing weeds and disease inside the nest. Others are specialized on going out and finding food, and yet others are specialized on defending the colony.

"'All of the specialization is unique to the leafcutters," he said. "With other fungus-growing ants, the workers are basically interchangeable. They don't have these specialized tasks.

***

"'We sampled tons of different nests of leafcutter ant species throughout the entire range of all leafcutters, which goes from Texas in the extreme north down to Argentina," Solomon said. "What's novel about our approach is how much sampling there was, particularly in South America. In the past, there has been a lot of sampling, but it was focused in just a few different regions, particularly in Costa Rica and Panama.

"'It turns out the leafcutters in those places don't represent species that live elsewhere," he said. "By going and sampling in other places, especially in the open grasslands of southern Brazil, Paraguay and northern Argentina, we were able to show that the greatest genetic diversity of leafcutter fungi is in South America. Usually, wherever there's the greatest genetic diversity is where a group originated. That is true for humans, and that's just generally true of other species, and that leads us to believe the leafcutters originated in the grasslands of South America.'"

Comment: Since the workers have assigned jobs they work automatically, but this still doesn't explain how ant colonies like this work out such a specialized farming lifestyle. Since many other ants raise fungus on dead leaves, it can be assumed ants like the taste of fungus as food and learned to work out a way of farming as an instinct. Of course, perhaps God helped.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 00:10 (1238 days ago) @ David Turell

More new info:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/how-leaf-cutter-ants-domesticated-crops/?utm_...

"Over tens of millions of years, fungus-farming ants have learned how to cultivate their crops to ensure a stable food supply, seemingly navigating challenges that human farmers still grapple with.

“'Ants have managed to retain a farming lifestyle across 60 million years of climate change and leafcutter ants appear able to grow a single cultivar species across diverse habitats, from grasslands to tropical rainforest,” says Jonathan Shik from Denmark’s University of Copenhagen,

***

“'The ants appear to have faced a similar yield vulnerability trade-off as their crops became more specialised but have also evolved plenty of clever ways to persist over millions of years,” says Shik.

“For example, they became impressive architects, often excavating sophisticated and climate controlled subterranean growth chambers where they can protect their fungus from the elements.”

"In a series of experiments, Shik showed that the fungal cultivar’s nutritional requirements narrowed over millions of years of domestication, and that the ant farmers collected highly specific substrates – fertilisers, effectively – from the environment to produce the crops.

***

"They discovered that the ants foraged substrates from a diverse range of leaves, fruit and flowers from hundreds of different trees, with a rich nutrient profile including protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals.

"Incredibly, the ants would bypass some resources to choose fodder to meet the selective needs of their fungal crops.

"To understand this, Shik drew from the protein-leverage hypothesis, based on the observation that humans are driven to meet their protein requirements, even if it means eating loads of carbohydrates to get there.

"In captive colonies, he offered ants – which have taste receptors in their mouth parts – a mixture of diets with various nutrient profiles and found that ants refused to eat mixtures with too much protein, which is toxic to fungi.

“'If you feed the fungi outside their nutritional requirements, they die,” Shik explains.

“'Human farmers know exactly what the fundamental niche of corn is and can target this using specific fertilisers. The ants appear to know the same thing, surviving by satisfying the nutritional needs of their fungus crops.”

"This feat of organic farming, honed over the millennia, could explain the organisational complexity of attine ants, spanning 250 species that have evolved a remarkable diversity of agricultural domestication practices within the one ecosystem."

Comment: Amazing how they seem to learn from experience using their brains.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by dhw, Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 08:53 (1238 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More new info:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/how-leaf-cutter-ants-domesticated-crops/?utm_...

QUOTE: "Over tens of millions of years, fungus-farming ants have learned how to cultivate their crops to ensure a stable food supply, seemingly navigating challenges that human farmers still grapple with."

DAVID: Amazing how they seem to learn from experience using their brains.

We are in agreement! For me, ants represent the most vivid example of how a community can use its autonomous collective intelligence to perform the most amazing feats. This is the process I propose for the development of evolution, as individual cells pool their autonomous intelligence to perform the most amazing feats by restructuring themselves in response to the “challenges” which changing conditions create for them.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 18:11 (1238 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More new info:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/how-leaf-cutter-ants-domesticated-crops/?utm_...

QUOTE: "Over tens of millions of years, fungus-farming ants have learned how to cultivate their crops to ensure a stable food supply, seemingly navigating challenges that human farmers still grapple with."

DAVID: Amazing how they seem to learn from experience using their brains.

dhw: We are in agreement! For me, ants represent the most vivid example of how a community can use its autonomous collective intelligence to perform the most amazing feats. This is the process I propose for the development of evolution, as individual cells pool their autonomous intelligence to perform the most amazing feats by restructuring themselves in response to the “challenges” which changing conditions create for them.

Nice to agree. Source of the ant's many abilities is God. That is why they show intelligent activities.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by dhw, Thursday, October 29, 2020, 09:04 (1237 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are in agreement! For me, ants represent the most vivid example of how a community can use its autonomous collective intelligence to perform the most amazing feats. This is the process I propose for the development of evolution, as individual cells pool their autonomous intelligence to perform the most amazing feats by restructuring themselves in response to the “challenges” which changing conditions create for them.

DAVID: Nice to agree. Source of the ant's many abilities is God. That is why they show intelligent activities.

With my theistic hat on, I have no objection to your comment, so long as it means that your God invented their autonomous intelligence.

Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food II

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 29, 2020, 19:12 (1236 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are in agreement! For me, ants represent the most vivid example of how a community can use its autonomous collective intelligence to perform the most amazing feats. This is the process I propose for the development of evolution, as individual cells pool their autonomous intelligence to perform the most amazing feats by restructuring themselves in response to the “challenges” which changing conditions create for them.

DAVID: Nice to agree. Source of the ant's many abilities is God. That is why they show intelligent activities.

dhw: With my theistic hat on, I have no objection to your comment, so long as it means that your God invented their autonomous intelligence.

Fine

Natures wonders: ants farm more than fungus

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 10, 2022, 18:05 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

They do work with plants:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2346511-ants-have-evolved-to-farm-plants-on-at-lea...

"The cultivation of plants by ants is more widespread than previously realised, and has evolved on at least 15 separate occasions.

"There are more than 200 species of ants in the Americas that farm fungi for food, but this trait evolved just once sometime between 45 million and 65 million years ago. Biologists regard the cultivation of fungi by ants as true agriculture long predating human agriculture because it meets four criteria: the ants plant the fungus, care for it, harvest it and depend on it for food.

"By contrast, while thousands of ant species are known to have a wide variety of symbiotic relationships with plants, none were regarded as true agriculture. But in 2016, Guillaume Chomicki and Susanne Renner at the University of Munich, Germany, discovered that an ant in Fiji cultivates several plants in a way that meets the four criteria for true agriculture.

"The ants (Philidris nagasau) collect the seeds of the plants and place them in cracks in the bark of trees. As the plants grow, they form round, hollow structures called domatia that the ants nest in.

"The ants defecate at specific absorptive places in these domatia, providing nutrients for the plant. In return, as well as shelter, the plant provides food in the form of nectar, which is protected by special caps that the ants can bite off but that prevent other animals getting the nectar.

"This discovery prompted Chomicki and others to review the literature on ant-plant relationships to see if there are other examples of plant cultivation that have been overlooked. “They have never really been looked at in the framework of agriculture,” says Chomicki, who is now at the University of Sheffield in the UK. “It’s definitely widespread.”

"The team identified 37 examples of tree-living ants that cultivate plants that grow on trees, known as epiphytes. Epiphytes struggle to get enough nutrients, so they have a lot to gain by forming a relationship with ants, says Laura Campbell at Durham University in the UK, one of the study authors.

"By looking at the family trees of the ant species, the team was able to determine on how many occasions plant cultivation evolved and roughly when. Fifteen is a conservative estimate, says Campbell. All the systems evolved relatively recently, around 1 million to 3 million years ago, she says.

"Because fungal farming has persisted much longer and the fungal-farming ants have diversified into more species, it seems that farming plants is less evolutionarily successful than farming fungi – it might evolve often, but probably also dies out frequently. While fungus farming evolved only once in ants, it also evolved in termites, six times in beetles and possibly in bees, too.

"Whether the 37 examples of plant cultivation identified by the team count as true agriculture depends on the definitions used. Not all of the species get food from the plants, but they do rely on them for shelter, which is crucial for ants living in trees, says Campbell. So the team thinks the definition of true agriculture should include shelter as well as food.

"It also isn’t clear in many cases the extent to which the ants are dependent on the plants, says Campbell.

“'I absolutely agree with the authors that nutrition is only one of the reasons for agriculture, both human and non-human agriculture,” says Ted Schultz at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. “I also agree that farming of plants by ants is more widespread than previously recognised.'”

Comment: We should not be surprised at any ant activity.

Natures wonders: remoras hitch rides on whales

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 23:02 (1237 days ago) @ dhw

They use the Venturi principal and/or low drag areas on the whale:

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-international-uncovers-secret-surfing-life.html

"Sticking to the bodies of sharks and other larger marine life is a well-known specialty of remora fishes (Echeneidae) and their super-powered suction disks on their heads. But a new study has now fully documented the "suckerfish" in hitchhiking action below the ocean's surface, uncovering a much more refined skillset that the fish uses for navigating intense hydrodynamics that come with trying to ride aboard a 100-ft. blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus).

***

"The study shows the secrets behind the remora fish's success in hitchhiking aboard baleen whales more than 30 times their size to safely traverse the ocean—they select the most flow-optimal regions on the whale's body to stick to, such as behind the whale's blowhole, where drag resistance for the fish is reduced by as much as 84%. The team's findings also show that remoras can freely move around to feed and socialize on their ride even as their whale host hits burst speeds of more than 5 meters per second, by utilizing previously unknown surfing and skimming behaviors along special low-drag traveling lanes that exist just off the surface of the whale's body.

***

"According to the team's measurements, Anderson says that the shear force experienced by an average-sized remora in the wake behind the blow hole of a whale swimming at the casual speed of 1.5 m/s can be as low as 0.02 Newtons, half the force of drag in the free stream above. However, Anderson notes that the average remora's suction force of 11-17 Newtons is more than a match for even the most intense parking spot on the whale, its tail, where the remora experiences roughly 0.14 Newtons of shear force. And though the forces are greater, the same is true even for large remora riding on whales swimming at much higher speeds.

"'We learned that the remora's suction disk is so strong that they could stick anywhere, even the tail fluke where the drag was measured strongest, but they like to go for the easy ride," said Erik Anderson. "This saves them energy and makes life less costly as they hitchhike on and skim over the whale surface like a NASA probe over an asteroid or some mini-world."

"The tags showed that to conserve energy while getting about on their floating island, the remoras take advantage of the whale's physics by surfing inside a thin layer of fluid surrounding the whale's body, known as a boundary layer, where the team found drag force is reduced by up to 72% compared to the much more forceful free stream just above. Flammang says the fishes can lift within 1cm from their host in this layer to feed or join their mates at other low-drag social spots on the whale, occasionally changing directions by skimming, or repeatedly attaching and releasing their suction disks on the whale's body.

"Flammang suspects that remoras are able to move freely without being completely peeled from their speedy hosts, which can move nearly seven times faster than the remora, through something called the Venturi effect.

"'The skimming and surfing behavior is amazing for many reasons, especially because we think that by staying about a centimeter off the whale body, they are taking advantage of the Venturi effect and using suction forces to maintain their close proximity," explained Flammang. "In this narrow space between the remora and whale, when fluid is funneled into a narrow space it moves at a higher velocity but has lower pressure, so it is not going to push the remora away but can actually suck it toward the host. They can swim up into the free stream to grab a bite of food and come back down into the boundary layer, but it takes a lot more energy to swim in the free stream flow.'"

Comment: How this developed raises the usual chicken and egg issue. How did the sucker develop in a stepwise manner? More likely it was there from the beginning, meaning it was designed.

Natures wonders: ogre-based spiders use sound to catch prey

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 29, 2020, 20:21 (1236 days ago) @ David Turell

Another weird way spiders catch a meal:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ogre-faced-spider-hearing-catch-insects-prey-air-so...

"Hanging upside down, the spider weaves a rectangular web between its legs. When an insect flies behind the dangling arachnid, the spider swings backward, casting the web toward the prey. This behind-the-back hunting technique is one clue that the spiders can hear an unexpectedly wide range of sounds, researchers report online October 29 in Current Biology.

“'A couple years ago, we didn’t really have a great idea that spiders could hear,” says Jay Stafstrom, a sensory ecologist at Cornell University. But now, he and his colleagues have looked at several spider species, and most can hear using specialized organs on their legs, he says. That includes jumping spiders, which respond to low frequencies. Surprisingly, ogre-faced spiders can also hear fairly high frequencies, Stafstrom says.

"Stafstrom and colleagues inserted microelectrodes into the brains of 13 ogre-faced spiders, and then played tones of varying frequencies from a speaker while monitoring the spiders’ auditory nerve cell activity. Spikes of activity revealed that the spiders can sense airborne sounds between 100 and 10,000 hertz, though not at every frequency, the team found. (Humans generally hear between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.)

"Nerve cells in amputated spider legs — where the slit sensilla, the organ that responds to sound vibrations, is located — also responded to the wide range of frequencies. This finding confirms that the spiders hear with their legs, the researchers say.

***

“'They can obviously catch things out of the air just using sound,” Stafstrom says. And because the spiders strike only at low frequencies, they’re probably using the lower end of their hearing to listen for prey and hunt. As for the upper frequency range, “they don’t seem to be using it in a foraging context,” he says."

Comment: One wonders how the spiders learned this system since it is so complex, blindly throwing the net from sounds. The spider must have 3-D hearing as we do, but alone does not tell us how it developed naturally. Designed?

Natures wonders: octopuses taste with their suckers

by David Turell @, Friday, October 30, 2020, 00:32 (1236 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study develops the finding:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/taste-by-touch-is-all-in-the-suckers/?utm_sou...

"In a paper published in the journal Cell, they describe how a novel family of sensors in the first layer of cells inside the suction cups has adapted to react and detect molecules that don’t dissolve well in water.

"The researchers suggest that the sensors, called chemotactile receptors, use these molecules to help the animal figure out what it’s touching and whether that object is prey.

“'We think because the molecules do not solubilise well, they could, for instance, be found on the surface of octopuses’ prey and [whatever the animals touch],” says senior author Nicholas Bellono.

“'So, when the octopus touches a rock versus a crab, now its arm knows, ‘OK, I’m touching a crab [because] I know there’s not only touch but there’s also this sort of taste’.”

***

"They discovered that the sucker did indeed include discrete populations of sensory cells.

"But how do chemical signals received via those suckers work together with other physical stimuli to decide whether an octopus grabs what it touches?

"While there’s much more to learn, the researchers say, their study shows that distinct chemotactile receptors form discrete ion channel complexes that detect specific signals and send them on to the nervous system.

"Bellono suggests that this could serve as a signal filtering system suited to the octopus’ uniquely distributed nervous system.

“'We also showed that separate and distinct chemo- and mechanosensory cells express specific receptors and exhibit discrete electrical activities to encode chemical and touch information, respectively,” he says.

“'Our results demonstrate that the peripherally distributed octopus nervous system exhibits exceptional signal filtering properties that are mediated by highly specialised sensory receptors.'”

Comment: The octopus has a ganglion type brain in each arm. And their mischievous activities such as climbing out of their tanks and playing tricks is well known.

Natures wonders: octopus scattered nerve system

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 23:54 (382 days ago) @ David Turell

The system is considered mathematically efficient:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-octopus-arms-bypass-the-brain/

OOctopuses' sucker-covered arms can act as if they contain partly independent mini brains. Each arm gathers sensory information to drive its own movements—and even those of other arms—without consulting major brain regions.

“'Their arms are so mobile; they're soft, and they can bend and twist and do all sorts of things,” says Melina Hale, a biologist at the University of Chicago. In a study in Current Biology, she and her colleagues reveal the strange connections that may facilitate these supple limbs' decentralized coordination.

***

"The researchers traced the nerve cords with a powerful microscope and found that one type—the cords closest to the suckers—not only ran the length of an arm but also extended down another arm two arms away. All eight arms show this pattern. The layout was “totally different from anything that we'd ever seen before,” says Hale, who had expected the cords to create a structure similar to the central ring formed by larger peripheral nerves.

“'I think it's as simple as saying that it's mathematically efficient,” Kuuspalu says of the newly discovered pattern. If these connections carried sensory and motor signals, they would allow for rapid communication between relatively distant arms.

***

“'It's not clear yet how the [intramuscular nerve cords] communicate or even if they do send signals across the body over long distances,” she adds. The study authors plan to delve into these questions next.
'
“We can now approach our anatomical and behavioral studies a bit differently, with more focus on what any one arm is doing in concert with more distant arms in the ring,” says Roger Hanlon, a researcher at the Marine Biological Laboratory and frequent collaborator with Hale's group. “We are in that intriguing ‘mild state of confusion’ that is simultaneously perplexing and exhilarating when unexpected discoveries are revealed.'”

Comment: Please look at the illustration to appreciate the intricacy of the design. This did evolve by chance mutations.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Friday, April 24, 2020, 23:24 (1424 days ago) @ David Turell

This has been done for millions of years before we started about 12,000 years ago:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/insects-ants-extreme-farming-methods-offer-good-bad...

"To picture this farm, imagine some dark blobs dangling high up in a tree.

"Each blob can reach “about soccer ball size,” says evolutionary biologist Guillaume Chomicki of Durham University in England. From this bulbous base, a Squamellaria plant eventually sprouts leafy shoots and hangs, slumping sideways or upside down, from its host tree’s branches. In Fiji, one of the local names for the plant translates as “testicle of the trees.”

"Some Squamellaria species grow in clusters and teem with fiercely protective ants. As a young seedling blob plumps up, jelly bean–shaped bubbles form inside, reachable only through ant-sized doorways. As soon as a young plant cracks open its first door to daylight, “ant workers start to enter and defecate inside the seedling to fertilize it,” Chomicki says.

"The idea that ants tend these plants as farmers gave Chomicki one of those surprise-left-turn moments in science. In a string of papers published since 2016, he and colleagues share evidence for the idea that the Philidris nagasau ants may be the first known animals other than humans to farm plants. (The other known insect farmers cultivate fungi.)

***

'Until Chomicki’s work, biologists accepted only three groups of fungus-farming insects as achieving the essentials of full agriculture and so rivaling human efforts. Select types of beetles, termites and ants each tamed different fungi, tending their much-needed food crop from sowing to harvest.

"Humans didn’t farm any food before roughly 12,000 years ago as far as we know. Insects started much earlier. Even leaf-cutter ants, relative newcomers to farming, have been growing their specialized crops for about 15 million years.

***

"The fungus farms of leaf-cutter Atta ants and their close relatives invite comparisons with human farms. Both kinds of farmers do things that look unsustainable, such as growing single crops at a vast scale and applying pesticides. Yet the ants have managed to persist for millions of years.

***

"Plenty of other creatures — social amoebas, a marsh snail, a damselfish, for instance — have evolved ways to encourage food to appear where and when they want it. Impressive as those feats are, plenty of scientists don’t consider those lifestyles full-on agriculture.

"Several thousand species of the group called ambrosia beetles make up the biggest of the three insect groups that humans deign to call true farmers... Fungus farming has evolved independently at least 11 times among these beetles, says forest entomologist Jiri Hulcr of the University of Florida in Gainesville. A few ambrosia species tunneling into trees bring along a fungus that can digest wood’s tougher molecules. Most ambrosia fungal farms, though, are just scavenging nutrients in the dying tree. Still, the fungus gets nutrients, then the beetles eat the fungus."

Comment: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Saturday, April 25, 2020, 14:15 (1424 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 25, 2020, 22:58 (1423 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: our “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

As usual we are far apart. God helps and teh animals do it.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Sunday, April 26, 2020, 12:08 (1423 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

How do you think God “helps”?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 26, 2020, 21:03 (1422 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

Programs their onboard information.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Monday, April 27, 2020, 13:37 (1422 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Monday, April 27, 2020, 20:13 (1421 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 10:51 (1421 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DAVID: DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

So the ants’ invention of farming was thanks to God planting an ant farming programme in their DNA 3.8 billion years ago, alongside the programme for all future life forms and their lifestyles and strategies and natural wonders – but that is called “helping”. Or (there's always hope) do you mean God planted the information which made ants into ants, but he left them to work out their own means of survival, including farming?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 20:21 (1420 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The rest of this enormous review article takes up individual examples and is worth reading. As usual I favor help from God in these complex instinctual behaviors.

dhw: Your “help” apparently consists of preprogramming ant farming 3.8 billion years ago (along with the millions and millions of other life forms, strategies and natural wonders for the rest of life's history) or direct dabbling (special farming courses for ants?). Currently you favour preprogramming. Or can you think of any other type of help? I would suggest, yet again, that ants, like all other life forms, have the ability (perhaps God-given) to figure out their own methods of survival. And please don't come up with your "guidelines" again unless you can offer guidelines that are not preprogrammed or directly dabbled.

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DAVID: DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

dhw: So the ants’ invention of farming was thanks to God planting an ant farming programme in their DNA 3.8 billion years ago, alongside the programme for all future life forms and their lifestyles and strategies and natural wonders – but that is called “helping”. Or (there's always hope) do you mean God planted the information which made ants into ants, but he left them to work out their own means of survival, including farming?

No hope. IMHO God showed ants how to farm

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Wednesday, April 29, 2020, 15:51 (1420 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DAVID: DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

dhw: So the ants’ invention of farming was thanks to God planting an ant farming programme in their DNA 3.8 billion years ago, alongside the programme for all future life forms and their lifestyles and strategies and natural wonders – but that is called “helping”. Or (there's always hope) do you mean God planted the information which made ants into ants, but he left them to work out their own means of survival, including farming?

DAVID: No hope. IMHO God showed ants how to farm.

Which means he either programmed ant farming 3.8 billion years ago, or he dabbled – presumably because he’d weakly forgotten to include ant farming in the programme. How else could he have “shown” them?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 29, 2020, 20:16 (1419 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DAVID: DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

dhw: So the ants’ invention of farming was thanks to God planting an ant farming programme in their DNA 3.8 billion years ago, alongside the programme for all future life forms and their lifestyles and strategies and natural wonders – but that is called “helping”. Or (there's always hope) do you mean God planted the information which made ants into ants, but he left them to work out their own means of survival, including farming?

DAVID: No hope. IMHO God showed ants how to farm.

dhw: Which means he either programmed ant farming 3.8 billion years ago, or he dabbled – presumably because he’d weakly forgotten to include ant farming in the programme. How else could he have “shown” them?

See other discussions re' how God works. He may be hands on all the time. It is all guess work, nothing concrete, as you always try to make it.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Thursday, April 30, 2020, 15:40 (1419 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual we are far apart. God helps and the animals do it.

dhw: How do you think God “helps”?

DAVID: Programs their onboard information.

dhw: That’s not “help”, that’s programming, as above in bold.

DAVID: DNA contains information. much of which is God-given.

dhw: So the ants’ invention of farming was thanks to God planting an ant farming programme in their DNA 3.8 billion years ago, alongside the programme for all future life forms and their lifestyles and strategies and natural wonders – but that is called “helping”. Or (there's always hope) do you mean God planted the information which made ants into ants, but he left them to work out their own means of survival, including farming?

DAVID: No hope. IMHO God showed ants how to farm.

dhw: Which means he either programmed ant farming 3.8 billion years ago, or he dabbled – presumably because he’d weakly forgotten to include ant farming in the programme. How else could he have “shown” them?

DAVID: See other discussions re' how God works. He may be hands on all the time. It is all guess work, nothing concrete, as you always try to make it.

The guess that your God gave ants the wherewithal to devise their own farming system is no more concrete than your changing guesses that your God preprogrammed ant farming or dabbled it (= hands on).

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Under "bacterial memory":

DAVID: Usual twist. The article shows exactly what happens physically in the ant membranes, a form of chemical memory, nothing more.

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

xxxxx

Under "Negative memory controls"

"'Our findings in worms are a good starting point for further research into the cognitive functions of other animals. We know that Neuromedin U is also found in many other organisms and in the human brain," says Professor Liliane Schoofs. "A good knowledge of these basic mechanisms is, therefore, crucial to better understand the complex processes in the human brain.'"

DAVID:It seems all brains have the same basic properties, but vary greatly in thought capacity as the human brain shows. Communication by ion electric currents is basic to brain processes, but the neurons are also influenced by many different neuropeptides.

Both of the above posts emphasize the material sources of cognition, as indeed do you with your constant references to the thought capacity of the human brain. And all the articles seem to suggest that other life forms have a degree of cognition.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 30, 2020, 20:48 (1418 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: See other discussions re' how God works. He may be hands on all the time. It is all guess work, nothing concrete, as you always try to make it.

dhw: The guess that your God gave ants the wherewithal to devise their own farming system is no more concrete than your changing guesses that your God preprogrammed ant farming or dabbled it (= hands on).

Same example: I'm not concrete. As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind. all I am doing is theorizing on how that mind works, trying to ignore religious teachings which just get in the way. My theories are no more concrete or substantiated than your woolly idea 'hard thought blew up ancient brains', when their artifacts are so simple, and even our giant brain couldn't invent much and was at a stone age level until 10,000 years ago. Can't you see we had a great brain we had to learn to use? Therefore thought didn't blow it up!!!


Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Under "bacterial memory":

DAVID: Usual twist. The article shows exactly what happens physically in the ant membranes, a form of chemical memory, nothing more.

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

Good


xxxxx

Under "Negative memory controls"

"'Our findings in worms are a good starting point for further research into the cognitive functions of other animals. We know that Neuromedin U is also found in many other organisms and in the human brain," says Professor Liliane Schoofs. "A good knowledge of these basic mechanisms is, therefore, crucial to better understand the complex processes in the human brain.'"

DAVID:It seems all brains have the same basic properties, but vary greatly in thought capacity as the human brain shows. Communication by ion electric currents is basic to brain processes, but the neurons are also influenced by many different neuropeptides.

dhw: Both of the above posts emphasize the material sources of cognition, as indeed do you with your constant references to the thought capacity of the human brain. And all the articles seem to suggest that other life forms have a degree of cognition.

They do. Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems. Our brain is the material side of my dualism with its massive neuronal networks available to the soul to use to create thoughts at all levels of complexity.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Friday, May 01, 2020, 12:02 (1418 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: See other discussions re' how God works. He may be hands on all the time. It is all guess work, nothing concrete, as you always try to make it.

dhw: The guess that your God gave ants the wherewithal to devise their own farming system is no more concrete than your changing guesses that your God preprogrammed ant farming or dabbled it (= hands on).

DAVID: Same example: I'm not concrete.

How is dabbling not concrete?

DAVID: As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind.

Of course if God exists, he has a powerful mind. How does that make dabbling less concrete than inventing autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: all I am doing is theorizing on how that mind works, trying to ignore religious teachings which just get in the way. My theories are no more concrete or substantiated than your woolly idea 'hard thought blew up ancient brains', when their artifacts are so simple, and even our giant brain couldn't invent much and was at a stone age level until 10,000 years ago. Can't you see we had a great brain we had to learn to use? Therefore thought didn't blow it up!!!

You said you were not concrete. What could be more concrete than saying your God directly dabbled each brain expansion? The rest of your comment is no defence of your concrete version of events, and is dealt with under “Brain Expansion”.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Under "bacterial memory":

DAVID: Usual twist. The article shows exactly what happens physically in the ant membranes, a form of chemical memory, nothing more.

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

xxxxxxxxxx

Under "Negative memory controls"
QUOTE: "'Our findings in worms are a good starting point for further research into the cognitive functions of other animals. We know that Neuromedin U is also found in many other organisms and in the human brain," says Professor Liliane Schoofs. "A good knowledge of these basic mechanisms is, therefore, crucial to better understand the complex processes in the human brain.'"

DAVID:It seems all brains have the same basic properties, but vary greatly in thought capacity as the human brain shows. Communication by ion electric currents is basic to brain processes, but the neurons are also influenced by many different neuropeptides.

dhw: Both of the above posts emphasize the material sources of cognition, as indeed do you with your constant references to the thought capacity of the human brain. And all the articles seem to suggest that other life forms have a degree of cognition.

DAVID: They do. Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Friday, May 01, 2020, 21:45 (1417 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind.

dhw: Of course if God exists, he has a powerful mind. How does that make dabbling less concrete than inventing autonomous intelligence?

Same response. Obviously I don't really know how God controls or manufactures evolution.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Under "bacterial memory":

DAVID: Usual twist. The article shows exactly what happens physically in the ant membranes, a form of chemical memory, nothing more.

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable


xxxxxxxxxx

Under "Negative memory controls"
QUOTE: "'Our findings in worms are a good starting point for further research into the cognitive functions of other animals. We know that Neuromedin U is also found in many other organisms and in the human brain," says Professor Liliane Schoofs. "A good knowledge of these basic mechanisms is, therefore, crucial to better understand the complex processes in the human brain.'"

DAVID:It seems all brains have the same basic properties, but vary greatly in thought capacity as the human brain shows. Communication by ion electric currents is basic to brain processes, but the neurons are also influenced by many different neuropeptides.

dhw: Both of the above posts emphasize the material sources of cognition, as indeed do you with your constant references to the thought capacity of the human brain. And all the articles seem to suggest that other life forms have a degree of cognition.

DAVID: They do. Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Saturday, May 02, 2020, 11:12 (1417 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind.

dhw: Of course if God exists, he has a powerful mind. How does that make dabbling less concrete than inventing autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: Same response. Obviously I don't really know how God controls or manufactures evolution.

None of us knows. So the theoretical invention of autonomous intelligence is no more concrete than the theoretical invention of hands-on dabbling.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

DAVID: Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.

What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?

xxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 02, 2020, 22:26 (1416 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?

DAVID: At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

DAVID: Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.

dhw: What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?

The disagreement is that I maintain what looks intelligent can be the result of intelligent instructions


xxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Sunday, May 03, 2020, 13:05 (1416 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.

DAVID: Good.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last!

DAVID: Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.

dhw: What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?

DAVID: The disagreement is that I maintain what looks intelligent can be the result of intelligent instructions.

Yes, I know. You said your view of intelligence was not the same as mine, so it would be interesting to know what are your criteria for intelligence.

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

DAVID: When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

Agreed. Hardly a problem. How about problem-solving?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 03, 2020, 15:42 (1416 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.

dhw: What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?

DAVID: The disagreement is that I maintain what looks intelligent can be the result of intelligent instructions.

dhw: Yes, I know. You said your view of intelligence was not the same as mine, so it would be interesting to know what are your criteria for intelligence.

A mental process underlies all intelligence.


DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

DAVID: When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

dhw: Agreed. Hardly a problem. How about problem-solving?

Requires mentation. Ants have brains and can make simple yes/no choices based on observations.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Monday, May 04, 2020, 11:01 (1415 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You said your view of intelligence was not the same as mine, so it would be interesting to know what are your criteria for intelligence.

DAVID: A mental process underlies all intelligence.

Yes of course, but what would you say were the attributes that would combine to form what you regard as intelligence? Would you agree with the little list below, now bolded?

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

DAVID: When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

dhw: Agreed. Hardly a problem. How about problem-solving?

DAVID: Requires mentation. Ants have brains and can make simple yes/no choices based on observations.

I don’t know how the invention of farming techniques can arise out of simple yes/no choices. But even a simple yes/no choice requires mentation/a mental process. So would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Monday, May 04, 2020, 15:46 (1415 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You said your view of intelligence was not the same as mine, so it would be interesting to know what are your criteria for intelligence.

DAVID: A mental process underlies all intelligence.

Yes of course, but what would you say were the attributes that would combine to form what you regard as intelligence? Would you agree with the little list below, now bolded?

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

DAVID: And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.

dhw: So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”

DAVID: When you touch a hot stove, your hand is moved before you have thought through what needs be done. That is the automaticity I'm describing.

dhw: Agreed. Hardly a problem. How about problem-solving?

DAVID: Requires mentation. Ants have brains and can make simple yes/no choices based on observations.

dhw: I don’t know how the invention of farming techniques can arise out of simple yes/no choices. But even a simple yes/no choice requires mentation/a mental process. So would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

To the degree they make either/or choices, yes.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Tuesday, May 05, 2020, 10:39 (1414 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What would you say were the attributes that would combine to form what you regard as intelligence? Would you agree with the little list below, now bolded?

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

Sadly you still won’t tell us what attributes you consider to be essential before you will call an organism intelligent.

DAVID: [...] would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: To the degree they make either/or choices, yes.

I’m amazed that you consider the invention of farming techniques, of rafting, of the many strategies used to combat enemies, and indeed of building whole cities to be either/or choices. But at least we’ve made a start. Ants apparently do have a degree of autonomous intelligence since they can choose between two options. Otherwise, though, all the above examples of intelligence are apparently the work of automatons to whom a hands-on God gives courses in or implants instructions for farming, rafting, soldiering and architecture. Have I got that right?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 05, 2020, 17:07 (1414 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: What would you say were the attributes that would combine to form what you regard as intelligence? Would you agree with the little list below, now bolded?

DAVID: Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.

dhw: As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

Sadly you still won’t tell us what attributes you consider to be essential before you will call an organism intelligent.

DAVID: [...] would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: To the degree they make either/or choices, yes.

dhw: I’m amazed that you consider the invention of farming techniques, of rafting, of the many strategies used to combat enemies, and indeed of building whole cities to be either/or choices. But at least we’ve made a start. Ants apparently do have a degree of autonomous intelligence since they can choose between two options. Otherwise, though, all the above examples of intelligence are apparently the work of automatons to whom a hands-on God gives courses in or implants instructions for farming, rafting, soldiering and architecture. Have I got that right?

See previous entry as each ant does his own thing:

Ant intelligence; colony traffic jam controls (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 20:51

The same findings were found in bridge building:

Natures wonders: ants build bridges by individual action (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44

"As individual ants run the “bridging” algorithm, they have a sensitivity to being stampeded. When traffic over their backs is above a certain level, they hold in place, but when it dips below some threshold — perhaps because too many other ants are now occupied in bridge-building themselves — the ant unfreezes and rejoins the march.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Wednesday, May 06, 2020, 12:06 (1413 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

Do you agree that these are attributes that denote intelligence?

dhw: [...] would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: To the degree they make either/or choices, yes.

dhw: I’m amazed that you consider the invention of farming techniques, of rafting, of the many strategies used to combat enemies, and indeed of building whole cities to be either/or choices. But at least we’ve made a start. Ants apparently do have a degree of autonomous intelligence since they can choose between two options. Otherwise, though, all the above examples of intelligence are apparently the work of automatons to whom a hands-on God gives courses in or implants instructions for farming, rafting, soldiering and architecture. Have I got that right?

Please tell me if the above is an accurate description of your beliefs.

DAVID: See previous entry as each ant does his own thing:
Ant intelligence; colony traffic jam controls (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 20:51

I’m not very proficient with the technology of finding threads. There are 59 pages of them! I gave up after scrolling through the first 10. Sorry. The second one was easy, though:

DAVID:The same findings were found in bridge building:
Natures wonders: ants build bridges by individual action (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44

QUOTE: "As individual ants run the “bridging” algorithm, they have a sensitivity to being stampeded. When traffic over their backs is above a certain level, they hold in place, but when it dips below some threshold — perhaps because too many other ants are now occupied in bridge-building themselves — the ant unfreezes and rejoins the march.”

The quote does not preclude intelligence, but the article does generally opt for some sort of blind automatism. However, it ends with a far more balanced view, even echoed by yourself:

QUOTE: “'We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University."

DAVID: Each ant follows a built-in algorithm, but there could be a degree of group think not yet uncovered.

Yes indeed. Now perhaps you’ll comment on my response to your previous post.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 06, 2020, 16:37 (1413 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

dhw: Do you agree that these are attributes that denote intelligence?

Same old discussion: below we are looking at the ants from the outside. What looks like innate intelligence can be simply following rules or in all animals and plants simple yes/no responses to automatic sensors triggering standard responses


dhw: [...] would you say that ants have a certain degree of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: To the degree they make either/or choices, yes.

dhw: I’m amazed that you consider the invention of farming techniques, of rafting, of the many strategies used to combat enemies, and indeed of building whole cities to be either/or choices. But at least we’ve made a start. Ants apparently do have a degree of autonomous intelligence since they can choose between two options. Otherwise, though, all the above examples of intelligence are apparently the work of automatons to whom a hands-on God gives courses in or implants instructions for farming, rafting, soldiering and architecture. Have I got that right?

dhw: Please tell me if the above is an accurate description of your beliefs.

DAVID: See previous entry as each ant does his own thing:
Ant intelligence; colony traffic jam controls (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 20:51

dhw: I’m not very proficient with the technology of finding threads. There are 59 pages of them! I gave up after scrolling through the first 10. Sorry. The second one was easy, though:

Yes indeed. Now perhaps you’ll comment on my response to your previous post.

Here is the ant jam story:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080738.htm

Ants, protected by their exoskeleton, are not afraid of collisions and can accelerate where we humans prefer to slow down. In addition, movements in ant colonies share a common goal: foraging, which is carried out effectively regardless of density. Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic."

Comment: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

I have no reason to change the comment. The reason you had trouble finding this is Neil's search mechanism is not coded well and my last entry yesterday got in the way of your search and mine today until I searched for ant traffic jams and it reappeared. I thought you had special techniques Neil gave you. Guess not.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Thursday, May 07, 2020, 11:38 (1412 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

dhw: Do you agree that these are attributes that denote intelligence?

DAVID: Same old discussion: below we are looking at the ants from the outside. What looks like innate intelligence can be simply following rules or in all animals and plants simple yes/no responses to automatic sensors triggering standard responses.

We look at all things except ourselves from the outside. We simply assume that we ourselves are autonomously intelligent and therefore so are our fellow humans (though sometimes even I have my doubts when I listen to the robotic speeches of our politicians). As for other life forms, we can only judge by their behaviour. Thank you for providing the wonderful example below:

QUOTE: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic."

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 07, 2020, 20:02 (1411 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.

dhw: Do you agree that these are attributes that denote intelligence?

DAVID: Same old discussion: below we are looking at the ants from the outside. What looks like innate intelligence can be simply following rules or in all animals and plants simple yes/no responses to automatic sensors triggering standard responses.

We look at all things except ourselves from the outside. We simply assume that we ourselves are autonomously intelligent and therefore so are our fellow humans (though sometimes even I have my doubts when I listen to the robotic speeches of our politicians). As for other life forms, we can only judge by their behaviour. Thank you for providing the wonderful example below:

QUOTE: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic."

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

dhw: A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

The studies I have quoted show either/or decisions, as as we make.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Friday, May 08, 2020, 11:03 (1411 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

dhw: A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

DAVID: The studies I have quoted show either/or decisions, as we make.

The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Friday, May 08, 2020, 18:51 (1411 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

dhw: A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

DAVID: The studies I have quoted show either/or decisions, as we make.

dhw: The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence?

Because each ant's decision is either/or stop/go

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Saturday, May 09, 2020, 10:37 (1410 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

dhw: A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

DAVID: The studies I have quoted show either/or decisions, as we make.

dhw: The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence?

DAVID: Because each ant's decision is either/or stop/go

That is the human choice, which is why we have traffic jams. Ants clearly have other choices because they AVOID traffic jams by continuously changing their behaviour according to local conditions! Your quote actually implies that ants are a darn sight more intelligent than humans when it comes to traffic control! It certainly doesn't imply that ants are robots!

Under: How sapiens were Neanderthals?

QUOTES: "'I think this shows that Neanderthals really knew what they were doing," Martisius said.

"'Neanderthals knew that for a specific task, they needed a very particular tool. They found what worked best and sought it out when it was available," Martisius said."

DAVID: They have to be thinking smartly to make the choices they did.

I am always amazed when so-called experts seem surprised at the idea that non-sapiens knew what they were doing. And by extension, I am amazed at so many people’s assumption that other life forms DON'T know what they’re doing. Survival depends on all of them knowing that for a specific task they must find out what works best. Sceptics simply ignore the fact that EVERY survival strategy must have had an origin, and once it worked, it became instinctive and only required change if something went wrong. Neanderthals didn’t have to reinvent their tools once they had found out what worked best. Ants don’t have to reinvent their farming techniques once they have found those that work. But intelligence is required to invent them and to adapt them if conditions change.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 09, 2020, 15:24 (1410 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Human traffic jams are the result of individual driver's decisions. The ants make group decisions as each individual makes the same move in coordination. I suspect a learned instinctual behavior based on standardized individual responses to stimuli, as shown in the bridge building study.

dhw: A fine piece of convoluted thinking. The quote shows us human beings following “invariable” rules, such as automatically stopping at red traffic lights. But we are intelligent. Ants are "continuously adapting" their behaviour to changing conditions. And you think that makes them automatons!

DAVID: The studies I have quoted show either/or decisions, as we make.

dhw: The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence?

DAVID: Because each ant's decision is either/or stop/go

dhw: That is the human choice, which is why we have traffic jams. Ants clearly have other choices because they AVOID traffic jams by continuously changing their behaviour according to local conditions! Your quote actually implies that ants are a darn sight more intelligent than humans when it comes to traffic control! It certainly doesn't imply that ants are robots!

There are math formulas that describe traffic jams because of human thinking reactions. The ants solve the problem by a stop or go decision. We always wait for the next car to start up before we go creating delays. Study army marching; no gaps. Same with ants.


Under: How sapiens were Neanderthals?

QUOTES: "'I think this shows that Neanderthals really knew what they were doing," Martisius said.

"'Neanderthals knew that for a specific task, they needed a very particular tool. They found what worked best and sought it out when it was available," Martisius said."

DAVID: They have to be thinking smartly to make the choices they did.

dhw: I am always amazed when so-called experts seem surprised at the idea that non-sapiens knew what they were doing. And by extension, I am amazed at so many people’s assumption that other life forms DON'T know what they’re doing. Survival depends on all of them knowing that for a specific task they must find out what works best. Sceptics simply ignore the fact that EVERY survival strategy must have had an origin, and once it worked, it became instinctive and only required change if something went wrong. Neanderthals didn’t have to reinvent their tools once they had found out what worked best. Ants don’t have to reinvent their farming techniques once they have found those that work. But intelligence is required to invent them and to adapt them if conditions change.

The Neanderthals may have used trial and error to find the right bones. That takes analysis. As for ants, isn't it possible God helped?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Sunday, May 10, 2020, 11:36 (1409 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence? […]

DAVID: There are math formulas that describe traffic jams because of human thinking reactions. The ants solve the problem by a stop or go decision. We always wait for the next car to start up before we go creating delays. Study army marching; no gaps. Same with ants.

I’m sorry, but no matter what maths formulas you choose to quote, it seems to me that any organism which avoids problems by continuously changing its behaviour according to local conditions is showing signs of autonomous intelligence.

dhw: I am always amazed when so-called experts seem surprised at the idea that non-sapiens knew what they were doing. And by extension, I am amazed at so many people’s assumption that other life forms DON'T know what they’re doing. Survival depends on all of them knowing that for a specific task they must find out what works best. Sceptics simply ignore the fact that EVERY survival strategy must have had an origin, and once it worked, it became instinctive and only required change if something went wrong. Neanderthals didn’t have to reinvent their tools once they had found out what worked best. Ants don’t have to reinvent their farming techniques once they have found those that work. But intelligence is required to invent them and to adapt them if conditions change.

DAVID: The Neanderthals may have used trial and error to find the right bones. That takes analysis. As for ants, isn't it possible God helped?

Anything is possible, but I find it far more likely that ants worked out their own traffic and farming strategies (using their perhaps God-given intelligence) than that your God preprogrammed their behaviour 3.8 billion years ago, or gave them courses in traffic control and farming techniques.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 10, 2020, 15:46 (1409 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The study you quoted said: “Ants seem to avoid the traffic jam trap by continuously adapting their traffic rules to suit local crowding, whereas car traffic follows invariable rules such as stopping at a red light regardless of traffic.” How do you translate the ants’ avoidance of traffic jams by continuous adaptations into “either/or” non-intelligence, while human adherence to invariable rules leads to traffic jams but denotes intelligence? […]

DAVID: There are math formulas that describe traffic jams because of human thinking reactions. The ants solve the problem by a stop or go decision. We always wait for the next car to start up before we go creating delays. Study army marching; no gaps. Same with ants.

dhw: I’m sorry, but no matter what maths formulas you choose to quote, it seems to me that any organism which avoids problems by continuously changing its behaviour according to local conditions is showing signs of autonomous intelligence.

I've marched in high school and Army.. It is still either or for marching ants.


dhw: I am always amazed when so-called experts seem surprised at the idea that non-sapiens knew what they were doing. And by extension, I am amazed at so many people’s assumption that other life forms DON'T know what they’re doing. Survival depends on all of them knowing that for a specific task they must find out what works best. Sceptics simply ignore the fact that EVERY survival strategy must have had an origin, and once it worked, it became instinctive and only required change if something went wrong. Neanderthals didn’t have to reinvent their tools once they had found out what worked best. Ants don’t have to reinvent their farming techniques once they have found those that work. But intelligence is required to invent them and to adapt them if conditions change.

DAVID: The Neanderthals may have used trial and error to find the right bones. That takes analysis. As for ants, isn't it possible God helped?

dhw: Anything is possible, but I find it far more likely that ants worked out their own traffic and farming strategies (using their perhaps God-given intelligence) than that your God preprogrammed their behaviour 3.8 billion years ago, or gave them courses in traffic control and farming techniques.

Traffic is still either/or without God's help. Farming probably required God.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Monday, May 11, 2020, 13:03 (1408 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: it seems to me that any organism which avoids problems by continuously changing its behaviour according to local conditions is showing signs of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: I've marched in high school and Army. It is still either or for marching ants.

I really don’t know how a human being marching in high school and the Army proves that organisms which constantly change their behaviour according to local conditions are either automatons or confined to a single choice. In traffic, they could stop, go, slow down, change direction…but in any case, avoiding traffic jams is just one of their astonishing talents. In addition to farming, we have mentioned architecture, different strategies to combat different enemies, and a social system of amazing flexibility.

DAVID: The Neanderthals may have used trial and error to find the right bones. That takes analysis. As for ants, isn't it possible God helped?

dhw: Anything is possible, but I find it far more likely that ants worked out their own traffic and farming strategies (using their perhaps God-given intelligence) than that your God preprogrammed their behaviour 3.8 billion years ago, or gave them courses in traffic control and farming techniques.

DAVID: Traffic is still either/or without God's help. Farming probably required God.

Do you think the origin of farming or of architecture could have been either/or? Once again: “required God” means either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant farming (along with every other undabbled life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history...), or God giving farming courses to ants. I’m sorry, but I find both options just a little hard to swallow.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Monday, May 11, 2020, 16:14 (1408 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: it seems to me that any organism which avoids problems by continuously changing its behaviour according to local conditions is showing signs of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: I've marched in high school and Army. It is still either or for marching ants.

I really don’t know how a human being marching in high school and the Army proves that organisms which constantly change their behaviour according to local conditions are either automatons or confined to a single choice. In traffic, they could stop, go, slow down, change direction…but in any case, avoiding traffic jams is just one of their astonishing talents. In addition to farming, we have mentioned architecture, different strategies to combat different enemies, and a social system of amazing flexibility.

DAVID: The Neanderthals may have used trial and error to find the right bones. That takes analysis. As for ants, isn't it possible God helped?

dhw: Anything is possible, but I find it far more likely that ants worked out their own traffic and farming strategies (using their perhaps God-given intelligence) than that your God preprogrammed their behaviour 3.8 billion years ago, or gave them courses in traffic control and farming techniques.

DAVID: Traffic is still either/or without God's help. Farming probably required God.

dhw: Do you think the origin of farming or of architecture could have been either/or? Once again: “required God” means either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant farming (along with every other undabbled life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history...), or God giving farming courses to ants. I’m sorry, but I find both options just a little hard to swallow.

I said farming probably required God's help.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 12:10 (1407 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Traffic is still either/or without God's help. Farming probably required God.

dhw: Do you think the origin of farming or of architecture could have been either/or? Once again: “required God” means either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant farming (along with every other undabbled life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history...), or God giving farming courses to ants. I’m sorry, but I find both options just a little hard to swallow.

DAVID: I said farming probably required God's help.

The only forms of “help” you have offered us are 3.8-billion-year-old preprogramming, occasional dabbling, or full hands-on dabbling. I find them all hard to swallow, but perhaps in the meantime you have come up with another mode of help. (Please don’t say “guidelines” without explaining what form they could possibly take.)

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 15:18 (1407 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Traffic is still either/or without God's help. Farming probably required God.

dhw: Do you think the origin of farming or of architecture could have been either/or? Once again: “required God” means either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant farming (along with every other undabbled life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history...), or God giving farming courses to ants. I’m sorry, but I find both options just a little hard to swallow.

DAVID: I said farming probably required God's help.

dhw: The only forms of “help” you have offered us are 3.8-billion-year-old preprogramming, occasional dabbling, or full hands-on dabbling. I find them all hard to swallow, but perhaps in the meantime you have come up with another mode of help. (Please don’t say “guidelines” without explaining what form they could possibly take.)

I didn't find God hard to swallow, since I have concluded a designer must exist. You've covered the ways I think God does it.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 12:24 (1406 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I said farming probably required God's help.

dhw: The only forms of “help” you have offered us are 3.8-billion-year-old preprogramming, occasional dabbling, or full hands-on dabbling. I find them all hard to swallow, but perhaps in the meantime you have come up with another mode of help. (Please don’t say “guidelines” without explaining what form they could possibly take.)

DAVID: I didn't find God hard to swallow, since I have concluded a designer must exist. You've covered the ways I think God does it.

I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 15:17 (1406 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I said farming probably required God's help.

dhw: The only forms of “help” you have offered us are 3.8-billion-year-old preprogramming, occasional dabbling, or full hands-on dabbling. I find them all hard to swallow, but perhaps in the meantime you have come up with another mode of help. (Please don’t say “guidelines” without explaining what form they could possibly take.)

DAVID: I didn't find God hard to swallow, since I have concluded a designer must exist. You've covered the ways I think God does it.

dhw: I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

I know how you feel and think. The book 'Nature's I.Q.', from which weaverbird nests appeared here is an example of how the faithful think about God and ow He must step in and help.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Thursday, May 14, 2020, 12:43 (1405 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

DAVID: I know how you feel and think. The book 'Nature's I.Q.', from which weaverbird nests appeared here is an example of how the faithful think about God and ow He must step in and help.

Yes, either by preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or by personally dabbling. Since you have him “stepping in”, clearly you regard the nest as a dabble. What might that entail? Courses for weaverbirds? Instructions passed telepathically in Weaverbirdese? A direct demonstration, as God psychokinetically manoeuvres the twigs and knots into position? How else can he “step in”?

DAVID: (under “Subsea microorganisms”): Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

So do you reckon all these life forms were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God personally dabble them as part of his preparations to directly design H. sapiens? Or could it be that he designed life to survive anywhere on earth by giving organisms their own form of intelligence with which to adapt themselves autonomously to ever changing conditions?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 14, 2020, 19:48 (1405 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

DAVID: I know how you feel and think. The book 'Nature's I.Q.', from which weaverbird nests appeared here is an example of how the faithful think about God and ow He must step in and help.

dhw: Yes, either by preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or by personally dabbling. Since you have him “stepping in”, clearly you regard the nest as a dabble. What might that entail? Courses for weaverbirds? Instructions passed telepathically in Weaverbirdese? A direct demonstration, as God psychokinetically manoeuvres the twigs and knots into position? How else can he “step in”?

Your guess is as good as mine.


DAVID: (under “Subsea microorganisms”): Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

dhw: So do you reckon all these life forms were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God personally dabble them as part of his preparations to directly design H. sapiens? Or could it be that he designed life to survive anywhere on earth by giving organisms their own form of intelligence with which to adapt themselves autonomously to ever changing conditions?

No, He saw to it that life is designed to survive from His instructions in the genome multiple layers of control.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Friday, May 15, 2020, 11:31 (1404 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

DAVID: I know how you feel and think. The book 'Nature's I.Q.', from which weaverbird nests appeared here is an example of how the faithful think about God and ow He must step in and help.

dhw: Yes, either by preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or by personally dabbling. Since you have him “stepping in”, clearly you regard the nest as a dabble. What might that entail? Courses for weaverbirds? Instructions passed telepathically in Weaverbirdese? A direct demonstration, as God psychokinetically manoeuvres the twigs and knots into position? How else can he “step in”?

DAVID: Your guess is as good as mine.

Thank you. My guess is that if God exists, he is far more likely to have given weaverbirds, ants, beavers and spiders the autonomous intelligence to work out how to construct their own nests, cities, dams and webs.

DAVID: (under “Subsea microorganisms”): Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

dhw: So do you reckon all these life forms were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God personally dabble them as part of his preparations to directly design H. sapiens? Or could it be that he designed life to survive anywhere on earth by giving organisms their own form of intelligence with which to adapt themselves autonomously to ever changing conditions?

DAVID: No, He saw to it that life is designed to survive from His instructions in the genome multiple layers of control.

Why “no”? Do you honestly believe that every single organism had its own individual survival instructions implanted in the first cells, 3.8 billion years ago? Or that God personally gives individual instructions to every single life form in every different environment at every moment of life’s history? Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Friday, May 15, 2020, 20:12 (1403 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am not challenging your belief in God. I'm pointing out what seems to me an extremely far-fetched theory concerning the way he operates – which is based entirely on your assumption that ants and a few million other organisms have no autonomous intelligence of their own, and their seemingly intelligent behaviour had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally directed by your God.

DAVID: I know how you feel and think. The book 'Nature's I.Q.', from which weaverbird nests appeared here is an example of how the faithful think about God and ow He must step in and help.

dhw: Yes, either by preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or by personally dabbling. Since you have him “stepping in”, clearly you regard the nest as a dabble. What might that entail? Courses for weaverbirds? Instructions passed telepathically in Weaverbirdese? A direct demonstration, as God psychokinetically manoeuvres the twigs and knots into position? How else can he “step in”?

DAVID: Your guess is as good as mine.

dhw: Thank you. My guess is that if God exists, he is far more likely to have given weaverbirds, ants, beavers and spiders the autonomous intelligence to work out how to construct their own nests, cities, dams and webs.

I know your penchant for intellligence everywhere.


DAVID: (under “Subsea microorganisms”): Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

dhw: So do you reckon all these life forms were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God personally dabble them as part of his preparations to directly design H. sapiens? Or could it be that he designed life to survive anywhere on earth by giving organisms their own form of intelligence with which to adapt themselves autonomously to ever changing conditions?

DAVID: No, He saw to it that life is designed to survive from His instructions in the genome multiple layers of control.

dhw: Why “no”? Do you honestly believe that every single organism had its own individual survival instructions implanted in the first cells, 3.8 billion years ago? Or that God personally gives individual instructions to every single life form in every different environment at every moment of life’s history? Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

Remember, God is still here. I don't believe in deism, So I view Hum as constantly on the watch to make sure everything goes as He planned. Total planning from 3.8 bya is unlikely, as too many factors are involved. I don't think volcanoes erupt on schedule, or tornado paths are plotted exactly, or that continents drift apart according to exact plots, as examples.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Saturday, May 16, 2020, 11:43 (1403 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: (under “Subsea microorganisms”): Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

dhw: So do you reckon all these life forms were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God personally dabble them as part of his preparations to directly design H. sapiens? Or could it be that he designed life to survive anywhere on earth by giving organisms their own form of intelligence with which to adapt themselves autonomously to ever changing conditions?

DAVID: No, He saw to it that life is designed to survive from His instructions in the genome multiple layers of control.

dhw: Why “no”? Do you honestly believe that every single organism had its own individual survival instructions implanted in the first cells, 3.8 billion years ago? Or that God personally gives individual instructions to every single life form in every different environment at every moment of life’s history? Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

DAVID: Remember, God is still here. I don't believe in deism, So I view Him as constantly on the watch to make sure everything goes as He planned. Total planning from 3.8 bya is unlikely, as too many factors are involved. I don't think volcanoes erupt on schedule, or tornado paths are plotted exactly, or that continents drift apart according to exact plots, as examples.

I don’t have a problem at all with the idea that God may still be watching the spectacle he devised. I’m glad you are slowly giving up on the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for the whole of life, though I don’t know why you’ve suddenly switched from organic evolution to the environment. “Everything goes as He planned” leaves open the question of what he planned. According to you, his whole plan was to directly design H. sapiens but first to directly design every other extinct non-human life form, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. so the life forms could eat one another until he directly designed the only thing he wanted to design. I prefer last week’s theory: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” And “Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.” But for some reason, you want to limit this to geology.

Under "Venus flytrap":

DAVID: Carnivorous plants have developed many devious ways to snare prey.

Delighted by your phrasing.

QUOTE: They found that the key to the evolution of meat eating in this part of the plant kingdom was the duplication of the entire genome in a common ancestor that lived about 60 million years ago, the team reports today in Current Biology. That duplication freed up copies of genes once used in roots, leaves, and sensory systems to detect and digest prey.

DAVID: This is a good example of how God can step in and produce new adaptations. The convergence illustrates how evolution can then proceed on its own, once God sets the course and understands where it is going.

I really don’t know why your God would have wanted to step in and mess around with the Venus flytrap’s genome when all he wanted to do was design H. sapiens. I would have thought it was a good example of how organisms devise their own ways of survival (i.e. "develop many different ways..."). Theistic version: The whole process illustrates how evolution proceeded on its own once God gave all organisms the mechanism to make their own changes to their genome (though dabbling would still have remained an option – e.g. through mass exterminations). “Once God…understands where evolution is going” is a really weird variation on a God who knows and plans everything in advance and has only one aim (sapiens) in mind. Does God say: “Now that I've stepped in and made Venus carnivorous, I can let her do her own thing, because this make me understand that evolution is going towards the design of H. sapiens.”

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 16, 2020, 15:54 (1403 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No, He saw to it that life is designed to survive from His instructions in the genome multiple layers of control.

dhw: Why “no”? Do you honestly believe that every single organism had its own individual survival instructions implanted in the first cells, 3.8 billion years ago? Or that God personally gives individual instructions to every single life form in every different environment at every moment of life’s history? Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

DAVID: Remember, God is still here. I don't believe in deism, So I view Him as constantly on the watch to make sure everything goes as He planned. Total planning from 3.8 bya is unlikely, as too many factors are involved. I don't think volcanoes erupt on schedule, or tornado paths are plotted exactly, or that continents drift apart according to exact plots, as examples.

dhw: I don’t have a problem at all with the idea that God may still be watching the spectacle he devised. I’m glad you are slowly giving up on the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for the whole of life, though I don’t know why you’ve suddenly switched from organic evolution to the environment. “Everything goes as He planned” leaves open the question of what he planned. According to you, his whole plan was to directly design H. sapiens but first to directly design every other extinct non-human life form, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. so the life forms could eat one another until he directly designed the only thing he wanted to design. I prefer last week’s theory: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” And “Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.” But for some reason, you want to limit this to geology.

I also mentioned weather. I just had to give examples.


Under "Venus flytrap":

DAVID: Carnivorous plants have developed many devious ways to snare prey.

Delighted by your phrasing.

QUOTE: They found that the key to the evolution of meat eating in this part of the plant kingdom was the duplication of the entire genome in a common ancestor that lived about 60 million years ago, the team reports today in Current Biology. That duplication freed up copies of genes once used in roots, leaves, and sensory systems to detect and digest prey.

DAVID: This is a good example of how God can step in and produce new adaptations. The convergence illustrates how evolution can then proceed on its own, once God sets the course and understands where it is going.

dhw: I really don’t know why your God would have wanted to step in and mess around with the Venus flytrap’s genome when all he wanted to do was design H. sapiens. I would have thought it was a good example of how organisms devise their own ways of survival (i.e. "develop many different ways..."). Theistic version: The whole process illustrates how evolution proceeded on its own once God gave all organisms the mechanism to make their own changes to their genome (though dabbling would still have remained an option – e.g. through mass exterminations). “Once God…understands where evolution is going” is a really weird variation on a God who knows and plans everything in advance and has only one aim (sapiens) in mind. Does God say: “Now that I've stepped in and made Venus carnivorous, I can let her do her own thing, because this make me understand that evolution is going towards the design of H. sapiens.”

You get so involved with God's thoughts. The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Sunday, May 17, 2020, 10:32 (1402 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

DAVID: Remember, God is still here. I don't believe in deism, So I view Him as constantly on the watch to make sure everything goes as He planned. Total planning from 3.8 bya is unlikely, as too many factors are involved. I don't think volcanoes erupt on schedule, or tornado paths are plotted exactly, or that continents drift apart according to exact plots, as examples.

dhw: I don’t have a problem at all with the idea that God may still be watching the spectacle he devised. I’m glad you are slowly giving up on the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for the whole of life, though I don’t know why you’ve suddenly switched from organic evolution to the environment. “Everything goes as He planned” leaves open the question of what he planned. According to you, his whole plan was to directly design H. sapiens but first to directly design every other extinct non-human life form, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. so the life forms could eat one another until he directly designed the only thing he wanted to design. I prefer last week’s theory: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” And “Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.” But for some reason, you want to limit this to geology.

DAVID: I also mentioned weather. I just had to give examples.

Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

Under "Venus flytrap":
DAVID: This is a good example of how God can step in and produce new adaptations. The convergence illustrates how evolution can then proceed on its own, once God sets the course and understands where it is going.

dhw: I really don’t know why your God would have wanted to step in and mess around with the Venus flytrap’s genome when all he wanted to do was design H. sapiens. I would have thought it was a good example of how organisms devise their own ways of survival (i.e. "develop many different ways..."). Theistic version: The whole process illustrates how evolution proceeded on its own once God gave all organisms the mechanism to make their own changes to their genome (though dabbling would still have remained an option – e.g. through mass exterminations). “Once God…understands where evolution is going” is a really weird variation on a God who knows and plans everything in advance and has only one aim (sapiens) in mind. Does God say: “Now that I've stepped in and made Venus carnivorous, I can let her do her own thing, because this make me understand that evolution is going towards the design of H. sapiens.”

DAVID: You get so involved with God's thoughts. The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 17, 2020, 15:27 (1402 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Maybe he saw to it that life either would or would not survive by endowing cells with an autonomous means of controlling their genome in such a way that it could (or could not) adapt or change according to different conditions.

DAVID: Remember, God is still here. I don't believe in deism, So I view Him as constantly on the watch to make sure everything goes as He planned. Total planning from 3.8 bya is unlikely, as too many factors are involved. I don't think volcanoes erupt on schedule, or tornado paths are plotted exactly, or that continents drift apart according to exact plots, as examples.

dhw: I don’t have a problem at all with the idea that God may still be watching the spectacle he devised. I’m glad you are slowly giving up on the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for the whole of life, though I don’t know why you’ve suddenly switched from organic evolution to the environment. “Everything goes as He planned” leaves open the question of what he planned. According to you, his whole plan was to directly design H. sapiens but first to directly design every other extinct non-human life form, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. so the life forms could eat one another until he directly designed the only thing he wanted to design. I prefer last week’s theory: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” And “Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.” But for some reason, you want to limit this to geology.

DAVID: I also mentioned weather. I just had to give examples.

dhw: Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

I simply view God as always watching and correcting courses if necessary.


Under "Venus flytrap":
DAVID: This is a good example of how God can step in and produce new adaptations. The convergence illustrates how evolution can then proceed on its own, once God sets the course and understands where it is going.

dhw: I really don’t know why your God would have wanted to step in and mess around with the Venus flytrap’s genome when all he wanted to do was design H. sapiens. I would have thought it was a good example of how organisms devise their own ways of survival (i.e. "develop many different ways..."). Theistic version: The whole process illustrates how evolution proceeded on its own once God gave all organisms the mechanism to make their own changes to their genome (though dabbling would still have remained an option – e.g. through mass exterminations). “Once God…understands where evolution is going” is a really weird variation on a God who knows and plans everything in advance and has only one aim (sapiens) in mind. Does God say: “Now that I've stepped in and made Venus carnivorous, I can let her do her own thing, because this make me understand that evolution is going towards the design of H. sapiens.”

DAVID: You get so involved with God's thoughts. The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Monday, May 18, 2020, 13:04 (1401 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t have a problem at all with the idea that God may still be watching the spectacle he devised. I’m glad you are slowly giving up on the 3.8-billion-year-old programme for the whole of life, though I don’t know why you’ve suddenly switched from organic evolution to the environment. “Everything goes as He planned” leaves open the question of what he planned. According to you, his whole plan was to directly design H. sapiens but first to directly design every other extinct non-human life form, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. so the life forms could eat one another until he directly designed the only thing he wanted to design. I prefer last week’s theory: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” And “Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.” But for some reason, you want to limit this to geology.

DAVID: I also mentioned weather. I just had to give examples.

dhw: Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

DAVID: I simply view God as always watching and correcting courses if necessary.

That’s fine with me. You now accept that he could have set evolution in motion and left organisms simply to evolve, in contrast to their being specially designed. This can only mean that he invented a mechanism that enabled them to “simply evolve” without any input from himself. Since organisms are composed of cells, I don’t see how this could be done by anything other than some kind of autonomous cellular intelligence. “Correcting courses if necessary” could also be changing courses if he felt like it.

DAVID: The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

DAVID: Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

I am not referring just to “his” food. There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Monday, May 18, 2020, 18:52 (1401 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

DAVID: I simply view God as always watching and correcting courses if necessary.

dhw: That’s fine with me. You now accept that he could have set evolution in motion and left organisms simply to evolve, in contrast to their being specially designed.

I don't know how you extrapolated my comment to this idea of yours. Evolution is a huge venture, with some minor processes of advancement on remote control and under watch while others are more complex and require hands on involvement

DAVID: The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

DAVID: Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

dhw: I am not referring just to “his” food. There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

Are you still denying that we evolved from 3.8 bya. You never change. Why can't God chose His methodology of producing humans?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm II

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 00:37 (1400 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

DAVID: I simply view God as always watching and correcting courses if necessary.

dhw: That’s fine with me. You now accept that he could have set evolution in motion and left organisms simply to evolve, in contrast to their being specially designed.


I don't know how you extrapolated my comment to this idea of yours. Evolution is a huge venture, with some minor processes of advancement on remote control and under watch while others are more complex and require hands on involvement

DAVID: The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

DAVID: Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

dhw: I am not referring just to “his” food. There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.


Are you still denying that we evolved from 3.8 bya. You never change. Why can't God chose His methodology of producing humans?

Addendum: found an article today which I think illustrates God allowing some evolution of megafauna which occurred all over the world, but this is an isolated incident in ancient tropical Australia. I think God let them become extinct:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/unique-megafauna-fossils-unearthed-in-tropical...

"More than 40,000 years ago, Australia’s tropical northeast was home to species of giant birds, reptiles and marsupials, including the world’s largest kangaroo, standing 2.5 metres tall, a seven-metre-long freshwater crocodile and giant lizards.

***

"It wasn’t the people who killed them off, according to meticulous analyses, but severe climatic conditions and environmental corrosion including loss of water flow, increased drying, fires and reduced grasslands.

“'We cannot place humans at this 40,000-year-old crime scene,” Hocknull says. “Therefore, we find no role for humans in the extinction of these species of megafauna.”

***

"The fossils included leaves, seeds, pollen, insects and molluscs, providing evidence of a forest that housed megaherbivores, carnivorous reptiles and predators such as giant wombats (Diprotodon), a six-metre long monitor lizard (Megalania) and a marsupial “lion” (Thylacoleo).

"Hocknull is confident the colossal 274-kilogram kangaroo (from the genus Macropus sp.), the largest yet found that would make modern-day kangas look like toddlers, is a new species, but diagnostic pieces of skeleton such as teeth are missing to confirm.

"Despite its size and evidence of surviving a long-standing bone infection, the kangaroo was no match for one of the colossal crocodiles, bearing two puncture marks on its tibia that bear witness to its demise.

"As far as megafauna extinction, the timeframe coincided with persistent regional hydroclimatic and environmental deterioration. “Such a combination of factors proved fatal to the giant land and aquatic species,” says Hocknull."

Comment: At one point, not that long ago, megafauna were everywhere. Humans killed off most, but this is an example where God might have allowed this to happen. I assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it, let humans do part of the job for Him, and took care of the rest. This is still tight control over evolution as God is constantly watching.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 10:31 (1400 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Excellent. So you now agree that the bold may also apply to the evolution of species. Thank you.

DAVID: I simply view God as always watching and correcting courses if necessary.

dhw: That’s fine with me. You now accept that he could have set evolution in motion and left organisms simply to evolve, in contrast to their being specially designed.

DAVID: I don't know how you extrapolated my comment to this idea of yours. Evolution is a huge venture, with some minor processes of advancement on remote control and under watch while others are more complex and require hands on involvement.

Ugh, I might have guessed that you would try to row back on your statements:
May 3rd: “Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.
May 7th: “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as He wishes.

If he can set any process in motion and let it continue or stop it as He wishes, how can you possibly complain if I point out to you that He could therefore have set in motion the process of evolution and let it continue or stop it as He wishes? Why do you now try to reject this perfectly logical theistic explanation for the constantly changing bush of life?

DAVID: The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

DAVID: Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

dhw: I am not referring just to “his” food. There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Are you still denying that we evolved from 3.8 bya. You never change. Why can't God chose His methodology of producing humans?

When have I ever denied that we, along with every other life form that ever existed, evolved from 3.8 bya? I accept the theory of evolution! And of course God could choose his method of evolving humans and every other life form that ever existed. How does that explain your belief that he designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his econiches? Do please stop dodging the issue and at least accept with good grace the possibility, as you confirm above, that your God set the process in motion and let it continue while retaining the option to stop it and dabble.

From your “addendum”: "At one point, not that long ago, megafauna were everywhere. Humans killed off most, but this is an example where God might have allowed this to happen. I assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it, let humans do part of the job for Him, and took care of the rest. This is still tight control over evolution as God is constantly watching."

As with your econiche argument, you insist on limiting yourself to the short time we humans have been around. What about the millions of life forms that lived and died long before humans were on the scene? May I please assume that you “assume God allowed these giants” and their econiches to appear? That is to say, he did not design them but let them “simply evolve”. And may I ask what kind of mechanism you think would have allowed them to “simply evolve”, as opposed to their being designed?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 18:12 (1400 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If he can set any process in motion and let it continue or stop it as He wishes, how can you possibly complain if I point out to you that He could therefore have set in motion the process of evolution and let it continue or stop it as He wishes? Why do you now try to reject this perfectly logical theistic explanation for the constantly changing bush of life?

You have expanded my proposed theory that God allows some aspects of evolution to run among while He watches, to stretch it to all of evolution. Your mamby-pamby version of God is not OK with me, ever! My God has His purpose guide Him all the time.


DAVID: The fly trap is just part of the necessary econiches of life.

dhw: It is part of its particular econiche. All econiches are/were necessary for the life forms that depend/depended on them. I don’t know why you consider them all to have been necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food.

DAVID: Where would his food come from if they didn't exist in large enough supply?

dhw: I am not referring just to “his” food. There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Are you still denying that we evolved from 3.8 bya. You never change. Why can't God chose His methodology of producing humans?

dhw: When have I ever denied that we, along with every other life form that ever existed, evolved from 3.8 bya? I accept the theory of evolution! And of course God could choose his method of evolving humans and every other life form that ever existed. How does that explain your belief that he designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his econiches?

I go back to 'The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes'. This philosophic proposal is the basis of my thinking. It is a powerful presentation. It is obvious you cannot accept the degree of our specialness characterized by our special degree of consciousness, as you constantly try to downplay it.

dgw: Do please stop dodging the issue and at least accept with good grace the possibility, as you confirm above, that your God set the process in motion and let it continue while retaining the option to stop it and dabble.

Answered above, commenting how you always misinterpret to fit your intellectual predispositions.


From your “addendum”: "At one point, not that long ago, megafauna were everywhere. Humans killed off most, but this is an example where God might have allowed this to happen. I assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it, let humans do part of the job for Him, and took care of the rest. This is still tight control over evolution as God is constantly watching."

dhw: As with your econiche argument, you insist on limiting yourself to the short time we humans have been around. What about the millions of life forms that lived and died long before humans were on the scene? May I please assume that you “assume God allowed these giants” and their econiches to appear? That is to say, he did not design them but let them “simply evolve”. And may I ask what kind of mechanism you think would have allowed them to “simply evolve”, as opposed to their being designed?

Glad you asked. Human designed miniature horses, 34 inches at the shoulder, formed by careful selective breeding, are really horses and can be bred to the normal-sized. I am simply imagining the reverse could occur naturally with God watching. The giant kangaroo was all kangaroo, not a new species. And mammoths mastodons were an elephant variation. I can imagine theories just as you do, but really different species must be designed as in the whale series. To repeat to avoid your constant misinterpretations: variations on body type themes may simply appear, real remarkable changes must be designed. And God carefully closely watches all and controls as He wishes.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:57 (1399 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If he can set any process in motion and let it continue or stop it as He wishes, how can you possibly complain if I point out to you that He could therefore have set in motion the process of evolution and let it continue or stop it as He wishes? Why do you now try to reject this perfectly logical theistic explanation for the constantly changing bush of life?

DAVID: You have expanded my proposed theory that God allows some aspects of evolution to run among while He watches, to stretch it to all of evolution. Your mamby-pamby version of God is not OK with me, ever! My God has His purpose guide Him all the time.

So does mine. Please stop assuming that your God could not possibly have had any purpose other than the one you impose on him, and could not possibly be anything other than all-powerful and all-knowing and all-controlling. And please don’t tell us that “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as he wishes”, cannot possibly mean the process of evolution.

dhw: There were 3.X billion years of non-human life forms and their econiches, and you have no idea why they were necessary for the design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Are you still denying that we evolved from 3.8 bya. You never change. Why can't God chose His methodology of producing humans?

dhw: When have I ever denied that we, along with every other life form that ever existed, evolved from 3.8 bya? I accept the theory of evolution! And of course God could choose his method of evolving humans and every other life form that ever existed. How does that explain your belief that he designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his econiches?

DAVID: I go back to 'The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes'. [..] It is obvious you cannot accept the degree of our specialness characterized by our special degree of consciousness, as you constantly try to downplay it.

I have always accepted our specialness, but it does not answer the above bolded question. You keep trying to divert attention from this aspect of life’s history, no doubt because you admit that you "have no idea" (I quote) why your God would choose such a method.

DAVID: "At one point, not that long ago, megafauna were everywhere. Humans killed off most, but this is an example where God might have allowed this to happen. I assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it, let humans do part of the job for Him, and took care of the rest. This is still tight control over evolution as God is constantly watching."

dhw: As with your econiche argument, you insist on limiting yourself to the short time we humans have been around. What about the millions of life forms that lived and died long before humans were on the scene? May I please assume that you “assume God allowed these giants” and their econiches to appear? That is to say, he did not design them but let them “simply evolve”. And may I ask what kind of mechanism you think would have allowed them to “simply evolve”, as opposed to their being designed?

DAVID: Glad you asked. Human designed miniature horses, 34 inches at the shoulder, formed by careful selective breeding, are really horses and can be bred to the normal-sized. I am simply imagining the reverse could occur naturally with God watching. The giant kangaroo was all kangaroo, not a new species. And mammoths mastodons were an elephant variation. I can imagine theories just as you do, but really different species must be designed as in the whale series. To repeat to avoid your constant misinterpretations: variations on body type themes may simply appear, real remarkable changes must be designed. And God carefully closely watches all and controls as He wishes.

You “assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it…” So why do you assume that your God did NOT allow past giants and all other life forms to appear, and then thought better of it and maybe organized mass extinctions to get rid of them? And as always, why do you assume that he directly designed all those millions of extinct life forms when all he wanted to directly design was H. sapiens? Once you acknowledge the principle that your God can allow things to happen and then think better of it, you can’t just pick and choose which ones you want him to allow! Especially when you profess to believe in common descent. You wrote of “ANY evolved process”. What evolved process could be more evolved than evolution? It makes perfect sense when applied to life’s history (allowing for dabbles when he “thought better of it”), as you have always acknowledged. You can’t even complain that it “humanizes him” (other than your own insertion of “thinking better of it”)! Your only reason for rejecting it seems to be that it is different from your own pet theory about God’s nature, purpose and method.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 17:49 (1399 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have expanded my proposed theory that God allows some aspects of evolution to run among while He watches, to stretch it to all of evolution. Your mamby-pamby version of God is not OK with me, ever! My God has His purpose guide Him all the time.

dhw: So does mine. Please stop assuming that your God could not possibly have had any purpose other than the one you impose on him, and could not possibly be anything other than all-powerful and all-knowing and all-controlling. And please don’t tell us that “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as he wishes”, cannot possibly mean the process of evolution.

All powerful or not is a human conception of Him. To each his own. As for the bold, why not?


DAVID: I go back to 'The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes'. [..] It is obvious you cannot accept the degree of our specialness characterized by our special degree of consciousness, as you constantly try to downplay it.

dhw: I have always accepted our specialness, but it does not answer the above bolded question. You keep trying to divert attention from this aspect of life’s history, no doubt because you admit that you "have no idea" (I quote) why your God would choose such a method.

Our glaring difference is you never accept the degree of specialness I do, or its theological import. You indulge in theistic lip service as follows: I don't need to know why God chose to evolve us. I accept that was His choice, but you don't. See more below.


DAVID: "At one point, not that long ago, megafauna were everywhere. Humans killed off most, but this is an example where God might have allowed this to happen. I assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it, let humans do part of the job for Him, and took care of the rest. This is still tight control over evolution as God is constantly watching."

dhw: As with your econiche argument, you insist on limiting yourself to the short time we humans have been around. What about the millions of life forms that lived and died long before humans were on the scene? May I please assume that you “assume God allowed these giants” and their econiches to appear? That is to say, he did not design them but let them “simply evolve”. And may I ask what kind of mechanism you think would have allowed them to “simply evolve”, as opposed to their being designed?

DAVID: Glad you asked. Human designed miniature horses, 34 inches at the shoulder, formed by careful selective breeding, are really horses and can be bred to the normal-sized. I am simply imagining the reverse could occur naturally with God watching. The giant kangaroo was all kangaroo, not a new species. And mammoths mastodons were an elephant variation. I can imagine theories just as you do, but really different species must be designed as in the whale series. To repeat to avoid your constant misinterpretations: variations on body type themes may simply appear, real remarkable changes must be designed. And God carefully closely watches all and controls as He wishes.

dhw: You “assume God allowed these giants to appear, perhaps thought better of it…” So why do you assume that your God did NOT allow past giants and all other life forms to appear, and then thought better of it and maybe organized mass extinctions to get rid of them? And as always, why do you assume that he directly designed all those millions of extinct life forms when all he wanted to directly design was H. sapiens? Once you acknowledge the principle that your God can allow things to happen and then think better of it, you can’t just pick and choose which ones you want him to allow! Especially when you profess to believe in common descent. You wrote of “ANY evolved process”. What evolved process could be more evolved than evolution? It makes perfect sense when applied to life’s history (allowing for dabbles when he “thought better of it”), as you have always acknowledged. You can’t even complain that it “humanizes him” (other than your own insertion of “thinking better of it”)! Your only reason for rejecting it seems to be that it is different from your own pet theory about God’s nature, purpose and method.

What I reject from your thought patterns about God is in your humanized version, which is always present, God allows evolution to happen without guidelines. My God always speciate new advanced species, and the type of evolution He allows on its own is species variation, no more. What I constantly object to in the discussions is the way you always manage to stretch interpretations of my ideas to somehow fit your weird theories, and when I object, you claim
I have retracted a position that you have invented. The bold is your constantly repeated mantra that will not admit God has a right to choose His method of creation, and when called on it you will agree He has the right to choose. And turn right around and ask me 'why' for the ten thousandth time. Will you every recognize we envision two very different Gods? Your so-called theism is God-lite. And of course, I am trapped in using some humanizing terms because we don't have any others to employ. You complain about it, but you know that full well.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Thursday, May 21, 2020, 13:56 (1398 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Your mamby-pamby version of God is not OK with me, ever! My God has His purpose guide Him all the time.

dhw: So does mine. Please stop assuming that your God could not possibly have had any purpose other than the one you impose on him, and could not possibly be anything other than all-powerful and all-knowing and all-controlling. And please don’t tell us that “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as he wishes”, cannot possibly mean the process of evolution.

DAVID: All powerful or not is a human conception of Him. To each his own. As for the bold, why not?

So your conception of him is just as “human” as my various alternatives. As for the bold, it doesn’t make sense to say that your God might have set any evolved process in motion and allowed it to continue etc., and then claim that “any process” does not include the actual process of evolution! In any case, how do you know?

DAVID: Our glaring difference is you never accept the degree of specialness I do, or its theological import. […]

Your usual escape route. I accept our specialness, and I have even offered two theistic interpretations of evolution that allow for the targeted creation of H. sapiens AND the vast bush of extinct non-human life forms and econiches that preceded us: experimentation to get what he wanted, or a late arrival in his thoughts. This is not lip service. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. You reject both explanations of the non-human bush of life on grounds of “humanizing” God because you believe that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful – though you admit above that this concept is just as human as any other.

dhw: […] why do you assume that he directly designed all those millions of extinct life forms when all he wanted to directly design was H. sapiens?

DAVID: What I reject from your thought patterns about God is in your humanized version, which is always present, God allows evolution to happen without guidelines.

The proposal that God invented a mechanism to enable organisms to design their own evolution is no more “humanized” than the theory that God knows and controls everything and does all the designing himself.

DAVID: My God always speciate new advanced species, and the type of evolution He allows on its own is species variation, no more. What I constantly object to in the discussions is the way you always manage to stretch interpretations of my ideas to somehow fit your weird theories, and when I object, you claim I have retracted a position that you have invented.

I know what you believe your God does, and why he does it, and constantly remind you of the fact that you have “no idea” why he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches (let alone lifestyles and natural wonders) although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens and his food supply. This is totally separate from the alternatives I offer, but time and again you make statements which (a) confirm my scepticism concerning your theory, and (b) allow for my different theories to be possible. There is, for instance, nothing to “stretch” if you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to our own. That doesn’t mean you support any of my “humanizing” alternatives, but it obliterates your objections to them on the grounds that they endow him with thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: The bold is your constantly repeated mantra that will not admit God has a right to choose His method of creation, and when called on it you will agree He has the right to choose. And turn right around and ask me 'why' for the ten thousandth time.

This is not my “mantra”! It would be unbelievably stupid for anyone who accepts the possibility of God’s existence to claim that he did not have the right to choose. I don’t ask you why he has or doesn’t have the right to choose. I ask you why he would have chosen the version of evolution that you impose on him, as bolded above. And you have no idea why.

DAVID: Will you every recognize we envision two very different Gods? Your so-called theism is God-lite. And of course, I am trapped in using some humanizing terms because we don't have any others to employ. You complain about it, but you know that full well.

There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 21, 2020, 15:15 (1398 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And please don’t tell us that “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as he wishes”, cannot possibly mean the process of evolution.

DAVID: All powerful or not is a human conception of Him. To each his own. As for the bold, why not?

dhw: So your conception of him is just as “human” as my various alternatives. As for the bold, it doesn’t make sense to say that your God might have set any evolved process in motion and allowed it to continue etc., and then claim that “any process” does not include the actual process of evolution! In any case, how do you know?

Your answer still does not explain its meaning to me. I view God as letting some evolving processes proceed as they do, until He doesn't like the endpoint, such as giant animals which are simply variations within species

DAVID: Our glaring difference is you never accept the degree of specialness I do, or its theological import. […]

dhw: Your usual escape route. I accept our specialness,

But not to the degree I do, from which I conclude God's major purpose as Adler does. It is not an escape route, but the most major difference between us.

dhw: I am an agnostic, not an atheist. You reject both explanations of the non-human bush of life on grounds of “humanizing” God because you believe that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful – though you admit above that this concept is just as human as any other.

We are bth human with human-based concepts.


DAVID: My God always speciate new advanced species, and the type of evolution He allows on its own is species variation, no more. What I constantly object to in the discussions is the way you always manage to stretch interpretations of my ideas to somehow fit your weird theories, and when I object, you claim I have retracted a position that you have invented.

dhw: I know what you believe your God does, and why he does it, and constantly remind you of the fact that you have “no idea” why he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches (let alone lifestyles and natural wonders) although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens and his food supply.

This is a perfect example of distortion. My 'no idea' refers only to the fact that I don't question His choice of evolving humans from bacteria. I cannot know His reasons. I accept the history.

DAVID: The bold is your constantly repeated mantra that will not admit God has a right to choose His method of creation, and when called on it you will agree He has the right to choose. And turn right around and ask me 'why' for the ten thousandth time.

dhw: This is not my “mantra”! It would be unbelievably stupid for anyone who accepts the possibility of God’s existence to claim that he did not have the right to choose. I don’t ask you why he has or doesn’t have the right to choose. I ask you why he would have chosen the version of evolution that you impose on him, as bolded above. And you have no idea why.

Why should I know His reasons, or guess at them? The bold is weird. Is there another version of evolution than the one history gives us? It is the one I use.


DAVID: Will you every recognize we envision two very different Gods? Your so-called theism is God-lite. And of course, I am trapped in using some humanizing terms because we don't have any others to employ. You complain about it, but you know that full well.

dhw: There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

Your God likes to watch humans as spectacles, remember? One memorable example of God-lite.

Natures wonders: bees force plants to flower

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 21, 2020, 20:55 (1397 days ago) @ David Turell

Bumble bees can change the timing of flowering to suit their needs:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2244009-bees-force-plants-to-flower-early-by-cutti...

"Hungry bumblebees can coax plants into flowering and making pollen up to a month earlier than usual by punching holes in their leaves.

"Bees normally come out of hibernation in early spring to feast on the pollen of newly blooming flowers. However, they sometimes emerge too early and find that plants are still flowerless and devoid of pollen, which means the bees starve.

"Fortunately, bumblebees have a trick up their sleeves for when this happens. Consuelo De Moraes at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and her colleagues discovered that worker bumblebees can make plants flower earlier than normal by using their mouthparts to pierce small holes in leaves.

"In a series of laboratory and outdoor experiments, the researchers found that bumblebees were more likely to pierce holes in the leaves of tomato plants and black mustard plants when deprived of food. The leaf damage caused the tomato plants to flower 30 days earlier than usual and the black mustard plants to flower 16 days earlier.

"It is still a mystery how the leaf damage promotes early blooming. Previous studies have found that plants sometimes speed up their flowering in response to stressors like intense light and drought, but the effects of insect damage haven’t been studied much.

"De Moraes and her colleagues were unable to induce early flowering by punching holes in the plant leaves themselves. This suggests that bees may provide additional cues that encourage flowering, like injecting chemicals from their saliva into the leaves when they pierce them. “We hope to explore this in future work,” she says."

Comment: Leaves don't taste like pollen. We must ask how did this start to become an instinct. The flowering occurs somewhat long after the leaf munching, so it is not visual observation. Does the bee see leaf damage and then later observes earlier flowering and mentally makes the connection to start chomping? No answer here. Perhaps God helped?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Friday, May 22, 2020, 11:27 (1397 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And please don’t tell us that “Any evolved process God set in motion is under his control, since he can let it continue or stop it as he wishes”, cannot possibly mean the process of evolution.

DAVID: As for the bold why not?

dhw: …it doesn’t make sense to say that your God might have set any evolved process in motion and allowed it to continue etc., and then claim that “any process” does not include the actual process of evolution! In any case, how do you know?

DAVID: Your answer still does not explain its meaning to me. I view God as letting some evolving processes proceed as they do, until He doesn't like the endpoint, such as giant animals which are simply variations within species.

You have opened the door to the possibility that your God could have set any evolved process in motion and let it continue unless he wished to dabble. That is precisely the theistic theory of evolution that I have been proposing for what seems like years. Of course you are free to pick and choose which processes you think these may be. And so am I. Even you agree that this offers a perfectly logical explanation for the ever-changing bush of life from bacteria through every life form that ever existed right up to present-day humans and their econiches. You just don’t like it.

DAVID: Our glaring difference is you never accept the degree of specialness I do, or its theological import. […]

dhw: Your usual escape route. I accept our specialness,

DAVID: But not to the degree I do, from which I conclude God's major purpose as Adler does. It is not an escape route, but the most major difference between us.

You have repeatedly concluded that we were God’s one and only purpose, and you continue to ignore (a) the fact that I have offered you two explanations of the bush which are based on this premise but which you reject because experimentation/having new ideas does not fit in with your concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and (b) that you have “”no idea” why such a God would have specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: This is a perfect example of distortion. My 'no idea' refers only to the fact that I don't question His choice of evolving humans from bacteria. I cannot know His reasons. I accept the history.

You ignore the history! I am not questioning the evolution of humans and every other life form from bacteria. I am questioning your insistence that he directly designed millions of non-human life forms etc., although the only thing he wanted to design was us. You constantly try to ignore the 3.X billion years of non-human history, and THAT is the “glaring difference” between us.

DAVID: We are both human with human-based concepts.

And I would suggest to you that a humanly logical explanation of evolution’s bush is more likely to be true than an explanation which defies human logic.

DAVID: Your so-called theism is God-lite. And of course, I am trapped in using some humanizing terms because we don't have any others to employ. You complain about it, but you know that full well.

dhw: There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

DAVID: Your God likes to watch humans as spectacles, remember? One memorable example of God-lite.

And not just humans – you see how you keep forgetting pre-human history. And why is such a theory lite? You also have him watching with interest! And when I ask you WHY he watches with interest, you come up with perfectly reasonable answers: he might enjoy his work like a painter enjoying his paintings, he wants us to admire his work, he wants a relationship with us. If he exists and he created us, as well as every other life form in history, he must have had a reason! But any reason will be “humanized”, so according to you, any reason will make him “lite”. If you want to tell us that he created us and every other life form for no reason, and that makes him a heavy God, of course you are free to do so.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Friday, May 22, 2020, 19:59 (1396 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your answer still does not explain its meaning to me. I view God as letting some evolving processes proceed as they do, until He doesn't like the endpoint, such as giant animals which are simply variations within species.

dhw: You have opened the door to the possibility that your God could have set any evolved process in motion and let it continue unless he wished to dabble. That is precisely the theistic theory of evolution that I have been proposing for what seems like years. Of course you are free to pick and choose which processes you think these may be. And so am I. Even you agree that this offers a perfectly logical explanation for the ever-changing bush of life from bacteria through every life form that ever existed right up to present-day humans and their econiches. You just don’t like it.

Note I've limited this to changes within species, and never speciation on its own, which is what you wish could happen. Mo God speciates what He wants. That doesn't change.


DAVID: Our glaring difference is you never accept the degree of specialness I do, or its theological import. […]

dhw: Your usual escape route. I accept our specialness,

DAVID: But not to the degree I do, from which I conclude God's major purpose as Adler does. It is not an escape route, but the most major difference between us.

dhw: You have repeatedly concluded that we were God’s one and only purpose, and you continue to ignore (a) the fact that I have offered you two explanations of the bush which are based on this premise but which you reject because experimentation/having new ideas does not fit in with your concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and (b) that you have “”no idea” why such a God would have specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: This is a perfect example of distortion. My 'no idea' refers only to the fact that I don't question His choice of evolving humans from bacteria. I cannot know His reasons. I accept the history.

dhw: You ignore the history! I am questioning your insistence that he directly designed millions of non-human life forms etc., although the only thing he wanted to design was us. You constantly try to ignore the 3.X billion years of non-human history, and THAT is the “glaring difference” between us.

I'm not thinking as you distort my direct logic, which you accept when you admit God can evolve us any way He wants. We evolved from bacteria from 3.8 bya. God did it! You create a difference totally illogically. If God can choose his method, the 3.8 applies. Your complaint constantly adds up to why was God so patient?


DAVID: Your so-called theism is God-lite. And of course, I am trapped in using some humanizing terms because we don't have any others to employ. You complain about it, but you know that full well.

dhw: There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

DAVID: Your God likes to watch humans as spectacles, remember? One memorable example of God-lite.

dhw: And not just humans – you see how you keep forgetting pre-human history. And why is such a theory lite? You also have him watching with interest! And when I ask you WHY he watches with interest, you come up with perfectly reasonable answers: he might enjoy his work like a painter enjoying his paintings, he wants us to admire his work, he wants a relationship with us. If he exists and he created us, as well as every other life form in history, he must have had a reason! But any reason will be “humanized”, so according to you, any reason will make him “lite”. If you want to tell us that he created us and every other life form for no reason, and that makes him a heavy God, of course you are free to do so.

All my guesses about God' reasons you asked for are just that. Neither of us can really investigate His thought processes, and all our guesses tend to humanize him. I prefer not to do that as it diminishes Him in my mind. And you can't know His reason. And yes, He must have had His reason, which religions try to tell us, but they are in the same boat as we. There are many other reasons to believe in God, besides what is on His mind. I'll stick with Adler: The odds of His direct interest in us is 50/50.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Saturday, May 23, 2020, 11:23 (1396 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I view God as letting some evolving processes proceed as they do, until He doesn't like the endpoint, such as giant animals which are simply variations within species.

dhw: You have opened the door to the possibility that your God could have set any evolved process in motion and let it continue unless he wished to dabble. That is precisely the theistic theory of evolution that I have been proposing for what seems like years.

DAVID: Note I've limited this to changes within species, and never speciation on its own, which is what you wish could happen. Mo God speciates what He wants. That doesn't change.

Not a wish but a theory. You can limit your proposal if you like, but that doesn’t invalidate mine! Furthermore, the theory that your God set evolution in motion and let it continue (apart from dabbling) offers a perfectly logical explanation – in stark contrast to your own theory – for the WHOLE bush of life, extant and extinct, as you have repeatedly acknowledged. But you just don’t like it.

Under “making a ribosome”:

Then they took a step back, allowing the various parts to autonomously assemble themselves into the ribosomal units, without outside direction or interference. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note the first bold. One major step was using life's own process rather than humans doing it. And many folks deny it was all designed!

I have noted it – especially the terms “autonomously” and “without outside direction or interference”. What a wonderful description of a process whereby living organisms from micro to macro “do it” themselves rather than God doing it. But yes indeed, the mechanisms running the process offer a powerful case for design.

dhw: [...] that you have “”no idea” why such a God would have specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: This is a perfect example of distortion. My 'no idea' refers only to the fact that I don't question His choice of evolving humans from bacteria. I cannot know His reasons. I accept the history.

dhw: You constantly IGNORE the 3.X billion years of non-human history, and THAT is the “glaring difference” between us. (See below)

DAVID: I'm not thinking as you distort my direct logic, which you accept when you admit God can evolve us any way He wants. We evolved from bacteria from 3.8 bya. God did it! You create a difference totally illogically. If God can choose his method, the 3.8 applies. Your complaint constantly adds up to why was God so patient?

Yet again, you ignore the whole of pre-human life history! My complaint, yet again, is your own distorted logic in insisting that your all-powerful God, whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens – which he could have done any way he wanted – chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before designing the only species (plus econiches) he wanted to design.

dhw: There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

DAVID: All my guesses about God' reasons you asked for are just that. Neither of us can really investigate His thought processes, and all our guesses tend to humanize him. I prefer not to do that as it diminishes Him in my mind. And you can't know His reason. And yes, He must have had His reason, which religions try to tell us, but they are in the same boat as we. There are many other reasons to believe in God, besides what is on His mind. I'll stick with Adler: The odds of His direct interest in us is 50/50.

I have no objection to any of this. But a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 23, 2020, 20:52 (1395 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Note I've limited this to changes within species, and never speciation on its own, which is what you wish could happen. Mo God speciates what He wants. That doesn't change.

dhw: Not a wish but a theory. You can limit your proposal if you like, but that doesn’t invalidate mine! Furthermore, the theory that your God set evolution in motion and let it continue (apart from dabbling) offers a perfectly logical explanation – in stark contrast to your own theory – for the WHOLE bush of life, extant and extinct, as you have repeatedly acknowledged. But you just don’t like it.

The reason I always reject your God theory is the level of personality that I see for God. You've implied I've agreed my theory is illogical. How strange! Both are logical, but in yours God's intentions are ignored in not recognizing God intended from 13.8 byo to produce us. He didn't start off wandering into the future. I'm with Adler.


Under “making a ribosome”:

Then they took a step back, allowing the various parts to autonomously assemble themselves into the ribosomal units, without outside direction or interference. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note the first bold. One major step was using life's own process rather than humans doing it. And many folks deny it was all designed!

dhw: I have noted it – especially the terms “autonomously” and “without outside direction or interference”. What a wonderful description of a process whereby living organisms from micro to macro “do it” themselves rather than God doing it. But yes indeed, the mechanisms running the process offer a powerful case for design.

DAVID: I'm not thinking as you distort my direct logic, which you accept when you admit God can evolve us any way He wants. We evolved from bacteria from 3.8 bya. God did it! You create a difference totally illogically. If God can choose his method, the 3.8 applies. Your complaint constantly adds up to why was God so patient?

dhw: Yet again, you ignore the whole of pre-human life history! My complaint, yet again, is your own distorted logic in insisting that your all-powerful God, whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens – which he could have done any way he wanted – chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before designing the only species (plus econiches) he wanted to design.

Total non-sequitur. Ignoring nothing, I see God as choosing to evolve us with full purpose in mind.


dhw: There is no such thing as “God-lite”. If God exists, he has just as much right, for instance, to create a mechanism that allows evolution to take its own course (but “stop it if he wishes”) as to hands-on dabble every species. I don’t complain about you using “humanizing” terms. I complain that you dismiss theories as “humanizing” although your own is no more and no less “humanizing” than those I offer, and your theory defies human logic whereas you admit that my alternatives don’t.

DAVID: All my guesses about God' reasons you asked for are just that. Neither of us can really investigate His thought processes, and all our guesses tend to humanize him. I prefer not to do that as it diminishes Him in my mind. And you can't know His reason. And yes, He must have had His reason, which religions try to tell us, but they are in the same boat as we. There are many other reasons to believe in God, besides what is on His mind. I'll stick with Adler: The odds of His direct interest in us is 50/50.

dhw: I have no objection to any of this. But a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

I am judging your thoughts as God-lite as you create above a very humanized version of the God I see

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Sunday, May 24, 2020, 08:53 (1395 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Note I've limited this to changes within species, and never speciation on its own, which is what you wish could happen. Mo God speciates what He wants. That doesn't change.

dhw: Not a wish but a theory. You can limit your proposal if you like, but that doesn’t invalidate mine! Furthermore, the theory that your God set evolution in motion and let it continue (apart from dabbling) offers a perfectly logical explanation – in stark contrast to your own theory – for the WHOLE bush of life, extant and extinct, as you have repeatedly acknowledged. But you just don’t like it.

DAVID: The reason I always reject your God theory is the level of personality that I see for God.

I offer several levels because I do not have one “God theory”. You reject all my alternatives – including that of an all-powerful God who deliberately gives free rein to evolution – because you wish to stick rigidly to your one theory, despite the fact that you have no idea why your God’s all-powerful and all-controlling personality would lead him to pursue his one purpose by not pursuing his one purpose (designing us) before inexplicably pursuing other purposes (designing millions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.)

DAVID: You've implied I've agreed my theory is illogical. How strange! Both are logical, but in yours God's intentions are ignored in not recognizing God intended from 13.8 byo to produce us. He didn't start off wandering into the future. I'm with Adler.

You cannot explain the above bold, and so you persistently ignore its blatant illogicality. In one of my alternative theistic explanations of evolution, he does pursue the purpose you attribute to him (he has to experiment in order to produce the level of consciousness that is unique to ourselves) – but you can’t bear the thought of a God who doesn’t know everything right from the start, and so you prefer to have no explanation for the hands-on designing of anything-but-humans for 3.X billion years.

dhw: a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

DAVID: I am judging your thoughts as God-lite as you create above a very humanized version of the God I see.

You have not answered any of my points.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 24, 2020, 18:47 (1395 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The reason I always reject your God theory is the level of personality that I see for God.

dhw: I offer several levels because I do not have one “God theory”. You reject all my alternatives – including that of an all-powerful God who deliberately gives free rein to evolution – because you wish to stick rigidly to your one theory, despite the fact that you have no idea why your God’s all-powerful and all-controlling personality would lead him to pursue his one purpose by not pursuing his one purpose (designing us) before inexplicably pursuing other purposes (designing millions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.)

This is your same inconsistent objection, ignoring the fact that God can chose what He wishes to do and he chose to evolve, because that follows history. i don't have to know His reasons, if I can find purpose, which I have with Adler. As with the bees attack on leaves, you have a marked predisposition to minimize the gap in mentation between any lesser animal and humans, always making us look less special. Review your bias.


dhw: a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

DAVID: I am judging your thoughts as God-lite as you create above a very humanized version of the God I see.

dhw: You have not answered any of my points.

It all depends on how you judge God's personality. We are widely different and I doubt the gulf can be crossed, because you are definitely predisposed to minimize the mental difference we have. I am fully logical from my view of God and see how carefully He has evolved all of reality while you dwell just on life's evolution..

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Monday, May 25, 2020, 09:08 (1394 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The reason I always reject your God theory is the level of personality that I see for God.

dhw: I offer several levels because I do not have one “God theory”. You reject all my alternatives – including that of an all-powerful God who deliberately gives free rein to evolution – because you wish to stick rigidly to your one theory, despite the fact that you have no idea why your God’s all-powerful and all-controlling personality would lead him to pursue his one purpose by not pursuing his one purpose (designing us) before inexplicably pursuing other purposes (designing millions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.)

DAVID: This is your same inconsistent objection, ignoring the fact that God can chose what He wishes to do and he chose to evolve, because that follows history. i don't have to know His reasons, if I can find purpose, which I have with Adler.

Yet again: yes, we agree that if he exists, he chose evolution. Yet again, we are not talking about his reason for choosing evolution. Yet again, I have no objections to the reasoning behind your choice of his purpose (we are special). And yet again, you ignore the bold! And yet again you ignore a logical explanation for that bold: namely, if he started out with the sole purpose of creating a special being who has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to his own, perhaps he needed to experiment in order to get it. Or – another perfectly logical hypothesis – life itself was a great experiment, and he hit on the idea of such a being late on in the process. You reject these logical explanations of the ever changing bush of life on the grounds that this does not conform to your personal image of God.

DAVID: As with the bees attack on leaves, you have a marked predisposition to minimize the gap in mentation between any lesser animal and humans, always making us look less special. Review your bias.

The idea that such organisms might have their own form of intelligence does not minimize the gap between them and us. Yet again, the two hypotheses above highlight the specialness of humans. Please stop putting up this straw man attack on a non-existent bias when you know perfectly well that it is the bolded COMBINATION of beliefs that I am questioning.

dhw: a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

DAVID: I am judging your thoughts as God-lite as you create above a very humanized version of the God I see.

dhw: You have not answered any of my points.

DAVID: It all depends on how you judge God's personality. We are widely different and I doubt the gulf can be crossed, because you are definitely predisposed to minimize the mental difference we have. I am fully logical from my view of God and see how carefully He has evolved all of reality while you dwell just on life's evolution..

It is not a question of judging God’s personality, but of guessing what it is like. You have a fixed view that he is all-powerful and always in control. I do not minimize the difference of our mental capacity – see above – and if he exists, I totally accept evolution as the process by which he has created all of reality. The gulf between us arises solely out of your three rigid beliefs (all-powerful God + single purpose (us) + direct design of millions of life forms unrelated to us) as bolded above. Each of these rigid beliefs is reasonable in itself. It is the COMBINATION which makes no sense and which you constantly try to avoid by focusing on just one at a time.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Monday, May 25, 2020, 15:19 (1394 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This is your same inconsistent objection, ignoring the fact that God can chose what He wishes to do and he chose to evolve, because that follows history. i don't have to know His reasons, if I can find purpose, which I have with Adler.

dhw: Yet again: yes, we agree that if he exists, he chose evolution. Yet again, we are not talking about his reason for choosing evolution. Yet again, I have no objections to the reasoning behind your choice of his purpose (we are special). And yet again, you ignore the bold! And yet again you ignore a logical explanation for that bold: namely, if he started out with the sole purpose of creating a special being who has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to his own, perhaps he needed to experiment in order to get it. Or – another perfectly logical hypothesis – life itself was a great experiment, and he hit on the idea of such a being late on in the process. You reject these logical explanations of the ever changing bush of life on the grounds that this does not conform to your personal image of God.

You have hit exactly on the difference between us. Your very imagined humanized god is not my God in so many ways. The bolds show a God who is not sure of what He is doing and working it out as He goes. This defies all reason as I look at His creation of the universe, of the perfect Earth for life, starting complex life, and directing an ever-advancing evolutionary complexity to reach us. The last bold above ignores the advancing complexity which shows directionality of purpose. What I see is the vast difference. For you my God is unimaginable, and illogical. That is your lone perspective.


dhw: a) since we can’t know God’s thoughts, there can be no such judgement as “God-lite”, b) he has just as much right to create a self-directing form of evolution as one that he preprogrammes or dabbles, and c) your insistence that he is all-powerful and in control of everything is no less “humanizing” that any of my alternatives, all of which allow for one or other of your basic premises, whereas neither of us can find a logical way of COMBINING them.

DAVID: I am judging your thoughts as God-lite as you create above a very humanized version of the God I see.

dhw: You have not answered any of my points.

DAVID: It all depends on how you judge God's personality. We are widely different and I doubt the gulf can be crossed, because you are definitely predisposed to minimize the mental difference we have. I am fully logical from my view of God and see how carefully He has evolved all of reality while you dwell just on life's evolution..

dhw: It is not a question of judging God’s personality, but of guessing what it is like. You have a fixed view that he is all-powerful and always in control. I do not minimize the difference of our mental capacity – see above – and if he exists, I totally accept evolution as the process by which he has created all of reality. The gulf between us arises solely out of your three rigid beliefs (all-powerful God + single purpose (us) + direct design of millions of life forms unrelated to us) as bolded above. Each of these rigid beliefs is reasonable in itself. It is the COMBINATION which makes no sense and which you constantly try to avoid by focusing on just one at a time.

It makes no sense to you as I describe above with you fixed mamby- pamby unsure of himself god. The two bolds show your confusion. First, you accept evolution by God and then below tell us the common descent is unrelated to us!

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 12:10 (1393 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Yet again: yes, we agree that if he exists, he chose evolution. Yet again, we are not talking about his reason for choosing evolution. Yet again, I have no objections to the reasoning behind your choice of his purpose (we are special). And yet again, you ignore the bold! And yet again you ignore a logical explanation for that bold: namely, if he started out with the sole purpose of creating a special being who has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to his own, perhaps he needed to experiment in order to get it[/b]. Or – another perfectly logical hypothesis - life itself was a great experiment, and he hit on the idea of such a being late on in the process. You reject these logical explanations of the ever changing bush of life on the grounds that this does not conform to your personal image of God. (David’s bolds)

DAVID: You have hit exactly on the difference between us. Your very imagined humanized god is not my God in so many ways. The bolds show a God who is not sure of what He is doing and working it out as He goes. This defies all reason as I look at His creation of the universe, of the perfect Earth for life, starting complex life, and directing an ever-advancing evolutionary complexity to reach us.

I suppose I shouldn't ask again why you think he created billions of galaxies and solar systems extant and extinct when his sole purpose was Earth and H. sapiens.

DAVID: The last bold above ignores the advancing complexity which shows directionality of purpose. What I see is the vast difference. For you my God is unimaginable, and illogical. That is your lone perspective.

Your “directionality” consists of millions of extinct non-human life forms, some more complex than others – not to mention all the extinct individual lifestyles and natural wonders – all directed towards the design of H. sapiens, whom he could have designed any way he wanted! You simply refuse to recognize the fact that it is not your individual rigid beliefs that are illogical but the COMBINATION of the three. This pattern is repeated below in your response to the bolds:

dhw: You have a fixed view that he is all-powerful and always in control. I do not minimize the difference of our mental capacity – see above – and if he exists, I totally accept evolution as the process by which he has created all of reality. The gulf between us arises solely out of your three rigid beliefs (all-powerful God + single purpose (us) + direct design of millions of life forms unrelated to us) as bolded above. Each of these rigid beliefs is reasonable in itself. It is the COMBINATION which makes no sense and which you constantly try to avoid by focusing on just one at a time.

DAVID: It makes no sense to you as I describe above with you fixed mamby- pamby unsure of himself god. The two bolds show your confusion. First, you accept evolution by God and then below tell us the common descent is unrelated to us!

There is no fixed view: I offer alternatives. But I do not see experimentation, having new ideas, or the creation of an ever changing spectacle as “namby-pamby” or “unsure of himself”. I find the mixture of experimental scientist, inventor, creative artist worthy of a far more positive description. As for the bolds, you yourself have no idea why he chose to “evolve” (your term for directly design) the only species he wanted to design by first “evolving” (directly designing) anything but the only species he wanted to design. You accept all my alternative explanations of life’s history as being logical, and have even accepted the principle whereby he may set evolutionary processes in motion and let them continue, but you reject them all on the grounds that a God who probably has thought patterns similar to ours cannot possibly have thought patterns similar to ours.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 19:24 (1393 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have hit exactly on the difference between us. Your very imagined humanized god is not my God in so many ways. The bolds show a God who is not sure of what He is doing and working it out as He goes. This defies all reason as I look at His creation of the universe, of the perfect Earth for life, starting complex life, and directing an ever-advancing evolutionary complexity to reach us.

dhw: I suppose I shouldn't ask again why you think he created billions of galaxies and solar systems extant and extinct when his sole purpose was Earth and H. sapiens.

You can ask. I've answered many times. He had to evolve this universe as He evolved everything subsequent, to produce this exact galaxy, which grew by eating many small galaxies so this one could be large enough to tuck our special Earth far enough out to be safe.

dhw: Your “directionality” consists of millions of extinct non-human life forms, some more complex than others – not to mention all the extinct individual lifestyles and natural wonders – all directed towards the design of H. sapiens, whom he could have designed any way he wanted! You simply refuse to recognize the fact that it is not your individual rigid beliefs that are illogical but the COMBINATION of the three. This pattern is repeated below in your response to the bolds:

dhw: You have a fixed view that he is all-powerful and always in control. I do not minimize the difference of our mental capacity – see above – and if he exists, I totally accept evolution as the process by which he has created all of reality. The gulf between us arises solely out of your three rigid beliefs (all-powerful God + single purpose (us) + direct design of millions of life forms unrelated to us) as bolded above. Each of these rigid beliefs is reasonable in itself. It is the COMBINATION which makes no sense and which you constantly try to avoid by focusing on just one at a time.

DAVID: It makes no sense to you as I describe above with you fixed mamby- pamby unsure of himself god. The two bolds show your confusion. First, you accept evolution by God and then below tell us the common descent is unrelated to us!

dhw: There is no fixed view: I offer alternatives. But I do not see experimentation, having new ideas, or the creation of an ever changing spectacle as “mamby-pamby” or “unsure of himself”. I find the mixture of experimental scientist, inventor, creative artist worthy of a far more positive description. As for the bolds, you yourself have no idea why he chose to “evolve” (your term for directly design) the only species he wanted to design by first “evolving” (directly designing) anything but the only species he wanted to design. You accept all my alternative explanations of life’s history as being logical, and have even accepted the principle whereby he may set evolutionary processes in motion and let them continue, but you reject them all on the grounds that a God who probably has thought patterns similar to ours cannot possibly have thought patterns similar to ours.

The usual inconsistent description of my presentations. The evidence for God using evolution as his preferred process is obvious in history. The universe appeared and then evolved. The Milky Way galaxy appeared and then evolved by growing large enough. The Earth appeared and then evolved. Life appeared and then evolved. From the beginning all of it was in the direction of more complexity. That is 'directionality', all following God's purposes. My God knows what He is doing at the beginning of each stage. The bold is a humanized god plodding along, not sure of where he is headed. NOT MY GOD!!! I don't know God's reasons for this method and, guess what, I don't care! As for His reasoning capacity He is logical like we are, but I know nothing more of His thinking.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 11:06 (1392 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I suppose I shouldn't ask again why you think he created billions of galaxies and solar systems extant and extinct when his sole purpose was Earth and H. sapiens.

DAVID: You can ask. I've answered many times. He had to evolve this universe as He evolved everything subsequent, to produce this exact galaxy, which grew by eating many small galaxies so this one could be large enough to tuck our special Earth far enough out to be safe.

So how does that explain the billions of long gone galaxies and solar systems which he “evolved” (= specially designed in your vocabulary) for the sole purpose of producing ours for the sole purpose of producing Earth for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens?

Dhw: you yourself have no idea why he chose to “evolve” (your term for directly design) the only species he wanted to design by first “evolving” (directly designing) anything but the only species he wanted to design. You accept all my alternative explanations of life’s history as being logical, and have even accepted the principle whereby he may set evolutionary processes in motion and let them continue, but you reject them all on the grounds that a God who probably has thought patterns similar to ours cannot possibly have thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: [...] The evidence for God using evolution as his preferred process is obvious in history.

With my theist hat on, I agree.

DAVID: The universe appeared and then evolved. The Milky Way galaxy appeared and then evolved by growing large enough. The Earth appeared and then evolved. Life appeared and then evolved.

Agreed. Our basic disagreement begins at this point, but as usual you simply ignore the whole subject of that disagreement as bolded yet again above and below.

DAVID: From the beginning all of it was in the direction of more complexity. That is 'directionality', all following God's purposes. My God knows what He is doing at the beginning of each stage.

Not clear why the billions of galaxies and solar systems extant and extinct are more complex now than they were in the past.

DAVID (referring to experimentation and/or new ideas): The bold is a humanized god plodding along, not sure of where he is headed. NOT MY GOD!!! I don't know God's reasons for this method and, guess what, I don't care! As for His reasoning capacity He is logical like we are, but I know nothing more of His thinking.

It is not the reason for using the method of evolution that is in dispute! The dispute, yet again, is over the COMBINATION of your three rigid beliefs concerning God’s nature (all-powerful, all-controlling), purpose (only to create H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked) and method of achieving that purpose (directly designing millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design). If, as you suppose, he is logical like we are, the illogicality of this combination of beliefs can only mean that one or other or all of them are wrong.

Under “brain expansion”:
dhw: Back we go to your theory of evolution and your three rigid and irreconcilable beliefs: (1) all-knowing, all-powerful God, 2) only purpose H. sapiens, 3) designs millions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. before designing only species he wants to design.[/b]

DAVID: Not irreconcilable to me. God chose to evolve from bacteria and you've stated He could chose that approach, so what is your problem? Obviously you don't like His choice.

None of this is a problem. As above, now for the fourth time in this post, the problem is that according to you he chose to directly design millions of non-human life forms etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. Why do you keep skipping the whole subject of our disagreement?

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 16:08 (1392 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You can ask. I've answered many times. He had to evolve this universe as He evolved everything subsequent, to produce this exact galaxy, which grew by eating many small galaxies so this one could be large enough to tuck our special Earth far enough out to be safe.

dhw: So how does that explain the billions of long gone galaxies and solar systems which he “evolved” (= specially designed in your vocabulary) for the sole purpose of producing ours for the sole purpose of producing Earth for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens?

The evolution of the universe took time. No galaxies are 'gone'. Our Milk Way is big because we ate others to get this big as above. You don't understand making the Earth 'safe', but I've explained it many tines.


DAVID (referring to experimentation and/or new ideas): The bold is a humanized god plodding along, not sure of where he is headed. NOT MY GOD!!! I don't know God's reasons for this method and, guess what, I don't care! As for His reasoning capacity He is logical like we are, but I know nothing more of His thinking.

dhw: It is not the reason for using the method of evolution that is in dispute! The dispute, yet again, is over the COMBINATION of your three rigid beliefs concerning God’s nature (all-powerful, all-controlling), purpose (only to create H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked) and method of achieving that purpose (directly designing millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design). If, as you suppose, he is logical like we are, the illogicality of this combination of beliefs can only mean that one or other or all of them are wrong.

It is you who are totally illogical. God has the right to chose any method of production He wishes. He chose evolution from bacteria to us. He is not impatient as you imply He should be.


Under “brain expansion”:

dhw: Back we go to your theory of evolution and your three rigid and irreconcilable beliefs: (1) all-knowing, all-powerful God, 2) only purpose H. sapiens, 3) designs millions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. before designing only species he wants to design.[/b]

DAVID: Not irreconcilable to me. God chose to evolve from bacteria and you've stated He could chose that approach, so what is your problem? Obviously you don't like His choice.

dhw: None of this is a problem. As above, now for the fourth time in this post, the problem is that according to you he chose to directly design millions of non-human life forms etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. Why do you keep skipping the whole subject of our disagreement?

I never skip it over. You don't like my answers. I won't repeat the same answer as above, but will add the usual: I don't know His reasoning for choosing this method of action, and I don't care. We are here.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by dhw, Thursday, May 28, 2020, 11:52 (1391 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You can ask. I've answered many times. He had to evolve this universe as He evolved everything subsequent, to produce this exact galaxy, which grew by eating many small galaxies so this one could be large enough to tuck our special Earth far enough out to be safe.

dhw: So how does that explain the billions of long gone galaxies and solar systems which he “evolved” (= specially designed in your vocabulary) for the sole purpose of producing ours for the sole purpose of producing Earth for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens?

DAVID: The evolution of the universe took time. No galaxies are 'gone'. Our Milk Way is big because we ate others to get this big as above. You don't understand making the Earth 'safe', but I've explained it many tines.

Astronomers reckon there are between 100 and 200 thousand million galaxies, but they don’t really know because they have no idea what exists beyond the range of their observation. I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one.

DAVID (referring to experimentation and/or new ideas): The bold is a humanized god plodding along, not sure of where he is headed. NOT MY GOD!!! I don't know God's reasons for this method and, guess what, I don't care! As for His reasoning capacity He is logical like we are, but I know nothing more of His thinking.

dhw: It is not the reason for using the method of evolution that is in dispute! The dispute, yet again, is over the COMBINATION of your three rigid beliefs concerning God’s nature (all-powerful, all-controlling), purpose (only to create H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked) and method of achieving that purpose (directly designing millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design). If, as you suppose, he is logical like we are, the illogicality of this combination of beliefs can only mean that one or other or all of them are wrong.

DAVID: It is you who are totally illogical. God has the right to chose any method of production He wishes. He chose evolution from bacteria to us. He is not impatient as you imply He should be.

Yet again: yes, he chose evolution from bacteria to every life form extant and extinct, including the latecomer H. sapiens. But according to you, your God is all powerful, had only one purpose (H. sapiens), could have achieved it any way he wanted, but chose to evolve (= specially design) millions of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. as his method of evolving (= specially designing) H. sapiens, who was the only life form he wanted to design (apart from those that would enable H. sapiens to eat). And not surprisingly you have no idea why he chose this method of producing the only thing he wanted to produce, and so we shouldn’t ask why. I don’t understand why you continue to ignore the point of our disagreement. Yesterday I bolded it four times.

Natures wonders: ants and other insects farm

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 28, 2020, 15:38 (1391 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You can ask. I've answered many times. He had to evolve this universe as He evolved everything subsequent, to produce this exact galaxy, which grew by eating many small galaxies so this one could be large enough to tuck our special Earth far enough out to be safe.

dhw: So how does that explain the billions of long gone galaxies and solar systems which he “evolved” (= specially designed in your vocabulary) for the sole purpose of producing ours for the sole purpose of producing Earth for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens?

DAVID: The evolution of the universe took time. No galaxies are 'gone'. Our Milk Way is big because we ate others to get this big as above. You don't understand making the Earth 'safe', but I've explained it many tines.

dhw: Astronomers reckon there are between 100 and 200 thousand million galaxies, but they don’t really know because they have no idea what exists beyond the range of their observation. I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one.

Just accept it as His course of action. He is in charge of creation his way. And, surprise, His reasons may not fit your human expectations.


DAVID (referring to experimentation and/or new ideas): The bold is a humanized god plodding along, not sure of where he is headed. NOT MY GOD!!! I don't know God's reasons for this method and, guess what, I don't care! As for His reasoning capacity He is logical like we are, but I know nothing more of His thinking.

dhw: It is not the reason for using the method of evolution that is in dispute! The dispute, yet again, is over the COMBINATION of your three rigid beliefs concerning God’s nature (all-powerful, all-controlling), purpose (only to create H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked) and method of achieving that purpose (directly designing millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design). If, as you suppose, he is logical like we are, the illogicality of this combination of beliefs can only mean that one or other or all of them are wrong.

DAVID: It is you who are totally illogical. God has the right to chose any method of production He wishes. He chose evolution from bacteria to us. He is not impatient as you imply He should be.

dhw: Yet again: yes, he chose evolution from bacteria to every life form extant and extinct, including the latecomer H. sapiens. But according to you, your God is all powerful, had only one purpose (H. sapiens), could have achieved it any way he wanted, but chose to evolve (= specially design) millions of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. as his method of evolving (= specially designing) H. sapiens, who was the only life form he wanted to design (apart from those that would enable H. sapiens to eat). And not surprisingly you have no idea why he chose this method of producing the only thing he wanted to produce, and so we shouldn’t ask why. I don’t understand why you continue to ignore the point of our disagreement. Yesterday I bolded it four times.

I don't ignore it. You won't accept any aspect of my reasoning. Your double talk describes in the bold an exact description of evolution, which is his method of creation. I don't need to know his reasoning, if I accept history as the evidence for his choice, I know His choice, and guesses as to his possible reasons are just guesses. Only you want to bother. Would knowing His actual reasoning help you accept Him? I doubt it.

Natures wonders: an unusual form of symbiosis

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 31, 2020, 20:50 (1387 days ago) @ David Turell

Spittlebugs really need their resident bacteria for any nutrients at all:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200528172000.htm

"A new study examines the symbiotic relationship between two types of bacteria and spittlebugs that helps the insect live on very low-nutrient food. The bacteria use a metabolic "trick" also employed by cancer cells to create the right conditions for converting the poor food into the necessary building blocks for survival.

***

"Spittlebugs get their name from the bubbly spit they create in plant branches. The clusters of spit keeps them from drying out and allow them to hide from predators. There they feed on xylem plant sap, a very low-value food; xylem transports water and minerals from the plant's roots to its leaves.

"'No animal should be able to subsist on xylem alone -- it's really just water and a few nutrients," said lead author Nana Ankrah, a postdoctoral researcher (my bold)

***

"The answers to how these bugs survive lie in two types of bacteria that live in separate spittlebug organs, called bacteriomes; one is red, the other orange. Other similar insects that feed on plant sap have just one bacterial partner to help produce high-quality amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

"'We wanted to understand if there were any advantages to having two bacterial symbionts on this very poor diet," Ankrah said.

***

"They discovered that the red bacteriome uses a process known as aerobic glycolysis to process glucose, from which the bacteria synthesize seven essential amino acids. Two byproducts of this process, pyruvate and lactate, are assimilated by the orange bacteriome to create ATP molecules, which make energy for cells. The energy boost from ATP allows the bacteria in the orange bacteriome to produce three additional essential amino acids that require a great deal of energy to produce.

"Having two bacterial partners instead of one works because they have this method for exchanging products from one bacterium to the other to increase the overall energy available to them, Ankrah said."

Comment: Note my bold. This is three-way symbiosis, which of course raised the issue of how did this happen by chance? How did Spittlebugs survive until the proper bacteria were rounded up. Obviously they didn't. The threesome had to be together from the beginning. Alternatively, the Spittlebugs could initially perform the necessary very specialized metabolic processes the bacteria supply, and lost them when both of the very specialized bacteria fortuitously appeared inside the bugs. Very tenuous and/or very lucky possibility. I'll bet God arranged it.

Natures wonders: symbiosis by bacteria gives plants iron

by David Turell @, Monday, November 02, 2020, 19:02 (1232 days ago) @ David Turell

Some iron in soil is bound. Plants accompanying bacteria free it up:

https://phys.org/news/2020-11-hungry-bacteria-mobilize-unavailable-iron.html

"In nature, healthy plants are awash with bacteria and other microbes, mostly deriving from the soil they grow in. This community of microbes, termed the plant microbiota, is essential for optimal plant growth and protects plants from the harmful effects of pathogenic microorganisms and insects. The plant root microbiota is also thought to improve plant performance when nutrient levels are low, but concrete examples of such beneficial interactions remain scarce. Iron is one of the most important micronutrients for plant growth and productivity.

***

"When confronted with iron in unavailable forms, plants mount a compensatory response to avoid iron deficiency. This starvation response involves extensive reprogramming of gene expression and the production and secretion of coumarins, aromatic compounds that are discharged from plant roots and which themselves can improve iron solubility. Interestingly, it was recently shown that coumarins are a selective force, shaping the composition of plant-associated bacterial communities. Now, it emerges that some coumarins also act as an "SOS" signal that prompts the root microbiota to support plant iron nutrition.

***

"Growing plants in associations with single bacterial strains allowed them to determine that this iron-rescuing capacity is widespread among bacteria from different bacterial lineages of the root microbiota. When the researchers performed the same experiments with plants compromised in the production or secretion of coumarins, the community of bacteria provided no benefits. Thus, they could show that plant-secreted coumarins are responsible for eliciting nutritional assistance from bacterial commensals under iron limitation.

"The authors' findings strongly suggest that the root microbiota is an integral part of how plants adapt to growth in iron-limiting soil. Furthermore, by identifying the plant-to-microbe signal for assistance, this research brings us one step closer to harnessing naturally present soil bacteria as a substitute for synthetic fertilizers."

Comment: all important bacteria to the rescue. Since iron is vital the bacteria had to be in place when the plants began to evolve, by God's design

Natures wonders: symbiosis by bacteria using nitrates

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 19:14 (1111 days ago) @ David Turell

On onboard bacteria uses nitrate metabolism to supply energy to its host:

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-symbiosis-endosymbiont-derives-energy-respiration.html

"Researchers from Bremen, together with their colleagues from the Max Planck Genome Center in Cologne and the aquatic research institute Eawag from Switzerland, have discovered a unique bacterium that lives inside a unicellular eukaryote and provides it with energy. Unlike mitochondria, this so-called endosymbiont derives energy from the respiration of nitrate, not oxygen. "Such partnership is completely new," says Jana Milucka, the senior author on the Nature. "A symbiosis that is based on respiration and transfer of energy is to this date unprecedented."

"This was also the case with the symbiosis discovered by the Bremen scientists in Lake Zug in Switzerland. "Our finding opens the possibility that simple unicellular eukaryotes, such as protists, can host energy-providing endosymbionts to complement or even replace the functions of their mitochondria," says Jon Graf, first author of the study. "This protist has managed to survive without oxygen by teaming up with an endosymbiont capable of nitrate respiration." The endosymbiont's name, Candidatus Azoamicus ciliaticola, reflects this; a 'nitrogen friend' that dwells within a ciliate.

***

"'Our endosymbiont is capable of performing many mitochondrial functions, even though it does not share a common evolutionary origin with mitochondria," says Milucka. "It is tempting to speculate that the symbiont might follow the same path as mitochondria, and eventually become an organelle."

***

"This finding provokes many exciting new questions. Are there similar symbioses that have existed much longer and where the endosymbiont has already crossed the boundary to an organelle? If such symbiosis exists for nitrate respiration, does it also exist for other compounds? How did this symbiosis, which has existed since 200 to 300 million years, end up in a post-glacial lake in the Alps that only formed 10,000 years ago? Moreover: "Now that we know what we are looking for, we found the endosymbiont's gene sequences all around the world," says Milucka. In France, as well as in Taiwan, or in East African lakes that in part are much older than Lake Zug. Does the origin of this symbiosis lie in one of them?"

Comment: just another evidence that life has God-given methods to survive and thatt survival does not drive evolution

Natures wonders: ants explore for food efficiently

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 20, 2020, 00:25 (1368 days ago) @ David Turell

Each ant lays a pheromone trail for others to avoid:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-ant-inspired-approach-mathematical-sampling.html


"In a paper published by the Journal of The Royal Society Interface, a team of Bristol researchers observed the exploratory behavior of ants to inform the development of a more efficient mathematical sampling technique.

"Animals like ants have the challenge of exploring their environment to look for food and potential places to live. With a large group of individuals, like an ant colony, a large amount of time would be wasted if the ants repeatedly explored the same empty areas.

"The interdisciplinary team from the University of Bristol's Faculties of Engineering and Life Sciences, predicted that the study species—the 'rock ant' - uses some form of chemical communication to avoid exploring the same space multiple times.

"Lead author Dr. Edmund Hunt said: "This would be a reversal of the Hansel and Gretel story—instead of following each other's trails, they would avoid them in order to explore collectively.

"'To test this theory, we conducted an experiment where we let ants explore an empty arena one by one. In the first condition, we cleaned the arena between each ant so they could not leave behind any trace of their path. In the second condition, we did not clean between ants. The ants in the second condition (no cleaning) made a better exploration of the arena—they covered more space.'"

Comment: in previous entries teh use of pheromones was noted for recognizing friends or enemies. This is another use of ant odors, no thought involved.

Natures wonders: army ant raids

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, 20:24 (1027 days ago) @ David Turell

Each individual has its simple response. Numbers of individuals active dictates colony response:

https://phys.org/news/2021-05-army-ants-iconic-mass-raids.html

"Army ants form some of the largest insect societies on the planet....They live in very large colonies and consume large amounts of arthropods. And because they eat so much of the other animals around them, they are nomadic and must keep moving in order to not run out of food. Due to their nomadic nature and mass consumption of food, they have a huge impact on arthropod populations throughout tropical rainforests floors.

***

"The raids are a coordinated hunting swarm of thousands and, in some species, millions of ants. The ants spontaneously stream out of their nest, moving across the forest floor in columns to hunt for food. The raids are one of the most iconic collective behaviors in the animal kingdom. Scientists have studied their ecology and observed their complex behavior extensively. And while we know how these raids happen, we know nothing of how they evolved.

***

"In a small nest of 25 ants they used 5 sets of colors and painted each ant with a unique set of colors. The researchers placed a single fire ant pupa (the prey) in the foraging arena outside of the nest. The nest sends out a scout to look for food. Once the scout finds the food, she lays a pheromone trail back to home. Inside the nest she releases, what researchers believe to be, a recruitment pheromone that attracts the ants to her. They spill out of the nest and follow her trail to the food in a group raid.

***

"'Our experiments show that in larger colonies, the ants become more synchronized in their leaving of the nest to scout. In other words, when an ant leaves, the chances that more ants will follow her are higher in large colonies. While we cannot directly say much about the actual mechanism underlying this observation, we know from other complex systems that an increase in synchronicity is a result of stronger positive feedbacks between individuals," said Gal. "In the army ant size limit, this will result in what we know as a mass raid."

***

"The team concluded that expansions in colony size in the ancestors of army ants are sufficient to have caused the transition from group raiding to mass raiding behavior.

"'Probably the most common pattern is that collective behavior evolves via natural selection acting on and tweaking the interaction rules that the individual animals follow," said Kronauer. "But our study is a nice example of a different mechanism: scaling effects associated with group size can give you dramatically different outcomes in terms of collective behavior, even though the individual rules don't change much." (my bold)

"Gal agreed, "Of course, it has been long known that changing group size can have a dramatic effect on emergent collective behavior. This has been shown both theoretically and experimentally. We have now shown that this effect can also be harnessed by evolution, and that collective behavior can be adapted over evolutionary timescales without actually modifying the behavior of individuals."

"As far as is known, the coordinated behavior of clonal raider ants is one of the most complex social behaviors that can be induced or studied in the lab. The authors are currently working on a detailed study of how individual ants behave during the course of the raid, and how the structure of the raid responds to variation in environment and colony composition.

"'We suspect that the ants specialize to some extent on specific tasks," said Chandra. "There's probably some very interesting division of labor going on, and there's also clearly complex communication—the ants use several different pheromones to talk to each other and to organize the raid. And there are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid. It's an incredibly rich behavior and there are many questions we could ask in the future and we're laying the groundwork for that.'"

Comment: In ant bridges and rafts individual ant responses are generally the same cooperative response with little individual differences. I suspect the same will bg=e found here.

Natures wonders: swifts stay aloft most of their lives

by David Turell @, Friday, October 28, 2016, 00:50 (2699 days ago) @ David Turell

They are the record holders:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110650-swifts-break-record-by-staying-aloft-for-1...

"We long suspected that they sleep and mate on the wing. Now, for the first time, there’s evidence that common swifts probably have to do both, because they spend an astonishing 10 months per year without landing – a world record for sustained flight in nature.

"Their nearest rival is the alpine swift, which flies non-stop for up to six months a year.

"In Europe, common swifts land for two months to breed, spending the nights roosting in their nests. Then they’re off to Africa – where no one has ever found roosting sites belonging to them – before returning again in Europe 10 months later to breed.

***

"Swifts can live for up to 20 years, and Hedenström calculates that the distance they fly over their lifetime amounts to travelling to the moon and back up to seven times.

***

"Hedenström retrieved the data loggers when the birds returned to Europe. Accelerometers revealed flight trajectories and times when they were grounded. Light sensors enabled the researchers to work out the birds’ geographical location using day lengths and times of sunrise and sunset.

"Hedenström says it’s almost inevitable the birds must sleep on the wing, as long suspected. “Assuming that like other animals, swifts need sleep, logically they must do it in the air,” he says.

"One possibility is that like dolphins and frigate birds swifts can “sleep” by switching off one half of their brain, or sometimes both, for short periods, perhaps as they cruise up and down thermals. “It may be they can find a thermal and go round and round,” he says.

"Hedenström’s team also found that the swifts do two massive ascents each day, one at dawn and the other at dusk, spiralling up to altitudes of 2 or 3 kilometres."

Comment: Why did this flight plan develop? What are its advantages, if any? None is mentioned in the article. Perhaps this is an example of the bush of life with weird forms and life styles for no apparent reason..

Natures wonders: swifts stay aloft most of their lives

by dhw, Friday, October 28, 2016, 12:55 (2699 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for another amazing article.

David's comment: Why did this flight plan develop? What are its advantages, if any? None is mentioned in the article. Perhaps this is an example of the bush of life with weird forms and life styles for no apparent reason.

Which perhaps suggests that your God did not teach them or preprogramme this particular lifestyle in order to balance nature in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans, but that the swifts worked it out for themselves. At least then we can shake our heads at the logic of swifts rather than at the logic of your God!

Natures wonders: swifts stay aloft most of their lives

by David Turell @, Friday, October 28, 2016, 14:31 (2699 days ago) @ dhw

Thank you for another amazing article.

David's comment: Why did this flight plan develop? What are its advantages, if any? None is mentioned in the article. Perhaps this is an example of the bush of life with weird forms and life styles for no apparent reason.

dhw: Which perhaps suggests that your God did not teach them or preprogramme this particular lifestyle in order to balance nature in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans, but that the swifts worked it out for themselves. At least then we can shake our heads at the logic of swifts rather than at the logic of your God!

Just the opposite. God has them use this strange lifestyle to fit into their own niche contribution in the balance of nature.

Natures wonders: fish migrate, return to same nests

by David Turell @, Monday, October 31, 2016, 04:44 (2696 days ago) @ David Turell

Salmon return to the same stream. these fish cme back to the same nesting areas;

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110443-fish-swims-to-the-same-nest-each-year-just...

"This behaviour is reminiscent of migratory birds such as white storks or swallows. But unlike them, the fish does not migrate over long distances. Instead, it disappears for months on end from its rocky shore breeding sites along the western coasts of Europe and North Africa, travelling offshore to feed.

“The most interesting thing is that they get back to the same nest or to a very close one,” says Paulo Esteves Jorge at the University of Lisbon in Portugal. “It’s surprising to see in a non-migratory species standard behaviours of a migratory one.”

"Male shannies (Lipophrys pholis) – which care for the eggs – were already known to return to their nests if they were artificially removed during their breeding season, from October to April. “Males show a great fidelity to the nest, being able to quickly return to it in the same year if they were taken away,” says Jorge.

"The fresh finding that they return each year has emerged after the team tracked 211 of the fish over a three-year period using tiny electronic tags. “We believe that other similar species will have the same behavioural pattern,” says Jorge.

"The team also conducted experiments in which they removed four fish from their nests and placed them more than 100 metres away, finding that half of them returned within two months.

"Returning to breeding sites, much like sea turtles do, requires homing abilities, including well-developed navigation skills and an aptitude for keeping track of your position.

"Paulo Jorge says it’s not yet clear how shannies find their way back, and they may use scent, visual landmarks or other cues. They are normally found in intertidal zones, which are submerged at high tide and exposed to air at low tide. They emerge from rock pools or from underneath damp stones and seaweed at high tide to forage over the shore.

“'Many species of intertidal rock-pool fish have excellent homing capabilities backed up by fantastic spatial learning,” says Culum Brown at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. “This paper extends this work by tracking fish over a three-year time frame, far longer than previous efforts.”

"So why do these fish do it?

"Nesting seems to be energetically demanding for shannies, with some of them taking a gap year before returning to their nest – perhaps because they can’t feed as much while nesting.

"Returning to well-known nests might be advantageous, saving the shannies energy on finding a new nesting location and meaning they know better where to find food and avoid predators while tending eggs."

Comment: It is not known how they do this but some fish are known to have a sense of smell. The trip they take is not long. They might be able to remember the geography. With all migrations the same issue comes up, how did they learn this instinct? Also, we do not know how instinct is recorded in DNA. Hopefully it will be understood through research

Natures wonders:carnivorous sea slugs, weird!

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 15, 2016, 01:40 (2681 days ago) @ David Turell

This article includes a great video:

http://www.livescience.com/56841-carnivorous-sea-slug-video.html?utm_source=ls-newslett...

"M. viridis, which can reach up to 5 inches (13 centimeters) in length, is unusual-looking, to say the least — its body texture resembles a wad of leafy greens that has been partly chewed and then spit back out. The individual in the video appears to have seven pairs of oar-shaped limbs, with the biggest ones close to the front of its body and the smallest pairs closest to its tapering back end.

"But the creature's most striking feature by far is a large, balloon-like sac at the front of its body, which it uses to catch crustacean prey by casting the loose folds like a net to engulf its meal. M. viridis gulps down its prey and ingests it whole, scientists have found — dissections of several specimens revealed intact crabs in the nudibranchs' stomachs.

"In the video, though the nudibranch's body doesn't move much, its "head" repeatedly extends forward and flattens on the seafloor while the oral opening gapes wide, searching the ocean bottom for tasty morsels like shrimp or tiny crabs. Sensory structures line the edges of the opening; when these hairs touch the nudibranch's prey, the sack contracts and traps the prey inside, where it is ingested.

"And if you think nudibranch feeding habits look strange, nudibranch sex is even weirder.

"Nudibranchs are hermaphroditic, possessing both male and female sex organs. But instead of self-fertilizing as some hermaphroditic animals do, nudibranchs exchange chemical signals during mating to determine which of the pair will assume the female role.

"And for a nudibranch, that can involve amputating a disposable penis or stabbing its mates in the brain with genital darts."

Comment: As a part of the balance of nature, this animal cleans the ocean floor of tiny crustaceans like a vacuum cleaner. Everyone has to eat something.

Natures wonders: artic bacteria hook onto ice

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 15, 2016, 19:18 (2680 days ago) @ David Turell

They produce a protein molecule like a hook or grapple that grabs onto the ice:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47267/title/Antarctic-Bacteria-La...

" Out among the sea ice, the microbial ecologist, now based at Argonne National Laboratory, found a bacterial antifreeze protein (AFP) called MpIBP that was hundreds of times larger than other known AFPs. It was an enigma, he says. “For years, I’ve been telling people we don’t really know what this protein does.”

***

"Ido Braslavsky of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues placed Marinomonas primoryensis, which produces MpIBP, into a microfluidic flow chamber with a copper wire kept at sub-zero temps and embedded in the middle. Micrographs of bacteria streaming by the ice crystals around the wire showed the cells latching on. When the team introduced antibodies that disabled MpIBP, the bacteria slid off the ice, suggesting that the protein—which is shaped like a fishing line with a hook on the end—enables bacteria to cling to ice floes in their ocean habitat, says Braslavsky. It’s the first bacterial adhesion molecule discovered that sticks to ice.

***

"Manipulating the adhesion protein with antibodies allowed Braslavsky’s group to disable specific structural regions one at a time, showing that only one domain in the “hook” at the very tip of MpIBP grabs onto ice. Adhesion-blocking antibodies could help prevent biofilm formation, says Braslavsky."

Comment: Note the molecule has potent antifreeze properties. Frozen bacteria can't stay alive. Then think about the anchor hook. it had to be designed before the bacteria went to the Arctic with its dual properties. Not by chance mutations. That had to travel there after appropriate preparation. Could single celled animals foresee what kind of climate they were getting into? No way.

Natures wonders: artic bacteria hook onto ice

by dhw, Wednesday, November 16, 2016, 12:12 (2680 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: Note the molecule has potent antifreeze properties. Frozen bacteria can't stay alive. Then think about the anchor hook. it had to be designed before the bacteria went to the Arctic with its dual properties. Not by chance mutations. That had to travel there after appropriate preparation. Could single celled animals foresee what kind of climate they were getting into? No way.

I may have missed something here, but please tell me how you know the original bacteria travelled to the frozen Arctic. How do you know that these particular bacteria are not the descendants of those who lived there before the Arctic froze? And that when it did, the bacteria at the time did what bacteria have always done since the beginning of life: they adapted to the new conditions? No “went to”, no “chance mutations”, no “travel there”, no “foresee”. Just intelligent organisms that work out their own ways of survival when conditions change.

Natures wonders: artic bacteria hook onto ice

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 16, 2016, 19:52 (2679 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: Note the molecule has potent antifreeze properties. Frozen bacteria can't stay alive. Then think about the anchor hook. it had to be designed before the bacteria went to the Arctic with its dual properties. Not by chance mutations. That had to travel there after appropriate preparation. Could single celled animals foresee what kind of climate they were getting into? No way.

dhw: I may have missed something here, but please tell me how you know the original bacteria travelled to the frozen Arctic. How do you know that these particular bacteria are not the descendants of those who lived there before the Arctic froze? And that when it did, the bacteria at the time did what bacteria have always done since the beginning of life: they adapted to the new conditions? No “went to”, no “chance mutations”, no “travel there”, no “foresee”. Just intelligent organisms that work out their own ways of survival when conditions change.

Good point, since we know palm trees once grew in the Arctic. What you are proposing then is the bacteria invented antifreeze when they had to and put a hook on it to handle the ice connection. Brilliant design by brainless animals, or by a controlling mind, God. Take your choice.

Natures wonders: artic bacteria hook onto ice

by dhw, Thursday, November 17, 2016, 12:25 (2679 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: Note the molecule has potent antifreeze properties. Frozen bacteria can't stay alive. Then think about the anchor hook. it had to be designed before the bacteria went to the Arctic with its dual properties. Not by chance mutations. That had to travel there after appropriate preparation. Could single celled animals foresee what kind of climate they were getting into? No way.

dhw: I may have missed something here, but please tell me how you know the original bacteria travelled to the frozen Arctic. How do you know that these particular bacteria are not the descendants of those who lived there before the Arctic froze? And that when it did, the bacteria at the time did what bacteria have always done since the beginning of life: they adapted to the new conditions? No “went to”, no “chance mutations”, no “travel there”, no “foresee”. Just intelligent organisms that work out their own ways of survival when conditions change.

DAVID: Good point, since we know palm trees once grew in the Arctic. What you are proposing then is the bacteria invented antifreeze when they had to and put a hook on it to handle the ice connection. Brilliant design by brainless animals, or by a controlling mind, God. Take your choice.

That is precisely what I am proposing, and it lies at the heart of the claims made by Shapiro and Co that “we have a great deal to learn about chemistry, physics and evolution from our small, but very intelligent, prokaryotic relatives.” However, please do not take that as an exclusion of God, as you so often do. If God exists, then he would have invented their intelligence.

Natures wonders: Spider looks like a dry leaf

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 19, 2016, 01:20 (2677 days ago) @ dhw

There are lots of biomimetic examples, but this spider is a newly found example and still not fully understood:

http://www.livescience.com/56910-leaf-mimicking-spider-found.html?utm_source=ls-newslet...

"about 100 spider species also sport physical features that make them appear inanimate and unappetizing, like a jumble of twigs, plant debris or a messy glob of bird poo.

"This is the first known spider species to be leaf-shaped. And its discovery was accidental, according to the study's lead author, Matjaz Kuntner,


"The scientists spied and photographed the unusual arachnid in 2011, while looking for other types of spiders in Yunnan, China. They found the individual — a female — on a twig, surrounded by dead leaves and with no web nearby. The researchers noted that her back looked like a living, green leaf, while the underside of her body was brown, mimicking a dead leaf, and a hairy, stalk-like structure protruded from her abdomen.

"The greenish-yellow underside of the spider resembles a fresh leaf, and the hairy, stalk-like structure curving from its abdomen makes it look even more like a plant.

"Leaves close by the female spider on the branch were attached with silk, which hinted that she had placed them there deliberately to further camouflage herself. However, additional observations would be necessary to confirm this behavior, Kuntner told Live Science.

"Having first noticed their rarity in nature, we talked to curators and established their overall rarity," he said. One similar specimen eventually emerged from a museum collection — a female that had been found in Vietnam. But the scientists suspected the Vietnam spider belonged to a known species in the Poltys genus, whereas the other two spiders likely represented a new species.

"There is still much to be learned about this enigmatic leaf imitator — and considering how difficult it was to find just the first two representatives, that's easier said than done. The authors concluded their study with the somewhat rueful observation that the mysterious spider's secretive habits and nocturnal lifestyle enabled it to successfully avoid not only predators, but researchers as well.

Comment: How did the spider decide to do this? If this deceptive camouflage is necessary, tiny steps of partial change would not be effective, suggesting it all happened in one jump, a saltation. Not by chance. Check out the pictures on the website. The hiding trick is amazing.

Natures wonders: Spider looks like a dry leaf

by dhw, Saturday, November 19, 2016, 12:21 (2677 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: How did the spider decide to do this? If this deceptive camouflage is necessary, tiny steps of partial change would not be effective, suggesting it all happened in one jump, a saltation. Not by chance. Check out the pictures on the website. The hiding trick is amazing.

Thank you for another wonderful wonder. Definitely not by chance. Clever creatures, spiders. In fact lots of creatures are amazingly clever. Look at the weaverbird and his complicated nest. They all seem to find their own particular ways of surviving, making themselves comfortable, protecting themselves, catching their prey. One might almost think they were intelligent – though of course not humanly intelligent. However, there is a theory that they are not intelligent enough to do all this by themselves. They have to be preprogrammed, or God has to pop in and show them how to do it.

Natures wonders: Porpoises control heart rate in dive

by David Turell @, Monday, November 21, 2016, 18:37 (2675 days ago) @ dhw

In order to handle deep dives, the porpoise can control heart rates to manage oxygen consumption and the 'bends', nitrogen bubbles on ascent:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113451-porpoises-plan-their-dives-and-can-set-the...

"Two captive harbour porpoises called Freja and Sif have helped to reveal that porpoises —and probably all cetaceans — consciously adjust their heart rate to suit the length of a planned dive.

"By doing this, the animals optimise the rate at which they consume oxygen beforehand to match the intended depth and length of their dive.

***

"Researchers discovered as far back as 1975 that pinnipeds — such as sea lions — had the ability to consciously control their heart rate.

***

“'We saw that the porpoises didn’t lower their heart rates as much during the initial 15 seconds of a 20-second dive as they did during an 80-second dive,” says Elmegaard.
On average, Freja’s and Sif’s heart rates were 15 and 26 per cent lower when they performed the longer dives, compared with shorter ones, suggesting that this would help them optimise oxygen use while swimming down.

"Importantly, these differences occurred in response to a mental cue — the sound that distinguished the shorter and longer dives — demonstrating that they were premeditated. “We concluded that the porpoises have cognitive control of their heart rate by adjusting their dive response in anticipation of the dive duration,” says Elmegaard.

"It’s not clear how they do it yet, but it involves lowering the heart rate and, at the same time, constricting blood vessels. Combined, these decrease heart output and perfusion of oxygen into organs, maintain blood pressure and conserve blood oxygen, essentially redistributing oxygen to the brain and heart, which are the organs most sensitive to lack of oxygen.

***

"But alongside optimising blood oxygen levels, brain control of heart rate also probably helps cetaceans avoid a build-up of potentially toxic nitrogen in tissues, which causes decompression sickness. As with human divers, if cetaceans surface too quickly from depth, nitrogen bubbles can build up in tissues instead of being safely dissolved in the blood.

“'The bubbles can cause damage similar to a blood clot if blocking capillaries,” says Elmegaard. “If bubbles form in joints or muscles they can cause massive pain and damage, and in nerve tissue can cause damage potentially leading to paralysis and death.”

“'The findings are clear – that the porpoises control heart rate voluntarily,” says Paul Jepson at the Institute of Zoology in London. “I also agree with the authors that this is likely to apply to other cetacean species like dolphins – not just porpoises.”

"The heart rate would indeed also regulate nitrogen levels in body tissues, he says.

“'If abnormal cognitive physiological control of dive profile occurred, for example due to naval sonar exposure, this could result in radically altered nitrogen gas kinetics and – potentially – increased risk of decompression sickness – as has been suggested for some mass strandings of beaked whales linked to human-made mid-frequency sonars,” he says”."

Comment: It is hard to imagine this system of control occurred by chance, since it is so important to survival in deep dives.

Natures wonders: ant colony farmers

by David Turell @, Monday, November 21, 2016, 19:20 (2674 days ago) @ David Turell

These ants are really into agriculture:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113410-fijian-ants-grow-their-own-plant-cities-an...

"Ants beat us to it. A Fijian ant first started planting fruit crops 3 million years ago, long before human agriculture evolved.

"The ant – Philidris nagasau – grows and harvests Squamellaria fruit plants that grow on the branches of various trees.

"First, the ants insert seeds of the fruit plant in the cracks in tree bark. Workers constantly patrol the planting sites and fertilise the seedlings, probably with their faeces.

"As the plants grow, they form large, round hollow structures at their base called domatia that the ants live in instead of building nests. When the fruit appears, the ants eat the flesh and collect the seeds for future farming.

"Guillaume Chomicki at the University of Munich, Germany, and his colleagues discovered that each ant colony farmed dozens of Squamellaria plants at the same time, with trails linking each thriving hub. The connected plant cities often spanned several adjacent trees.

"The researchers found that Squamellaria plants are completely dependent on the ants to plant and fertilise their seeds. At the same time,  Philidris nagasau ants cannot survive without the food and shelter provided by the plants. The Fijian phenomenon is the first documented example of ants farming plants in a mutually dependent relationship.

"Chomicki’s team also conducted a genetic analysis to study the history of the Fijian ant-plant interactions. The results showed that the ants lost their ability to build nests around 3 million years ago, at the same time as the plants developed roots that could grow in bark. This signals the beginning of the mutual relationship, which emerged when Fiji and Australia were still connected.

"Only a handful of other species have been found to farm their food. For example, Yeti crabs cultivate bacteria on their claws and sloths grow algae gardens on their fur. Ants have been known to cultivate fungi, but this is the first time they have been found to plant crops in such a mutualistic manner.

"The fact that ants have developed such sophisticated food production skills confirms the impressive teamwork of ants, says Kirsti Abbott at the University of New England, Australia.

“"Ants are a lot smarter than we think they are – we call them superorganisms because they form networks that are much like our brains,” she says. “The information flow among ant colonies is just insane compared to human social systems, so this finding does not surprise me in the slightest.'”

Comment: Ant societies are amazing. Were the ants helped by a higher power, or did they develop it on their own? Another point is that the plants had to develop roots on bark in order to survive. It is hard to imagine how the roots developed, because they had to be immediately available for the plants to survive on trees, no soil present. Again saltation by a higher power? It is hard to imagine the ants brought seeds up into the trees for the plants to grow there spontaneously.

Natures wonders: reproduction by sun and moon

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 22, 2016, 16:58 (2674 days ago) @ David Turell

Tidal midges must reproduce by two circadian rhythms:

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-marine-midges-clocks-calendars.html

"The non-biting marine midge Clunio marinus lives along Europe's tide-shapen coasts, where precise timing is of existential importance: Reproduction and oviposition must occur when the tide is at its lowest. The tides, and therefore also low tide, are influenced by both the sun and the moon. To foresee the ideal time of reproduction, Clunio has two internal clocks: a circadian (daily) clock, comparable to a watch, set by the sun, and a circalunar (monthly) clock, comparable to a calendar, set by the moon.

"Due to geographical causes, the timing of low tides differs between geographical locations. Therefore, the midges have to "set" their clocks in accordance with their position. Scientists had already discovered in the 1960s that midges living along the coast of the Atlantic sea have genetically adapted their circadian clocks to the local occurrence of tides.

"Kristin Tessmar-Raible and her team then investigated how such adaptations may occur on a molecular level.

***

"The researcher's results point towards a specific protein, called Calcium/Calmodlin-dependent kinase II (CaMKII), being the main effector behind the adaptation of the circadian clock to the geographical environment. "Different variants of CaMKII appear to let the circadian clock run either faster or slower," explains Tessmar-Raible. "And it is of course an interesting aspect that this protein, which hasn't changed much during the course of evolution, can also be found in humans. The question therefore emerges, if CaMKII can also play a role in human chronotypes."

"Remarkably, the protein CAMKII is one of the most abundant proteins in the human brain and has already been linked to neuropsychiatric disorders, which often appear in conjunction with malfunctions of the circadian clock. "Our study raises many intriguing questions - apart from the modulation of the circadian clock, it also suggests molecular candidates for the modulation of the 'internal calendar', the lunar clock. And in understanding these locks we are still at the very beginning," comments Tobias Kaiser."

Comment: It is of great interest that the same protein is in the human brain. There is common descent, but how organisms find the right functional protein is a mystery, especially if evolution works as a chance mechanism. CaMKII is an enzyme, therefore very large and specifically constructed for its function in amino acid sequence and its folding pattern. A sign of pre-planning?

Natures wonders: devoted spider dads unusual

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 24, 2016, 17:39 (2672 days ago) @ David Turell

These male spiders attend to their offspring in most unusual ways for spiders:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114025-the-devoted-spider-dads-who-fix-up-nurseri...

"Most male spiders bail out after mating – if they make it through the process alive, that is, as females of many spider species cannibalise their mates.

"But not this spider. Male Manogea porracea in South America not only help with childcare, they often end up as single dads.

"The male of the species builds a dome-shaped web above the female’s and sets about helping to maintain a “nursery” web. This is built between the two domes and holds the egg sacs (see photo, below).

:The males also defend the eggs from would-be predators and even remove water from the surface of egg sacs on rainy days.

***

"By the end of the mating season, 68 per cent of egg sacs are taken care of by males alone, says Rafael Rios Moura, an ecologist at the Federal University of Uberlândia in Brazil, whose team studied the spiders in the wild.

"Single dads improve the odds of offspring surviving compared with those who lose both their parents. Once the female is gone, the male moves closer to the egg sacs by moving to the female’s web (see photo, top). Moura found that significantly more hatchlings emerge from egg sacs taken care of by the males than those that had no parents around.

"When Moura set up experiments with predators, more hatchlings survived when the male was present, then when not, probably because they move aggressively towards intruders, fending off attacks.

"Four other spider species have been seen invading the M. porracea webs and attacking the egg sacs.

"The sheer volume of predators that M. Porracea have to deal with is likely what’s driving the males to help defend their eggs, says Linda Rayor, an entomologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “The male risks losing his entire investment if he doesn’t defend the eggs.” (my bold)

"Moura isn’t sure why the females often disappear.

***

"Either way, the fact that males often outlive females has probably contributed to its evolving to take on paternal duties – the first such known case in solitary species. The only other male spiders known to defend youngsters from predators are a social species from Africa, Stegodyphus dumicola

“This was my first time studying spiders, and we found this amazing system,” says Moura.

"Most male spiders don’t provide parental care because they don’t live as long as females, or they can’t be sure that they are really the father, (my bold)

"M. porracea males, though, are unique in both respects. Building a web above that of the female means they can be fairly confident in their paternity. And as they tend to live longer than the females, there are fewer females around for them to mate with. (my bold)

Comment: Certainly an instinct. How it developed cannot be ascertained from what is observed so far. Certainly my bolded portions show how the writer has anthropomorphized the male spider. Look at the photos.

Natures wonders: bone-crushing crabs

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 24, 2016, 17:50 (2672 days ago) @ David Turell

These giant land crabs on Okinawa can crush bones:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113824-coconut-crabs-bone-crushing-grip-is-10-tim...

"Its handshake could crush your fingers. A giant crab from the Asia-Pacific region can lift the weight of a small child and has the most powerful claw strength of any crustacean.

"The coconut crab – Birgus latro – lives on islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans, and can reach a weight of 4 kilograms, a length of 40 centimetres and a leg span of almost a metre.

"Its large claws are strong enough to lift up to 28 kilograms and crack open hard coconuts – hence its name. However, the squeezing force of its claws has never been precisely measured until now.

"Shin-ichiro Oka at the Okinawa Churashima Foundation, Japan, and his colleagues recorded the claw strength of 29 wild coconut crabs weighing between 30 grams and 2 kilograms from Okinawa Island in southern Japan.

***

"After the researchers managed to hold the crabs down by their backs, they gave them a force sensor to squeeze. Claw strength was found to increase proportionally with body weight, and the highest reading reached almost 1800 newtons.

"A maximum-sized coconut crab weighing 4 kilograms could thus be expected to exert a crushing force of more than 3000 newtons, says Oka. This significantly out-muscles all other crustaceans, including lobsters, which have claw strengths of about 250 newtons.

"Coconut crab claws are substantially stronger than human hands, which have an average grip strength of about 300 newtons. But they cannot squeeze as hard as crocodile jaws, which bite down with a whopping 16,000 newtons – the strongest grip force known in the animal kingdom.

"On Okinawa Island, where there are no coconut trees, the crabs crack open nuts and hard fruit from pandanus palms. They also eat the remains of dead animals, using their claws to break the bones. Alternative names for the species include “robber crab” and “palm thief”, due to their tendency to steal food.

"Jakob Krieger at the University of Greifswald in Germany has studied coconut crabs on Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, and has found that they hunt other land crab species, such as red crabs (Gecarcoidea natalis). “It makes sense in the light of the robber crab’s dietary demands to evolve strong claws,” he says.

"Another reason for powerful claws is defence, Oka says. The adult crabs do not have shells to shield them and instead rely on a hard, calcified outer body, which is less protective. As a result, they need their claws to ward off attackers.

"The crabs lead solitary lifestyles and fight aggressively with their claws if they encounter each other, probably due to competition for food. “I’ve never seen them hanging out in groups,” Oka says."

Comment: Natural selection at work

Natures wonders: devoted spider dads unusual

by dhw, Friday, November 25, 2016, 12:17 (2671 days ago) @ David Turell

What a great article! Thank you.

David’s comment: Certainly an instinct. How it developed cannot be ascertained from what is observed so far. Certainly my bolded portions show how the writer has anthropomorphized the male spider. Look at the photos.

Yes, all animals including ourselves have instincts, and nobody knows how they originated. But it's worth remembering that spiders were around long before humans, and dads have been around ever since sex reared its lovely head. What interests me here is not the bolded portions concerning paternity, but the parent’s care for the child. Nothing anthropomorphic about that. And I’ve even got a suspicion all these critters know what they’re doing. They may not know that they know what they're doing, because once you know you know, you start questioning - which may explain why we make such a mess of so many things that ought be done by instinct!

Natures wonders: devoted spider dads unusual

by David Turell @, Friday, November 25, 2016, 20:16 (2670 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: What a great article! Thank you.

David’s comment: Certainly an instinct. How it developed cannot be ascertained from what is observed so far. Certainly my bolded portions show how the writer has anthropomorphized the male spider. Look at the photos.

dhw: Yes, all animals including ourselves have instincts, and nobody knows how they originated. But it's worth remembering that spiders were around long before humans, and dads have been around ever since sex reared its lovely head. What interests me here is not the bolded portions concerning paternity, but the parent’s care for the child. Nothing anthropomorphic about that. And I’ve even got a suspicion all these critters know what they’re doing. They may not know that they know what they're doing, because once you know you know, you start questioning - which may explain why we make such a mess of so many things that ought be done by instinct!

Thank you. I doubt they know what they do or why they are doing it. They just do it.

Natures wonders: silent owl flight

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 03, 2016, 18:33 (2663 days ago) @ David Turell

Owls are birds of prey, but a good meaty meal depends on keeping those flapping wings as quiet as possible. The wings are large compared to body weight so they glide long distances, but they have to cut the air from time to time, and they have arranged to be quiet:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secret-to-flying-as-silently-as-an-owl-1480631284

"One reason that large owls are such fearsome hunters is their ability to swoop down on prey in virtual silence. But how do they do it?

***

"For one, they have a large wing surface area relative to their body weight, which allows for nearly effortless gliding. Previous research has shown that some special characteristics of owl feathers also play an important role. These traits include a comb-like fringe on the front of owls’ feathers, another fringe at their trailing edge and a downy layer of hairs that forms a sound-reducing canopy over the wings.

"In previous owl-inspired work, the team of scientists reported that blanketing rough surfaces with a synthetic version of this canopy cuts the noise from air flow. Now they have found that the feathers’ downy material appears to change the air flow over a wing in ways that reduce “trailing edge noise,” a significant source of sound whenever a blade or airfoil cuts through air. The phenomenon occurs when the back edge of an airfoil converts air turbulence into noise."

Comment: In evolution was this developed in one step, a saltation, or bit by bit? As usual I suspect saltation, as I don't imagine the owl's tried out different trailing edge alterations which requires figuring out how to develop the proteins to make the fine hairs and develop the mechanisms to produce the hairs, the usual problem of speciation. Note the biomimetic advances found by this study: making wind turbines quieter:

"Through trial and error, the scientists reproduced some of the noise-damping qualities of the owl’s downy layer by means of a plastic overlay made with a 3-D printer. They didn’t need to cover the entire wing surface to suppress trailing edge noise; it was enough to attach a strip of this material with a set of tiny fins extending past the back edge, where the problem occurs. “The most effective of our designs,” says Justin Jaworski, one of the scientists, “mimics the downy fibers of an owl’s wing but with the cross-fibers removed.”

"The scientists tried out their creation in a Kevlar wind-tunnel test designed to keep air in but let sound out. In a test using a fixed airfoil, the experimental configuration reduced noise by as much as 10 decibels. “That’s the difference between a normal conversation and running a vacuum cleaner,” says Dr. Jaworski.

"Why do tiny fins make such a big difference? William Devenport, another of the scientists, suggests that putting “finlets” on the trailing edge may break up the usual turbulence into smaller, quieter eddies.

"The wing addition added trivial weight, wasn’t hard to produce and had no material affect on the aerodynamics of the airfoil being tested. It just made things far quieter.

"Dr. Jaworski says that the technology might mitigate noise produced by turbine blades and other relatively slow-moving airfoils, since owllike canopies can be retrofitted onto existing blades as well as incorporated into new ones. Noise concerns, he notes, have held back the adoption of wind turbines as sources of sustainable energy."

Comment: Evolutionary mechanisms are smarter than we are, so we have to learn from nature to find what works. Not by chance.

Natures wonders: barnacle cyanobacteria symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, December 05, 2016, 18:43 (2661 days ago) @ David Turell

The two live together symbiotically on ocean-side rocks solving heat and moisture problems:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114955-weeping-rock-mystery-down-to-microbe-build...

"It’s a weeping rock. Sandstone blocks near the Lakes Entrance holiday resort on the coast of Victoria, south-east Australia, are covered with barnacles that look like they are spilling tears.

"How did those so called “Tears of the Virgin” get there?

It seems that the unique geological formation is a product of equally unique biology: the first known symbiotic relationship between crustaceans and bacteria.

***

"Working with Bill Newman from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California, he found that the barnacles (Chthamalus antennatus) are surrounded by dark-coloured microbes known as cyanobacteria, which feed on their nitrogen-rich waste. This results in the rounded eye shape from which the tears appear to fall.

"The cyanobacteria also excrete organic acids that dissolve carbonate, a major component of the sandstone (see below). The resulting burrows protect the barnacles from the fierce sun and material thrown up by waves.

"Excess acid dribbles down the surface of the rock and carves out grooves up to 17 centimetres long.

***

"The curious-looking formations are the first known example of a mutually beneficial relationship between a crustacean and bacterium, says Buckeridge. The barnacles provide food for the bacteria, while the bacteria dig out shelters up to 15 millimetres deep for the barnacles.

"Nevertheless, it is strange that the barnacles would team up with bacteria that erode the rock surface on which they live, Buckeridge says. “The really odd thing about this is how they manage to hang on.”

"The barnacles appear to cement themselves in place by sequestering residual non-carbonate rock towards the inner grooves of their shells, Buckeridge says.
The tears are submerged at high tide, so the barnacles are under the water for part of the day where they eat plankton. Barnacles are more commonly found lower in the intertidal zone but on these rocks they sit higher than usual. “This relationship with cyanobacteria gives them an opportunity to exploit a slightly higher zone, where there is less predation and competition,” he says.

"Perching on the rock surface above the water line is advantageous because the barnacles are less likely to fall prey to crabs and other marine organisms. However, the rock can reach 50 °C during summer, meaning the barnacles would succumb to dehydration if they couldn’t nestle into the burrows made by the cyanobacteria.
Similarly, without the barnacles, it would be harder for the cyanobacteria to find food in the hostile environment, says Buckeridge. “It’s a match made in heaven.'”

Comment: Logically not a match made by heaven. Cyanobacteria are in the ocean as are mollusks. They naturally fell together for mutual benefit.

Natures wonders: barnacle cyanobacteria symbiosis

by dhw, Tuesday, December 06, 2016, 10:24 (2660 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Perching on the rock surface above the water line is advantageous because the barnacles are less likely to fall prey to crabs and other marine organisms. However, the rock can reach 50 °C during summer, meaning the barnacles would succumb to dehydration if they couldn’t nestle into the burrows made by the cyanobacteria.
Similarly, without the barnacles, it would be harder for the cyanobacteria to find food in the hostile environment, says Buckeridge. “It’s a match made in heaven.'”

David’s comment: Logically not a match made by heaven. Cyanobacteria are in the ocean as are mollusks. They naturally fell together for mutual benefit.

Delighted to read your comment. A fine example of cooperation, and if your God did not reach down from heaven, or did not plant instructions in the first cells, I would suggest that maybe the barnacles and the cyanobacteria worked this arrangement out for themselves. Rather intelligent of them, don’t you think?

Natures wonders: barnacle cyanobacteria symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 06, 2016, 14:28 (2660 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: Logically not a match made by heaven. Cyanobacteria are in the ocean as are mollusks. They naturally fell together for mutual benefit.

dhw: Delighted to read your comment. A fine example of cooperation, and if your God did not reach down from heaven, or did not plant instructions in the first cells, I would suggest that maybe the barnacles and the cyanobacteria worked this arrangement out for themselves. Rather intelligent of them, don’t you think?

No real intelligence. Just practical adaptation with mutual benefit.

Natures wonders: barnacle cyanobacteria symbiosis

by dhw, Wednesday, December 07, 2016, 12:48 (2659 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: Logically not a match made by heaven. Cyanobacteria are in the ocean as are mollusks. They naturally fell together for mutual benefit.

dhw: Delighted to read your comment. A fine example of cooperation, and if your God did not reach down from heaven, or did not plant instructions in the first cells, I would suggest that maybe the barnacles and the cyanobacteria worked this arrangement out for themselves. Rather intelligent of them, don’t you think?

DAVID: No real intelligence. Just practical adaptation with mutual benefit.

What do you mean by “real” intelligence? I would suggest that it takes a certain degree of sentience, communication. information-processing, decision-making for organisms to cooperate for their mutual benefit. Do you put barnacles and cynobacteria on the same intelligence level as, say, stones and water?

Natures wonders: barnacle cyanobacteria symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 07, 2016, 15:00 (2659 days ago) @ dhw

David’s comment: Logically not a match made by heaven. Cyanobacteria are in the ocean as are mollusks. They naturally fell together for mutual benefit.

dhw: Delighted to read your comment. A fine example of cooperation, and if your God did not reach down from heaven, or did not plant instructions in the first cells, I would suggest that maybe the barnacles and the cyanobacteria worked this arrangement out for themselves. Rather intelligent of them, don’t you think?

DAVID: No real intelligence. Just practical adaptation with mutual benefit.

dhw: What do you mean by “real” intelligence? I would suggest that it takes a certain degree of sentience, communication. information-processing, decision-making for organisms to cooperate for their mutual benefit. Do you put barnacles and cynobacteria on the same intelligence level as, say, stones and water?

None of what you list suggests 'intelligence' at a brain processing level. I still contend cyanobacteria carry intelligently-designed automatic processes, and mollusks were happy to snuggle together with them.

Natures wonders: living on feces

by David Turell @, Monday, December 12, 2016, 14:58 (2654 days ago) @ David Turell

We all know about the Venus fly trap, an ingenious plant that supplements its photosynthetic diet by trapping insects. Here is a pitcher plant that uses baat dung, by inviting the bat with a place to stay:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161212094222.htm

"They took advantage of a natural experiment involving the woolly bat Kerivoula hardwickii, and two closely-related species of pitcher plant: Nepenthes hemsleyana and Nepenthes rafflesiana. All live in the dense peat swamp and heath forests as well as lowland rainforests of northern Borneo.

"According to Schöner: "Pitcher plants grow on nutrient-poor soils, but whereas N. rafflesiana copes with this lack of nutrients by using fluid-filled pitchers to catch insect prey, N. hemsleyana has abandoned carnivory in favour of a unique and intimate relationship with the woolly bat."

"'To provide the bat with an ideal roost, the pitchers of N. hemsleyana have evolved to perfectly fit the bat's body. Unlike other pitcher plants they contain very little fluid. And most striking of all, the backwall of the pitcher forms a parabolic dish that aids the bat's echolocation. In return for its roost, the bat hunts and pre-digests the insects, depositing them as faeces in the pitcher."

"To measure the costs and benefits of this mutualism, Schöner selected plants from both species in the field. When they produced new pitchers, she blocked them with cotton wool and cling-film to prevent bats or insects from entering.

"She then fed the pitchers by hand with bat faeces, insects, or a mixture of the two, and measured their growth rate, photosynthesis and nitrogen concentrations before repeating the tests in glasshouses back in Germany.

"'As the hypothesis suggests, N. hemsleyana fed on bat faeces had the highest rates of growth and photosynthesis, and the highest nitrogen levels, showing that it benefits by efficiently outsourcing prey capture and digestion to its mammal mutualists and strongly benefits from this ecological outsourcing," explains Schöner.

"'By interacting with bats N. hemsleyana has access to a wide variety of insects because bats are better hunters than plants. And because the bats have predigested the insects, the nutrients should be easier for the plants to extract.'"

Comment: A very nice accommodation much like the cyanobacteria and barnacles. I suspect the bat found the plant, like it as a resting spot and the adaptations happened to further the relationship by epigenetics.

Natures wonders: the mind of the octopus

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 13, 2016, 00:47 (2653 days ago) @ David Turell

This amazing animal has five hundred million neurons spread down all eight legs, in a fairly large brain that can recognize people, and camera eyes with a lens that focuses on the retina. A huge article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_2016...

"The majority of neurons in an octopus are found in the arms, which can independently taste and touch and also control basic motions without input from the brain.

"Octopus brains and vertebrate brains have no common anatomy but support a variety of similar features, including forms of short- and long-term memory, versions of sleep, and the capacities to recognize individual people and explore objects through play.

"Octopuses and their relatives (cuttlefish and squid) represent an island of mental complexity in the sea of invertebrate animals.... they represent an entirely independent experiment in the evolution of large brains and complex behavior. If we can connect with them as sentient beings, it is not because of a shared history, not because of kinship, but because evolution built minds twice over. They are probably the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.

***

"Octopuses have done fairly well on tests of their intelligence in the laboratory, without showing themselves to be Einsteins. They can learn to navigate simple mazes. They can use visual cues to discriminate between two familiar environments and then take the best route toward some reward. They can learn to unscrew jars to obtain the food inside—even from the inside out. But octopuses are slow learners in all these contexts.

***

"in at least two aquariums, octopuses have learned to turn off the lights by squirting jets of water at the bulbs and short-circuiting the power supply. At the University of Otago in New Zealand, this game became so expensive that the octopus had to be released back to the wild.

***


"Anecdotally at least, it has long appeared that captive octopuses can recognize and behave differently toward individual human keepers. In the same lab in New Zealand that had the “lights-out” problem, an octopus took a dislike to one member of the staff, for no obvious reason. Whenever that person passed by on the walkway behind the tank, she received a half-gallon jet of water down the back of her neck.

***

"Roland C. Anderson and his colleagues at the Seattle Aquarium tested recognition in giant Pacific octopuses in an experiment that involved a “nice” keeper who regularly fed eight animals and a “mean” keeper who touched them with a bristly stick. After two weeks, all the octopuses behaved differently toward the two keepers, confirming that they can distinguish among individual people, even when they wear identical uniforms.

***

“'When you work with fish, they have no idea they are in a tank, somewhere unnatural. With octopuses it is totally different. They know that they are inside this special place, and you are outside it. All their behaviors are affected by their awareness of captivity.” Linquist's octopuses would mess around with their tank and deliberately plug the outflow valves by poking in their arms, perhaps to increase the water level. Of course, this flooded the entire lab.

"Another octopus behavior that has made its way from anecdote to experimental investigation is play....Some octopuses—and only some—will spend time blowing pill bottles around their tank with their jet, “bouncing” the bottle back and forth on the stream of water coming from the tank's intake valve.

***

"How does an octopus's brain relate to its arms? Early work looking at both behavior and anatomy gave the impression that the arms enjoyed considerable independence...As I mentioned earlier, when you approach an octopus in the wild, in at least some species the octopus sends out one arm to inspect you—behavior that suggests a kind of deliberateness, an action guided by the brain.

***

" In 2011 researchers Tamar Gutnick and Ruth Byrne, along with Hochner and Kuba, conducted a very clever experiment to test whether an octopus could learn to guide a single arm along a mazelike path to a specific place to obtain food. The task was set up so that the arm's own chemical sensors would not suffice to guide it to the food; the arm would have to leave the water at one point to reach the target location. But the maze walls were transparent, so the target location could be seen. The octopus would have to guide an arm through the maze with its eyes.

***

"The octopus is sometimes said to be a good illustration of the importance of a theoretical movement in psychology known as embodied cognition.

"But the doctrines of the embodied cognition movement do not really fit well with the strangeness of the octopus's way of being. Defenders of embodied cognition often say that the body's shape and organization encode information. But that requires that there be a shape to the body. An octopus can stand tall on its arms, squeeze through a hole little bigger than one of its eyes, become a streamlined missile or fold itself to fit into a jar.

***

"Further, in an octopus, it is not clear where the brain itself begins and ends. The octopus is suffused with nervousness; the body is not a separate thing that is controlled by the brain or nervous system."

Comment: A divergent strange branch of the evolutionary bush but part of the ocean's balance of nature.

Natures wonders: many species glow in deep ocean

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 21:44 (2637 days ago) @ David Turell

Complex biochemistry keeps organisms glowing in the deep ocean. How it works:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-how-life-makes-light-bioluminescence/

"Though some of the most familiar examples of light from living organisms are terrestrial — think of fireflies, glowworms and foxfire — the bulk of evolutionary events involving bioluminescence took place in the ocean. Bioluminescence is in fact markedly absent from all terrestrial vertebrates and flowering plants.

"In the deep ocean, light gives organisms a unique way to attract prey, communicate and defend themselves, said Matthew Davis, a biologist at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. In a study released in June, he and his colleagues found that fish that use light for communication and courtship signaling were especially diverse. Over a period of about 150 million years — brief by evolutionary standards —such fish proliferated into more species than other groups of fish. Bioluminescent species that used their light exclusively for camouflage, on the other hand, were no more diverse.

***

"In nearly all shining organisms, bioluminescence requires three ingredients: oxygen, a light-emitting pigment called a luciferin (from the Latin word lucifer, meaning light-bringing), and an enzyme called a luciferase. When a luciferin reacts with oxygen — a process facilitated by luciferase — it forms an excited, unstable compound that emits light when it returns to its lowest energy state.

"Curiously, there are far fewer luciferins than luciferases. While species tend to have unique luciferases, many share the same luciferin. Just four luciferins are responsible for most of the light production in the ocean. Of close to 20 groups of bioluminescent organisms in the world, a luciferin called coelenterazine is the light-emitter in nine.

***

"It’s more likely that many of these species don’t make coelenterazine themselves. Instead, they get it from their diet, said Yuichi Oba, a professor of biology at Chubu University in Japan.

"In 2009, a group led by Oba discovered that the deep-sea copepod — a tiny, near-ubiquitous crustacean — makes its own coelenterazine. These copepods are an extremely abundant food source for a wide range of marine animals — so much so that “in Japan, we call copepods ‘rice in the ocean,’” Oba said. He thinks copepods are key to understanding why so many marine organisms are bioluminescent.

"Oba and his colleagues took amino acids believed to be the building blocks of coelenterazine, labeled them with a molecular marker, and loaded them into copepod food. They then fed this food to copepods in the lab.

"Even the jellyfish in which coelenterazine was first discovered (and named after) was later found not to produce its own coelenterazine at all. It obtains its luciferin by eating copepods and other small crustaceans.

"After 24 hours, the researchers extracted coelenterazine from the copepods and looked for the labels they had added. Sure enough, the labels were there — definitive proof that the crustaceans had synthesized luciferin molecules from the amino acids."

Comment: This study shows the importance of the food chain in the balance of nature. further, one wonders how this system developed. Granted oxygen existed and could be used, but luciferin had to be discovered by evolution and luciferase developed. Remember the point that luciferase as an enzyme is a huge molecule with a necessary shape for function. Evolution had to find this particular molecule also. They must have been developed contemporaneously. More evidence of a saltation.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 01:10 (2625 days ago) @ David Turell

Zombification is a very common event:

http://www.livescience.com/34196-zombie-animals.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_m...

Victim: pill bug

"Roly-poly bugs, potato bugs, pill bugs: they're cute and innocuous members of the insect world, right? Sure as long as they haven't been taken over by a nefarious acanthocephalon (Plagiorhynchus cylindraceus) parasite. The parasite lives in the intestinal tract of birds called starlings, and gets pooped out right into the waiting jaws of the pill bug. (Pill bugs relish bird poop.) Once inside the body of the oblivious roly-poly, the parasite takes over its brain and urges the zombified bug to do crazy things, such as making its whereabouts widely known to its predator, the starling. And thus the parasite completes its journey and runs off to find another bug upon which to practice mind control.

Victim: cockroach

"It's straight out of Hollywood: A quick stab to the brain turns an innocent onlooker into the victim of a brutal assault and kidnapping. Except this time, that defenseless victim is one of the world's most hated insects (the cockroach) and the villain is a wasp. In this true story, the wasp's venom renders the cockroach unable to move. After being dragged into the wasp's lair, the cockroach continues to live even though its abdomen is being implanted with the wasp's eggs. The larva later hatches and eats the still living but incapacitated cockroach from the inside out. A month later, the mature wasp flies away from the scene of the crime, leaving only a rotting carcass behind.

Victim: ant

"Zombie discoveries are happening all the time. Just this year, scientists discovered four new types of body-snatching fungi that prey on carpenter ants. The fungus infects the ants and then begins to use chemical signals to direct the ant on a very strange path. The zombified ant then leaves its colony and takes a jaw-grip on the underside of a leaf, where it stays. When it eventually dies as the fungus spreads around the ant's body, the fungus produces a stalk from the dead zombie's head and shoots spores out, trying to lure other ants to join the party.

Victim: crab

"It's a story of crab-meets-barnacle, with a twist. A female Sacculina barnacle wants to nest inside a crab, so it looks around for a place to get in and when it does, it leaves that nasty old barnacle body behind. Once inside, the barnacle makes a nice little home that looks like a tumor, extending tendrils through the crab's body and slowly eating its host. After killing the sex organs of its new abode, the barnacle makes the home become the babysitter. As the crab loses interest in anything but serving its zombie overlord, the barnacle bores a hole in the crab's shell and invites willing males to come and mate. Hey, the babies are going to be well-looked-after in a cozy home.

Victim: spider

"The poor Plesiometa argyra. A Costa Rican spider just looking to catch some bugs can be taken over by a parasitic wasp that plants its larvae inside the spider's body, along with a new blueprint. Instead of building its web, the spider spends the last night of its life constructing a silk cocoon, which becomes a home for its killers. When the silk sack is done, the larvae kill the spider. Then they take up residence in the cocoon, suspended safely above the predators of the rainforest floor. That's some gratitude! "

Comment: Neat tricks, but there is no way these lifestyles could have developed stepwise. Especially if the system involves a third party like the starling and Pill bug. Or a zombie ant that has to find a certain leaf to clamp onto. The only answer is saltation.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by dhw, Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 14:37 (2625 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Zombification is a very common event:

http://www.livescience.com/34196-zombie-animals.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_m...

David’s comment: Neat tricks, but there is no way these lifestyles could have developed stepwise. Especially if the system involves a third party like the starling and Pill bug. Or a zombie ant that has to find a certain leaf to clamp onto. The only answer is saltation.

Thank you for another marvellous collection. I’m happy with saltation, but I don’t know why you always think that is the “answer”. The answer to what? As I see it, what is so striking about these extraordinary lifestyles is the inventive intelligence that must have devised them. According to your interpretation of evolution, your God preprogrammed them all or personally instructed each of these parasites, because that was how he could keep life going until he produced humans (though for all we know, some of these methods may have originated after the arrival of humans). Thank God for the zombie cockroach or we wouldn’t be here! Alternatively, if we want to know how each of these extraordinary procedures came about, perhaps the “answer” is that the organisms worked things out for themselves.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 15:19 (2625 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Zombification is a very common event:

http://www.livescience.com/34196-zombie-animals.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_m...

David’s comment: Neat tricks, but there is no way these lifestyles could have developed stepwise. Especially if the system involves a third party like the starling and Pill bug. Or a zombie ant that has to find a certain leaf to clamp onto. The only answer is saltation.

dhw:Thank you for another marvellous collection. I’m happy with saltation, but I don’t know why you always think that is the “answer”. The answer to what? As I see it, what is so striking about these extraordinary lifestyles is the inventive intelligence that must have devised them. According to your interpretation of evolution, your God preprogrammed them all or personally instructed each of these parasites, because that was how he could keep life going until he produced humans (though for all we know, some of these methods may have originated after the arrival of humans). Thank God for the zombie cockroach or we wouldn’t be here! Alternatively, if we want to know how each of these extraordinary procedures came about, perhaps the “answer” is that the organisms worked things out for themselves.

Your last sentence makes no sense. The triple system involving a starling bird, a pill bug and a parasite would require a committee meeting of the three to work.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by dhw, Wednesday, January 11, 2017, 12:30 (2624 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Zombification is a very common event:
http://www.livescience.com/34196-zombie-animals.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_m...

David’s comment: Neat tricks, but there is no way these lifestyles could have developed stepwise. Especially if the system involves a third party like the starling and Pill bug. Or a zombie ant that has to find a certain leaf to clamp onto. The only answer is saltation.
dhw:Thank you for another marvellous collection. I’m happy with saltation, but I don’t know why you always think that is the “answer”. The answer to what? As I see it, what is so striking about these extraordinary lifestyles is the inventive intelligence that must have devised them. According to your interpretation of evolution, your God preprogrammed them all or personally instructed each of these parasites, because that was how he could keep life going until he produced humans (though for all we know, some of these methods may have originated after the arrival of humans). Thank God for the zombie cockroach or we wouldn’t be here! Alternatively, if we want to know how each of these extraordinary procedures came about, perhaps the “answer” is that the organisms worked things out for themselves.

DAVID: Your last sentence makes no sense. The triple system involving a starling bird, a pill bug and a parasite would require a committee meeting of the three to work.

You are confusing parasitism with symbiosis. The parasitical plagywhat’saname lives inside the starling, the pill bug eats it with the poop, the parasite zombifies the pill bug, the starling eats the pill bug, and the whole process starts all over again. There are no “committee meetings”. Only the parasite has to work out its “lifestyle”. In your other examples, this is done by the wasp, the fungus, the barnacle, and once more the wasp. In any case, what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on these processes, without which life could not continue in order to produce humans?

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 12, 2017, 01:39 (2623 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your last sentence makes no sense. The triple system involving a starling bird, a pill bug and a parasite would require a committee meeting of the three to work.

dhw: You are confusing parasitism with symbiosis. The parasitical plagywhat’saname lives inside the starling, the pill bug eats it with the poop, the parasite zombifies the pill bug, the starling eats the pill bug, and the whole process starts all over again. There are no “committee meetings”. Only the parasite has to work out its “lifestyle”. In your other examples, this is done by the wasp, the fungus, the barnacle, and once more the wasp. In any case, what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on these processes, without which life could not continue in order to produce humans?

I know how the three part system works. How did the parasite bug figure out how to zombify toe pill bug? I don't know and neither do you, but it had to happen all at once for the system to work. My theory is evolution creates complexity in forms and lifestyles leading to the most complex figure of all, humans.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by dhw, Thursday, January 12, 2017, 12:30 (2623 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …if we want to know how each of these extraordinary procedures came about, perhaps the “answer” is that the organisms worked things out for themselves.

DAVID: Your last sentence makes no sense. The triple system involving a starling bird, a pill bug and a parasite would require a committee meeting of the three to work.

dhw: You are confusing parasitism with symbiosis. The parasitical plagywhat’saname lives inside the starling, the pill bug eats it with the poop, the parasite zombifies the pill bug, the starling eats the pill bug, and the whole process starts all over again. There are no “committee meetings”. Only the parasite has to work out its “lifestyle”. In your other examples, this is done by the wasp, the fungus, the barnacle, and once more the wasp. In any case, what is your theory? That your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on these processes, without which life could not continue in order to produce humans?

DAVID: I know how the three part system works. How did the parasite bug figure out how to zombify toe pill bug? I don't know and neither do you, but it had to happen all at once for the system to work. My theory is evolution creates complexity in forms and lifestyles leading to the most complex figure of all, humans.

There are no committee meetings of the three, and I have suggested that the parasite works out its own lifestyle. There is no doubt that evolution has created increasingly complex forms and lifestyles, and I agree that humans are the most complex in terms of their mental capacity. The dispute is over how the process works. I have asked if your explanation of this example is that God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on the zombification technique? If not, do you think your God intervened and gave the parasite personal instructions? If it is neither of these, please offer an alternative to my own explanation, that the parasite used its own possibly God-given intelligence to work the method out for itself.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 12, 2017, 23:09 (2622 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: I know how the three part system works. How did the parasite bug figure out how to zombify toe pill bug? I don't know and neither do you, but it had to happen all at once for the system to work. My theory is evolution creates complexity in forms and lifestyles leading to the most complex figure of all, humans.

dhw: There are no committee meetings of the three, and I have suggested that the parasite works out its own lifestyle. There is no doubt that evolution has created increasingly complex forms and lifestyles, and I agree that humans are the most complex in terms of their mental capacity. The dispute is over how the process works. I have asked if your explanation of this example is that God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on the zombification technique? If not, do you think your God intervened and gave the parasite personal instructions? If it is neither of these, please offer an alternative to my own explanation, that the parasite used its own possibly God-given intelligence to work the method out for itself.

If the parasite works out its own lifestyle, it learned to control the pill bugs brain instantaneously; not likely. And then the startling had to have a taste for that particular bug. I don't know why this three-part system exists, but if one accepts the po0ssibility that somehow the evolutionary process creates complexity, this is complexity. And God uses evolution so it is His complexity that happens.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by dhw, Friday, January 13, 2017, 12:47 (2622 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are no committee meetings of the three, and I have suggested that the parasite works out its own lifestyle. There is no doubt that evolution has created increasingly complex forms and lifestyles, and I agree that humans are the most complex in terms of their mental capacity. The dispute is over how the process works. I have asked if your explanation of this example is that God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on the zombification technique? If not, do you think your God intervened and gave the parasite personal instructions? If it is neither of these, please offer an alternative to my own explanation, that the parasite used its own possibly God-given intelligence to work the method out for itself.

DAVID: If the parasite works out its own lifestyle, it learned to control the pill bugs brain instantaneously; not likely. And then the startling had to have a taste for that particular bug. I don't know why this three-part system exists, but if one accepts the po0ssibility that somehow the evolutionary process creates complexity, this is complexity. And God uses evolution so it is His complexity that happens.

Nobody would deny that if God exists, he is responsible for the evolutionary process. Nobody would deny that the evolutionary process has produced complexity. Nobody would deny that the zombification process is complex. So do you believe that your God personally preprogrammed or dabbled the parasite, or that he gave the parasite the intelligence to work out the zombification process (or possibly to exploit a chance discovery and pass it on to others)? If it is none of these, what is your alternative?

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Friday, January 13, 2017, 19:51 (2621 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If the parasite works out its own lifestyle, it learned to control the pill bugs brain instantaneously; not likely. And then the startling had to have a taste for that particular bug. I don't know why this three-part system exists, but if one accepts the po0ssibility that somehow the evolutionary process creates complexity, this is complexity. And God uses evolution so it is His complexity that happens.

dhw: Nobody would deny that if God exists, he is responsible for the evolutionary process. Nobody would deny that the evolutionary process has produced complexity. Nobody would deny that the zombification process is complex. So do you believe that your God personally preprogrammed or dabbled the parasite, or that he gave the parasite the intelligence to work out the zombification process (or possibly to exploit a chance discovery and pass it on to others)? If it is none of these, what is your alternative?

My answer is still as above and quite clear. The brain change cannot be a step-wise arrangement. It must be immediate. The arrangement is complex. I firmly believe the bug cannot do it on its own. God is in change. Logically God arranged it.

Natures wonders: instinct coded in the brain

by David Turell @, Monday, January 16, 2017, 16:11 (2619 days ago) @ David Turell

Mice can be made predatory by stimulating the Amygdala:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48000/title/Scientists-Activate-P...

"Neural circuits in the amygdala are responsible for predatory behavior in mice, according to a study published January 12 in Cell. Using optogenetics, a technique that uses light to turn neural circuits on and off, a group of researchers led by neuroscientist Ivan de Araujo of Yale University was able to turn docile mice into ruthless hunters.

"Earlier research revealed that the amygdala, an almond-shaped brain structure most commonly linked to fear, was active when rats were hunting and feeding. To see whether this brain region was actually controlling predatory behavior, Araujo and colleagues decided to use optogenetics to selectively activate specific neurons in mice, with light.
 
"When the researchers activated the amygdala, docile mice attacked everything from bottle caps to live insects. Even when there was no prey in sight, the mice displayed feeding behavior—moving their jaws and lifted their paws as if holding a piece of food. Once the light was switched off, the animals went back to peacefully strolling around their cages.

“'It’s not just physiological, it’s hunting, biting, releasing and eating. Those are motor sequences that require a lot of information, so it’s remarkable you can get this behavior with that sort of gross manipulation,” Kay Tye, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who was not involved in the study, told Nature.

"This study adds to the growing list of functions of the amygdala. “The central amygdala has been linked to escape and flight — this is completely different from that,” Tye told Nature."

Comment: The brain contains imbedded information to create instinct. Not a surprising finding. 

Natures wonders: eel migration for reproduction

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 18:24 (2618 days ago) @ David Turell

Only adult eels are seen in European waterways. The young are produced in the Sargasso sea across the Atlantic:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47723/title/Researchers-Track-Eel...

“'Since Johannes Schmidt identified this spawning area in the Sargasso Sea, people have been wondering about that great journey and trying to figure out how to follow the eels,” says Righton, whose work on epic marine migrations includes appropriately titled projects such as CODYSSEY and EELIAD. “But the technology hasn’t been available. . . . They just slip away into the darkness, really, in autumn, and no one knows what happens to them.”

***

"In the mid-2000s, with these concerns in mind, Righton, Aarestrup, and other European colleagues set out to fill in the blanks. Taking advantage of recent improvements in animal telemetry, they tagged more than 700 large (therefore female) European eels—no easy task, Aarestrup admits, since “they’re pretty slimy.” The team planned to track their slippery quarry across the Atlantic. As eels swim too deep—usually at least 200 meters down—to be tracked using GPS, tags logged environmental data to provide indirect clues about the eels’ whereabouts. When a tag’s battery died after several months, it detached and floated to the surface, where, depending on the type of tag, it either relayed data via satellite or drifted back to shore for collection.

"As the data rolled in, the researchers realized there was more to European eel migration than previously thought. Just a fraction of tagged eels made it to the ocean: only 87 tags collected data beyond the coastline. Many of those 87 were soon separated from their eels by predation, and none made it beyond the Azores—a result that highlights the peril inherent to the transoceanic journey, Righton notes.

"The partial trajectories recorded by the tagged eels that did make it to the ocean revealed further surprises. For starters, rather than take a direct route, eels apparently meandered their way to the Sargasso. “They’re taking a much longer route than ‘as the eel swims,’” says Righton, meaning that many models of eel migration are likely inaccurate. What’s more, the team found, eels don’t seem to swim with nearly enough urgency to reach the Sargasso in time for spawning early the following year.

"Using eel larvae catch data from the spawning region, the researchers had estimated larval growth rates and extrapolated backwards in time to predict hatching times. From those estimates, they’d calculated that peak spawning must occur as early as February. But comparing this timeline with tag data revealed that eels leaving Europe in the autumn would have trouble reaching their destination fast enough at the pace they were going. “An eel has to go, for example, from Denmark at 55 kilometers a day to make it,” says Aarestrup. Tags instead showed maximum speeds of around 47 kilometers per day for the largest—and presumably strongest swimming—fish in the population.

"The findings point to a different story from the one told until now, the researchers argue—at least some of these eels weren’t destined for the first spawning season at all, but the second (Sci Adv, 2:e1501694, 2016). “We can say that it’s highly unlikely that a significant number of the eels leaving Europe will actually make it down to the Sargasso Sea ready for the coming spawning,” explains Aarestrup. “Which then leads us to the conclusion that they’re probably part of the next spawning, which happens 12 months later.”

"The claim is certainly a surprising one, says Michael Miller of Nihon University in Japan. “They propose the hypothesis that maybe there’s a mixed strategy—some go quickly and some go slowly,” he says. “It’s a completely new idea.” However, he emphasizes that without full data sets, there may be other explanations that can’t yet be ruled out. As Aarestrup and his coauthors acknowledge, larval growth rates might be underestimated using catch data, due in part to the biasing size-selectivity of fishing nets, meaning that peak spawning could actually occur later in the year. Alternatively, Miller adds, “eels that leave too late might just not succeed in spawning.'”

Comment: Still not fully understood. It is not known why they migrate or why they use the Sargasso Sea, or how they are guided.

Natures wonders: seal whiskers sense fish breathing

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 19, 2017, 18:54 (2615 days ago) @ David Turell

The whiskers can sense the water currents caused by fish gills:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/super-sensitive-seal-whiskers-sniff-out-fish-breath?...

"But a big part of a harbour seal’s menu is benthic fish – those that live on the sea floor and can stay stock-still. And as seals often hunt at night or in turbid waters, they still need to somehow find and zero in their prey.

"It turns out that when fish aren’t moving, they still emit currents passing water through their gills.

"To test if harbour seals might use these signals to detect benthic prey, Niesterok and his team created an artificial breathing current apparatus. Eight silent nozzles were set up on a platform in the water and seals were trained to find the one emitting a current.

"Even when blindfolded, the seals directly moved their snout towards the target nozzle and were able to find the active opening.

"It’s the first study to show that harbour seals can use weak water currents, such as those produced by fish gills, to detect benthic prey.

"A telling evolutionary link is that fish can hold their breath for several seconds in response to danger – an ability perhaps adapted in response to the detection skill of seals and other predators.

"These results are not unexpected, says Monique Ladds, a marine biologist at Macquarie University in Australia and who was not involved in the study.

"But importantly, she adds, the seals’ detection rates were lower when the researchers introduced background noise. And as humans make more noise in the ocean, it might affect their hunting skills."

Comment: Not surprising. Cats, dogs and other similar animals have long whiskers to give them enhanced sensitivity around their snouts.

Natures wonders: symbiotic antibiotics

by David Turell @, Friday, January 20, 2017, 14:11 (2615 days ago) @ David Turell

A leaf eating larva carries bacteria in its gut which makes an antibacterial poison:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/moth-gut-microbe-defends-host-by-oozing-antibiotic?u...

"A common caterpillar has been found harbouring its own private pharmacy: an anti-microbial bacterium living in its gut.

"Researchers in China and Germany report the cotton leafworm’s disease defence system in Cell Chemical Biology, saying the work could provide new avenues for antibiotic discovery.

"A herbivorous insect's diet also includes the tiny microorganisms that hitch a ride on plant matter. These microbial clingers-on should be dangerous, but insects have some of the strongest antimicrobial strategies in the animal world.

"Exactly how they combat nasties has puzzled scientists, but research suggests that an insect’s main line of defence against microbial trespassers is its gut bacteria.

"Indeed, Yongqi Shao at Zhejiang University in China and colleagues studying the cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis) saw its gut bacteria populations shift as the larvae matured.

"While younger larvae played host to a range of different gut bacteria from the Enterococci genus, older larvae guts were dominated by one particular species, Enterococcus mundtii

"It turns out E. mundtii secretes an antimicrobial peptide – or bacteriocin – called mundticin KS, which targets invading or competitive bacteria, helping keep the leafworm healthy.

"This relationship also benefits E. mundtii, giving the bacterium a safe living space and first dibs on nutrients, ensuring its dominance in a complex environment.

"A similar symbiosis between host and gut bacteria has previously been observed among ants, locusts and beetles, suggesting this research may have applications throughout the animal world – even, potentially, in human medicine. (my bold)

“'Many conventional antibiotics are facing increasing problems of resistance," Shao explains.

"'As evolutionarily conserved weapons, bacteriocins have great potential as alternatives to conventional antibiotics.'”

Comment: Antibiotic production is common in nature. Most of our original antibiotics came from fungi or mold. One wonders how these simple organisms hit upon the complex molecules toxic to enemies. If not developed instantaneously they would not have survived the attacks by their enemies. Saltation by God?

Natures wonders: virus attackers communicate

by David Turell @, Friday, January 20, 2017, 14:45 (2615 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteriophages are viruses that attack bacteria and can kill them. However if they kill all of their hosts they will not survive. therefore they can signal to stop the attack and hibernate:

http://www.nature.com/news/do-you-speak-virus-phages-caught-sending-chemical-messages-1...

"Viruses sense chemical signals left behind by their forebears so they can decide whether to kill or just to infect their hosts.

"The discovery — in viruses that attack Bacillus bacteria — marks the first time that any type of viral communication system has ever been found.

***

"Sorek’s team was looking for evidence that a bacterium called Bacillus subtilis might alert other bacteria to phages. The researchers knew that bacteria speak to their brethren through secreting and sensing an array of chemicals. This phenomenon, called quorum sensing, allows the bacteria to adjust behaviours according to the numbers of other bacteria around. For instance, bacteria use quorum sensing to decide whether to divide or when to launch an infection. 

"Instead, the team found, to its surprise, that a viral invader of Bacillus bacteria — a phage called phi3T — makes a chemical that influences the behaviour of other viruses. 

"Some phages can infect cells in two different ways. Usually, they hijack host cells and multiply until the hosts burst and die. Sometimes, however, phages insert their own genetic material into a host’s genome, then lie dormant until a trigger causes them to reawaken and multiply later.

***

"The team first injected phi3T into a flask of Bacillus subtilis bacteria, and found that the virus tended to kill the bacteria. Then they filtered the contents of this flask to remove bacteria and viruses — but keeping small proteins — and fed this ‘conditioned medium’ to a fresh culture of bacteria and phages. That changed what the phage did: it was now more likely to slip its genome into the bacteria, rather than kill it. The team named the mysterious molecule that they suspected was involved ‘arbitrium’ (after the Latin word for decision) and set out to identify it.

"After a two-and-a-half year search, Sorek and graduate student Zohar Erez discovered that arbitrium was a short viral protein that seeps out of infected bacteria after death. When levels of arbitrium build up — after a large number of cells have died — phages stop killing off the remaining bacteria and retreat to lie dormant in bacterial genomes instead. Sorek, Erez and their colleagues identified two further phi3T proteins that measure levels of arbitrium and then influence the nature of subsequent infections.

“'It does make a lot of sense,” says Peter Fineran, a microbial geneticist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “If the phage is running out of hosts, it would try and limit its destruction, and sit quiet and wait for the host to re-establish growth.”

"The new work is “annoyingly good”, says Clokie. “I’ve thought about doing those experiments to see if there’s something in the media.” She also expects other phage biologists will discover other communication systems. Sorek’s team found more than 100 different arbitrium-like systems, most of them in the genomes of other Bacillus viruses. “Phages broadcast in different frequencies. They speak in different languages and they can hear only the language that they speak,” he adds."

Comment: Amazing. Viruses are not truly alive in that they must use host DNA to replicate. They must have had this molecular communication mechanism from the beginning of their existence or they would have killed off their hosts and end their own survival.

Natures wonders: foxes use puma scent for safety

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 22, 2017, 01:56 (2613 days ago) @ David Turell

Gray foxes in California rub puma scent on themselves, probably as a form of perfume protection from coyotes, who are larger and may hunt them:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118444-foxes-may-confuse-predators-by-rubbing-the...

"Gray foxes living in the mountains of California have been filmed deliberately rubbing themselves in the scent marks left by mountain lions.

They may be using the scent of the big cats, also known as pumas or cougars, as a sort of odour camouflage against other large predators such as coyotes.

"Coyotes often kill gray foxes, which are half their size, to reduce competition.
Max Allen, an ecologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, had been studying pumas visiting sites known as “community scrapes”, where males leave scent “signposts” to communicate with others.

***

"Analysis of footage taken over four years at 26 different sites revealed the foxes were rubbing their cheeks on bits of ground that had been freshly marked by the mountain lions, often within hours of a big cat’s visit.

***

"The foxes rub very specifically on the areas where the pumas mark,” says Allen. “Coyotes are very reliant upon smell when hunting and are much bigger than the foxes. The foxes have a hard time fighting back, so they use this to give themselves a chance to escape.”

"Allen and his colleagues found 92 out of 903 documented visits by foxes involved cheek rubbing. And 85 per cent of the foxes that exhibited this behaviour did so on spots where pumas had deposited their scent. The team did not see any similar behaviour from coyotes or bobcats, which also visited the sites far less frequently than the foxes.

"Many animals rub their cheeks and bodies on stones, trees and the ground to leave their scent behind. Allen’s video footage, however, showed the foxes rubbing themselves in the puma scrape five times more often than they did on shrubs or unmarked ground at those sites.

"This suggests they were focused on applying puma scent onto themselves, rather than depositing their own scent.

"There are various reasons why foxes might do this. But Allen’s team says that predator avoidance seems the most likely hypothesis and is worth exploring further.
“Gray foxes climb trees to avoid predators,” says Allen. “In many cases, they probably only need a few seconds’ hesitation from a coyote for them to get up a tree. Smelling like a puma might give them that time.”

"But there may be another explanation, says Steve Harris, an ecologist who studies foxes at the University of Bristol in the UK.

“'Foxes use their saliva as scent and have glands in the region of the lips,” he says. “My impression is that the gray foxes are stimulated by the strong odours left by the pumas and are depositing their own scent.'”

Comment: Clever as a fox? Did the foxes think this out or is it just that they are stimulated by puma scent? Most animals mark their territory to establish their area. Marking which then attracts a predator is not a good idea

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Friday, January 27, 2017, 15:46 (2608 days ago) @ David Turell

How this all works is not yet known, but a tiny wasp controls another to do its bidding:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48185/title/Study--One-Wasp-Takes...

"Crypt gall wasps (Bassettia pallida) lay their eggs in the branches of oak trees, where wasp larvae develop within compartments called crypts and the wasps eventually chew their way out as adults. But Scott Egan and Kelly Weinersmith of Rice University found that another wasp—a new species, much smaller than the crypt gall wasps and a beautiful iridescent blue—often occupy the crypts with the B. pallida larvae. Upon further investigation, the researchers learned that the small, blue wasp somehow commands the crypt gall wasp to dig a smaller–than-usual tunnel out of the oak branch. When the larger insect tries to escape, it gets stuck, plugging the hole with its head. The smaller wasp then eats the crypt gall wasp alive and ultimately exits through the hole.

"The researchers describe the new species, which they dubbed the crypt keeper wasp (Euderus set), in ZooKeys earlier this month (January 12), and published the details of their bizarre relationship with the crypt gall wasp in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B yesterday (January 24). While it remains unclear how E. set wasps manipulate their crypt mates, the study suggests that it is to their benefit: crypt keeper wasps that didn’t bunk with crypt gall wasps—and thus had to tunnel their own way out of the tree—were nearly three times more likely never to make it out alive.

“'This is the type of science I love; it leaves us hungrily asking more questions,” David Hughes from Pennsylvania State University, who studies manipulative parasites, told The Atlantic. For example, “how does this wasp get its egg into its soon-to-be excavator? And how does it do that so precisely to stop the activity at a stage where the hole is large enough just for a head to block, but not for the body of the manipulatee to emerge?'”

Comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by BBella @, Friday, January 27, 2017, 17:23 (2608 days ago) @ David Turell

How this all works is not yet known, but a tiny wasp controls another to do its bidding:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48185/title/Study--One-Wasp-Takes...

"Crypt gall wasps (Bassettia pallida) lay their eggs in the branches of oak trees, where wasp larvae develop within compartments called crypts and the wasps eventually chew their way out as adults. But Scott Egan and Kelly Weinersmith of Rice University found that another wasp—a new species, much smaller than the crypt gall wasps and a beautiful iridescent blue—often occupy the crypts with the B. pallida larvae. Upon further investigation, the researchers learned that the small, blue wasp somehow commands the crypt gall wasp to dig a smaller–than-usual tunnel out of the oak branch. When the larger insect tries to escape, it gets stuck, plugging the hole with its head. The smaller wasp then eats the crypt gall wasp alive and ultimately exits through the hole.

"The researchers describe the new species, which they dubbed the crypt keeper wasp (Euderus set), in ZooKeys earlier this month (January 12), and published the details of their bizarre relationship with the crypt gall wasp in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B yesterday (January 24). While it remains unclear how E. set wasps manipulate their crypt mates, the study suggests that it is to their benefit: crypt keeper wasps that didn’t bunk with crypt gall wasps—and thus had to tunnel their own way out of the tree—were nearly three times more likely never to make it out alive.

“'This is the type of science I love; it leaves us hungrily asking more questions,” David Hughes from Pennsylvania State University, who studies manipulative parasites, told The Atlantic. For example, “how does this wasp get its egg into its soon-to-be excavator? And how does it do that so precisely to stop the activity at a stage where the hole is large enough just for a head to block, but not for the body of the manipulatee to emerge?'”

Comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?

The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Friday, January 27, 2017, 18:23 (2608 days ago) @ BBella


Comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?


BBella: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

Is this because everything at the quantum level is connected?

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by BBella @, Saturday, January 28, 2017, 21:08 (2606 days ago) @ David Turell


Comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?


BBella: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.


Is this because everything at the quantum level is connected?

Yes, on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Sunday, January 29, 2017, 13:26 (2606 days ago) @ BBella

David’s comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?
dhw: Your question echoes the one I have consistently asked whenever you have claimed that these organisms are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. What on earth do these weird wonders have to do with your God “balancing nature” in order to produce humans?
DAVID: Each creature's lifestyle fits into an eco-niche of the balance of nature.

Until it fails to fit in and goes extinct - like the other 98% of its fellow creatures - thereby constantly changing the so-called balance of nature.

Dhw: I am quite simply in the dark – though as you may have noticed, that doesn’t stop me groping around in all directions!
DAVID: Yes, please keep groping, you might reach the light of BBella's thoughts and mine. Yes, you are an individual in your own eco-niche contributing to the balance of nature especially in the world of Cricket.

You and BBella have found different lights, and it is a privilege for me and a great credit to yourselves that both of you continue the quest to shed more light on the lights you think you have found! As for my own eco-niche, it is extremely limited, like that of most other individuals, and I doubt very much whether it has had the slightest impact on the balance of nature, especially in the world of cricket!

Xxxxxx

BBella: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

DAVID: Is this because everything at the quantum level is connected?

BBELLA: Yes, on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.

Without in any way questioning the authenticity of your experiences, may I ask: Do you believe that the star forming in some far out galaxy is affected by you?

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by BBella @, Tuesday, January 31, 2017, 07:07 (2604 days ago) @ dhw
edited by BBella, Tuesday, January 31, 2017, 07:21

David’s comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?
dhw: Your question echoes the one I have consistently asked whenever you have claimed that these organisms are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. What on earth do these weird wonders have to do with your God “balancing nature” in order to produce humans?
DAVID: Each creature's lifestyle fits into an eco-niche of the balance of nature.

Until it fails to fit in and goes extinct - like the other 98% of its fellow creatures - thereby constantly changing the so-called balance of nature.

Dhw: I am quite simply in the dark – though as you may have noticed, that doesn’t stop me groping around in all directions!
DAVID: Yes, please keep groping, you might reach the light of BBella's thoughts and mine. Yes, you are an individual in your own eco-niche contributing to the balance of nature especially in the world of Cricket.

You and BBella have found different lights, and it is a privilege for me and a great credit to yourselves that both of you continue the quest to shed more light on the lights you think you have found! As for my own eco-niche, it is extremely limited, like that of most other individuals, and I doubt very much whether it has had the slightest impact on the balance of nature, especially in the world of cricket!

Xxxxxx

BBella: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

DAVID: Is this because everything at the quantum level is connected?

BBELLA: Yes, on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.

Without in any way questioning the authenticity of your experiences, may I ask: Do you believe that the star forming in some far out galaxy is affected by you?

Yes, since I believe all that IS is connected. I don't know if you had an opportunity to read the article I posted, 'Where Is Time?' but the article hits on the very reason I have this belief.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Tuesday, January 31, 2017, 21:29 (2603 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: [...] on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.
dhw: Without in any way questioning the authenticity of your experiences, may I ask: Do you believe that the star forming in some far out galaxy is affected by you?
BBELLA: Yes, since I believe all that IS is connected.

There is no doubt that all of us are affected by the sun, without which we would simply not exist, so that is a clear connection. But I wonder how many of us believe that anything we do has any effect on the sun. By the same token, if the universe didn’t exist, we wouldn’t exist either, and nor would anything else, so in that sense, everything in the universe is connected. But you are obviously thinking of a deeper, “spiritual” kind of connection (morphic fields etc.), and although I myself can understand and accept the possible reality of such immaterial links, in all honesty I can only do so in relation to living things. I don’t for one second believe that anything I do will affect a distant star, and I don’t think a pebble on a beach in Australia has the remotest connection with me or I with it. Where does one draw the line? Perhaps it boils down to the question: are we and our fellow organisms uniquely alive in an impersonal universe, or is the universe itself a living organism?

BBELLA: I don't know if you had an opportunity to read the article I posted, 'Where Is Time?' but the article hits on the very reason I have this belief.

I’m sorry to say I lost patience with it. The author covers so many different individual areas (the brain, time, the electric universe, noise) that I could not latch on to a central argument at all, and it simply goes on and on and on. But I am currently very pushed for time, so that may be unfair. However, when you come across such articles, it would be very helpful if you could select relevant passages as David does, to highlight what you consider to be “the very reason” we need to latch onto.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 00:56 (2603 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: [...] on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.
dhw: Without in any way questioning the authenticity of your experiences, may I ask: Do you believe that the star forming in some far out galaxy is affected by you?
BBELLA: Yes, since I believe all that IS is connected.

dhw: There is no doubt that all of us are affected by the sun, without which we would simply not exist, so that is a clear connection. But I wonder how many of us believe that anything we do has any effect on the sun. By the same token, if the universe didn’t exist, we wouldn’t exist either, and nor would anything else, so in that sense, everything in the universe is connected. But you are obviously thinking of a deeper, “spiritual” kind of connection (morphic fields etc.), and although I myself can understand and accept the possible reality of such immaterial links, in all honesty I can only do so in relation to living things. I don’t for one second believe that anything I do will affect a distant star, and I don’t think a pebble on a beach in Australia has the remotest connection with me or I with it. Where does one draw the line? Perhaps it boils down to the question: are we and our fellow organisms uniquely alive in an impersonal universe, or is the universe itself a living organism?

BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.


BBELLA: I don't know if you had an opportunity to read the article I posted, 'Where Is Time?' but the article hits on the very reason I have this belief.

dhw: I’m sorry to say I lost patience with it. The author covers so many different individual areas (the brain, time, the electric universe, noise) that I could not latch on to a central argument at all, and it simply goes on and on and on. But I am currently very pushed for time, so that may be unfair. However, when you come across such articles, it would be very helpful if you could select relevant passages as David does, to highlight what you consider to be “the very reason” we need to latch onto.

I lost patience also, but he seems to be saying, on skimming it, that time is a construct in our brains as we all have discussed.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by BBella @, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 06:49 (2603 days ago) @ David Turell

BBELLA: [...] on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.
dhw: Without in any way questioning the authenticity of your experiences, may I ask: Do you believe that the star forming in some far out galaxy is affected by you?
BBELLA: Yes, since I believe all that IS is connected.

dhw: There is no doubt that all of us are affected by the sun, without which we would simply not exist, so that is a clear connection. But I wonder how many of us believe that anything we do has any effect on the sun. By the same token, if the universe didn’t exist, we wouldn’t exist either, and nor would anything else, so in that sense, everything in the universe is connected. But you are obviously thinking of a deeper, “spiritual” kind of connection (morphic fields etc.), and although I myself can understand and accept the possible reality of such immaterial links, in all honesty I can only do so in relation to living things. I don’t for one second believe that anything I do will affect a distant star, and I don’t think a pebble on a beach in Australia has the remotest connection with me or I with it. Where does one draw the line? Perhaps it boils down to the question: are we and our fellow organisms uniquely alive in an impersonal universe, or is the universe itself a living organism?


BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.

Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to. And, maybe, dhw, the universe is a living organism. I have read on more than one occasion of scientist that see this possibility in what they have found in their studies - but often find it hard to express in a scientific way. Of course, it's a favorite belief of philosophers and spiritualist as well.


BBELLA: I don't know if you had an opportunity to read the article I posted, 'Where Is Time?' but the article hits on the very reason I have this belief.

dhw: I’m sorry to say I lost patience with it. The author covers so many different individual areas (the brain, time, the electric universe, noise) that I could not latch on to a central argument at all, and it simply goes on and on and on. But I am currently very pushed for time, so that may be unfair. However, when you come across such articles, it would be very helpful if you could select relevant passages as David does, to highlight what you consider to be “the very reason” we need to latch onto.

I lost patience also, but he seems to be saying, on skimming it, that time is a construct in our brains as we all have discussed.

I can easily understand you both losing patience with this article - I was so hoping that wouldnt happen and you could get through it and extract what I saw there. At first reading, I did have a problem with it as well, then certain words and images began to remind me of my own journey and conclusions - which actually came before the ending where he finally addresses his title message, "Where is Time?". His writing style is very loose and spastic, if not autistic! lol I'm not sure I can extract what I saw there...but will try and do so, and will also try and remember to leave more comments on future articles.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 14:27 (2603 days ago) @ BBella

dhw: […] you are obviously thinking of a deeper, “spiritual” kind of connection (morphic fields etc.), and although I myself can understand and accept the possible reality of such immaterial links, in all honesty I can only do so in relation to living things. I don’t for one second believe that anything I do will affect a distant star, and I don’t think a pebble on a beach in Australia has the remotest connection with me or I with it. Where does one draw the line? Perhaps it boils down to the question: are we and our fellow organisms uniquely alive in an impersonal universe, or is the universe itself a living organism?
DAVID: BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.
BBELLA: Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to. And, maybe, dhw, the universe is a living organism. I have read on more than one occasion of scientist that see this possibility in what they have found in their studies - but often find it hard to express in a scientific way. Of course, it's a favorite belief of philosophers and spiritualist as well.

I don’t understand what you mean by the “quantum connected universe”. The universe consists of tiny particles and units of energy some of which sometimes behave in ways we do not understand. Why does this suggest interconnectedness, and how can one experience it at such a level? However, the concept of the universe as a living organism is certainly coherent and conceivable, and it fits in nicely with what I see as possible parallels between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

So let us talk of microcosms and macrocosms. Within our own world there are many parallels between cells and the universe, between individual and society, between the body of man and the body of the Earth – so perhaps it is the same between us and our designer. Perhaps the cells that microreflect the body that microreflects society that microreflects the Earth that microreflects the universe are also a microreflection of the designer. The designer may even be the universe, which may even be a body, within which the galaxies are limbs, and our solar system a mere cell.” (Brief Guide, 6: The nature of a “Creator”) (I should add that this is taken out of context, and is not an expression of faith in the existence of God.)

dhw: (re “Where is Time?”): I’m sorry to say that I lost patience with it…
DAVID: I lost patience also, but he seems to be saying, on skimming it, that time is a construct in our brains as we all have discussed.
BBELLA: I can easily understand you both losing patience with this article […]I'm not sure I can extract what I saw there...but will try and do so, and will also try and remember to leave more comments on future articles.

Thank you. I’m relieved to hear that I wasn’t alone!

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 15:51 (2603 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.

BBELLA: Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to. And, maybe, dhw, the universe is a living organism. I have read on more than one occasion of scientist that see this possibility in what they have found in their studies - but often find it hard to express in a scientific way. Of course, it's a favorite belief of philosophers and spiritualist as well.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by the “quantum connected universe”. The universe consists of tiny particles and units of energy some of which sometimes behave in ways we do not understand. Why does this suggest interconnectedness, and how can one experience it at such a level? However, the concept of the universe as a living organism is certainly coherent and conceivable, and it fits in nicely with what I see as possible parallels between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

Interconnectedness is a major component of quantum discussions. Split a 'particle' and the sisters retain connections for hundreds of miles, and presumably across the universe.

Natures wonders: parasitic plants steal food & genes

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 02, 2017, 01:10 (2602 days ago) @ David Turell

They attach by the roots:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48024/title/This-Parasitic-Plant-...

"Lophophytum is a holoparasitic plant, meaning that it has forsaken photosynthesis and is completely reliant on its various hosts for survival. In canopy-darkened South American jungles, the inconspicuous root parasites send spikes of inflorescence upward through the soil while their roots tap into the nutrient supply of plants such as the wilco tree (Anadenanthera colubrina). But as it turns out, Lophophytum has been stealing much more than just nutrients from its unsuspecting hosts: it has also been snatching their mitochondrial genes, and tossing out many of its own in the process.

"Careful analysis of the Lophophytum mitochondrial genome sequence, which is about 820,000 base pairs long, revealed 56 genes (44 protein- or RNA-encoding genes, some in multiple copies), which is unremarkable. But what is remarkable about these genes is that at least 37 of them, including 35 protein-coding genes, were acquired via horizontal gene transfer from the plants that Lophophytum parasitizes. In other words, Lophophytum has swapped almost all its native mitochondrial genes for their foreign equivalents, which is a bit like replacing all the appliances in your kitchen with those from a neighbor­’s kitchen.

"Horizontal gene transfer is not uncommon in parasitic plants like Lophophytum, which form vascular connections with their hosts, making it easy for them to pilfer water and nutrients. But this open flow from host to parasite also opens the door for the movement of DNA and even entire mitochondria.

***

"Finally, a small fraction (0.6 percent) of the Lophophytum mitochondrial genome is made up of chloroplast-derived DNA. But, again, these chloroplast sequences appear to have been acquired from the host rather­ than from the Lophophytum chloroplast. In fact, not a single native chloroplast gene was found in the more than 6.5 billion base pairs of Lophophytum sequencing data, which was derived from total cellular DNA, suggesting that this parasite might have lost its own chloroplast genome outright. The complete forfeiting of plastid DNA is an extremely rare event, but it is believed to have occurred in the holoparasitic plant Rafflesia lagascae—which bears so-called “corpse flowers,” so named for their fly-attracting putridity—as well as in the nonphotosynthetic green alga Polytomella.

Comment: Parasites can take over plants in many ways as this shows. I wonder how it all happens. Not stepwise I would think. You either are parasitic or not. Half parasitic?

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Thursday, February 02, 2017, 14:20 (2602 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.

BBELLA: Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by the “quantum connected universe”. The universe consists of tiny particles and units of energy some of which sometimes behave in ways we do not understand. Why does this suggest interconnectedness, and how can one experience it at such a level? However, the concept of the universe as a living organism is certainly coherent and conceivable, and it fits in nicely with what I see as possible parallels between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

DAVID: Interconnectedness is a major component of quantum discussions. Split a 'particle' and the sisters retain connections for hundreds of miles, and presumably across the universe.

How does that mean that ALL "particles" in the universe, including ourselves and every star in every solar system throughout the universe, are connected?

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 02, 2017, 18:20 (2602 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.

BBELLA: Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by the “quantum connected universe”. The universe consists of tiny particles and units of energy some of which sometimes behave in ways we do not understand. Why does this suggest interconnectedness, and how can one experience it at such a level? However, the concept of the universe as a living organism is certainly coherent and conceivable, and it fits in nicely with what I see as possible parallels between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

DAVID: Interconnectedness is a major component of quantum discussions. Split a 'particle' and the sisters retain connections for hundreds of miles, and presumably across the universe.

dhw: How does that mean that ALL "particles" in the universe, including ourselves and every star in every solar system throughout the universe, are connected?

That is what the quantum/ philosophers of science believe: read The non-local Universe

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Friday, February 03, 2017, 16:23 (2601 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: BBella is really referring to the quantum connected universe, I'm sure, not what you are discussing.

BBELLA: Yes, that is correct, David, it is what I was referring to.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by the “quantum connected universe”. The universe consists of tiny particles and units of energy some of which sometimes behave in ways we do not understand. Why does this suggest interconnectedness, and how can one experience it at such a level? However, the concept of the universe as a living organism is certainly coherent and conceivable, and it fits in nicely with what I see as possible parallels between the microcosm and the macrocosm.

DAVID: Interconnectedness is a major component of quantum discussions. Split a 'particle' and the sisters retain connections for hundreds of miles, and presumably across the universe.

dhw: How does that mean that ALL "particles" in the universe, including ourselves and every star in every solar system throughout the universe, are connected?

DAVID: That is what the quantum/ philosophers of science believe: read The non-local Universe

While I admire the breadth of your reading, it really doesn’t help me if you answer my questions by giving me a reading list. You have informed me that a particle is split, and its two parts remain connected over hundreds of miles, and therefore what? I should believe that all particles throughout the universe are connected? If you understand the reasoning, I’m sure you can explain it. If you don’t understand it, then maybe you will share my puzzlement.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Friday, February 03, 2017, 21:05 (2600 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: That is what the quantum/ philosophers of science believe: read The non-local Universe

dhw: While I admire the breadth of your reading, it really doesn’t help me if you answer my questions by giving me a reading list. You have informed me that a particle is split, and its two parts remain connected over hundreds of miles, and therefore what? I should believe that all particles throughout the universe are connected? If you understand the reasoning, I’m sure you can explain it. If you don’t understand it, then maybe you will share my puzzlement.

See my entry today.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Friday, February 03, 2017, 18:05 (2601 days ago) @ David Turell

Another experiment announced covering non-locality, or 'spooky action at a distance':

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-test-bolsters-einsteins-ldquo-spooky-...

"The latest effort to explore the phenomenon, to be published in Physical Review Letters on 7 February, uses light emitted by stars around 600 years ago to select which measurements to make in a quantum experiment known as a Bell test. In doing so, they narrow down the point in history when, if they exist, hidden variables could have influenced the experiment.

***

"The test involves performing independent measurements on separated pairs of entangled quantum particles. Bell showed that, statistically, correlations between the results, once above a certain threshold limit, could not be explained by particles having hidden properties. Instead the coordinated outcomes seem to be the result of measurements on one particle mysteriously fixing the properties of the other.

***

"To narrow this freedom-of-choice loophole, researchers have previously put 144 kilometres between the source of entangled particles and the random-number generator that they use to pick experimental settings5. The distance between them means that if any unknown process influenced both set-ups, it would have to have done so at a point in time before the experiment.  But this only rules out any influences in the microseconds before: the latest paper sought to push this time back dramatically, by using light from two distant stars to determine the experimental settings for each photon. “We outsource the choice to the Universe itself,” says Friedman.

"The team, led by physicist Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna, picked which properties of the entangled photons to observe depending on whether its two telescopes detected incoming light as blue or red. The colour is decided when the light is emitted, and does not change during travel. This means that if some unknown effect, rather than quantum entanglement, explains the correlation, it would have to have been set in motion at least around 600 years ago, because the closest star is 575 light-years (176 parsecs) away, says Friedman, who hopes to eventually push back this limit to billions of years ago by doing the experiment with light from more distant quasars.Their results found a level of correlation that supports ‘action at a distance’.

***

"Harnessing cosmic phenomena is not the only way physicists are ensuring the independence of their measurement settings. In November, teams from around the world took part in the Big Bell Test, which tapped 100,000 game-playing volunteers worldwide to create random sequences of 0s and 1s, which physicists used to fix their measurement settings.

"Preliminary analysis indicates that in this case, most—and possibly even all—of the experiments yet again supported quantum mechanics, says Morgan Mitchell at the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) in Barcelona, Spain, which coordinated the event. “Sorry, Einstein,” he says."

Comment: The reason for the care in this experiment is the problem of consciousness affecting the particles as in delayed choice experiments. The universe appears to be entirely interconnected at the quantum level.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 15:01 (2603 days ago) @ BBella


BBella: I can easily understand you both losing patience with this article - I was so hoping that wouldnt happen and you could get through it and extract what I saw there. At first reading, I did have a problem with it as well, then certain words and images began to remind me of my own journey and conclusions - which actually came before the ending where he finally addresses his title message, "Where is Time?". His writing style is very loose and spastic, if not autistic! lol I'm not sure I can extract what I saw there...but will try and do so, and will also try and remember to leave more comments on future articles.

I look forward to your contributions!

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 29, 2017, 14:59 (2606 days ago) @ BBella


Comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?


BBella: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.


David Is this because everything at the quantum level is connected?


BBella:Yes, on some level somehow I do believe all is connected. I may not be cognitively aware of a star forming in some far out galaxy, but somewhere within all that I AM, I am effected by that star forming. I do believe this, not just because of the science I've studied, but more because the science I studied confirmed what I experienced.

The contents of the book The Non-Local Universe, 1999, Nadeau & Kafatos, agrees with you, based on quantum entanglement.

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by dhw, Saturday, January 28, 2017, 12:40 (2607 days ago) @ BBella

QUOTE: “'This is the type of science I love; it leaves us hungrily asking more questions,” David Hughes from Pennsylvania State University, who studies manipulative parasites, told The Atlantic. For example, “how does this wasp get its egg into its soon-to-be excavator? And how does it do that so precisely to stop the activity at a stage where the hole is large enough just for a head to block, but not for the body of the manipulatee to emerge?'”

David’s comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?

Your question echoes the one I have consistently asked whenever you have claimed that these organisms are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. What on earth do these weird wonders have to do with your God “balancing nature” in order to produce humans?

BBELLA: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

The history of evolution suggests a mixture of competition and cooperation. For me the simplest explanation for these strange lifestyles is that all living organisms have a drive for survival and in some cases improvement, and they all have different forms and degrees of intelligence to implement that drive. Some succeed and some fail. I would agree that all forms of life are dependent on other forms of life and on their particular environment, but I would also say that all individuals are just as much individuals as they are part of something greater. I can’t in all honesty say that I feel connected to all the solar systems that have come and gone, or to the weaverbird’s nest, and I would not regard the little blue wasp’s “clever” destruction of the crypt gall wasp as a wondrous example of two organisms entering into a grand symbiotic relationship. If the crypt gall wasp could speak my language, I reckon he’d agree with me! But that does not mean I am isolated, or that I dismiss the concept of morphic fields and morphic resonance, or that I reject the idea of a unifying spirit David calls God and you call the ALL THAT IS. I am quite simply in the dark – though as you may have noticed, that doesn’t stop me groping around in all directions!

Natures wonders: clever tiny wasp controls another

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 28, 2017, 16:03 (2607 days ago) @ dhw


David’s comment: Wow! How did this get arranged. Not step by step. Looks like lots of pre-planning. We must eagerly await more research for explanations of the control mechanisms. Is this too minor for God to create?

dhw: Your question echoes the one I have consistently asked whenever you have claimed that these organisms are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. What on earth do these weird wonders have to do with your God “balancing nature” in order to produce humans?

Each creature's lifestyle fits into an eco-niche of the balance of nature.


BBELLA: The simplest explanation that can be for all of these wondrous things, is that everything is connected (therefore symbiotic by nature on a grand scale) - and therefore everything IS simply an ultimate Inventive Mechanism -Occam's Razor. Yes, could be that simple.

dhw: The history of evolution suggests a mixture of competition and cooperation. For me the simplest explanation for these strange lifestyles is that all living organisms have a drive for survival and in some cases improvement, and they all have different forms and degrees of intelligence to implement that drive. Some succeed and some fail. I would agree that all forms of life are dependent on other forms of life and on their particular environment, but I would also say that all individuals are just as much individuals as they are part of something greater. I can’t in all honesty say that I feel connected to all the solar systems that have come and gone, or to the weaverbird’s nest, and I would not regard the little blue wasp’s “clever” destruction of the crypt gall wasp as a wondrous example of two organisms entering into a grand symbiotic relationship. If the crypt gall wasp could speak my language, I reckon he’d agree with me! But that does not mean I am isolated, or that I dismiss the concept of morphic fields and morphic resonance, or that I reject the idea of a unifying spirit David calls God and you call the ALL THAT IS. I am quite simply in the dark – though as you may have noticed, that doesn’t stop me groping around in all directions!

Yes, please keep groping, you might reach the light of BBella's thoughts and mine. Yes, you are an individual in your own eco-niche contributing to the balance of nature especially in the world of Cricket. :-)

Natures wonders: flamingos amazing adaptation

by David Turell @, Monday, February 06, 2017, 14:48 (2598 days ago) @ David Turell

Huge flocks live in very toxic African lakes:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/africa-s-most-toxic-lakes-are-a-paradise-for-fearles...

"All flamingo species have evolved to live in some of the planet’s most extreme wetlands, like caustic “soda lakes”, hypersaline lagoons or high-altitude salt flats.

"One species, the lesser flamingo, has taken this relationship to the limit. Most are found in super-alkaline lakes throughout Africa’s Great Rift Valley, which host immense blooms of microscopic blue-green algae (called cyanobacteria). These poisonous plants produce chemicals that, in most animals, can fatally damage cells, the nervous system, and the liver. The lesser flamingo, however, can consume enormous amounts with no ill effects (unless you count their colourful plumage, which comes from a pigment in the algae).

"Two of the lesser flamingo’s preferred habitats, Lake Bogoria in Kenya and Lake Natron in Tanzania, are hypersaline and hostile to practically all other forms of life (Natron water can even strip away human skin).

"For the flamingos this a bonus. Special tough skin and scales on their legs prevent burns, and they can drink water at near boiling point to collect freshwater from springs and geysers at lake edges. If no freshwater is available, flamingos can use glands in their head that remove salt, draining it out from their nasal cavity.

"With few other animals able to cope in such conditions, there is minimal competition for food, and these toxic wetlands are home to massive flocks.

"Million-strong gatherings provide several benefits. Mass synchronised nesting gives flamingos the best possible chance to raise the maximum number of chicks, while on choppy days a dense mass of birds swimming together also helps create the optimal feeding environment (still water) within the centre of the group. Sheer numbers also make it harder for predators like hyenas or jackals to identify individual victims.
As such, a single flamingo is not a happy flamingo. The species is happiest in huge gatherings, and these won’t occur around any old lake – the lesser flamingo specifically needs its toxic, salty paradise.

"But these places are rare. Across the six flamingo species there are only 30 or so regularly used breeding sites worldwide and, while the global population of around 3.2m lesser flamingos is impressive, it is largely reliant on a few huge groups (about 75% nest at Lake Natron alone). What if something happens to one of their highly-specialised breeding sites?

"Unlike many other species that can still breed in smaller populations as their habitats become damaged, these birds cannot easily survive in small groups. Having evolved in such a hostile environment with few rivals, they would have trouble adapting to a more competitive lifestyle elsewhere. With most of their eggs in one toxic basket, the lesser flamingo is unusually vulnerable for a species with millions of individuals.

"Indeed, the number of lesser flamingos in the wild is already decreasing each year. And humans are to blame. Wetland habitats have been polluted by agricultural chemicals and sewage, feeding and breeding grounds have been disturbed, and declining algal blooms mean some populations are starving to death.

"Even a diet of toxic algae can’t save flamingos from ecological disturbances. If humans take too much water from a lake, or climate change causes excess evaporation, then salinity levels will become unstable. Populations of cyanobacteria can explode and the birds end up consuming new species which can poison them and cause mass deaths."

Comment: the article goes on to warn about human mining projects and other activities which can cause extreme damage to the flamingos. For this website, the adaptation is an amazing example of evolutionary adaptation, epigenetic or otherwise. On my second African trip I've flown over them: amazing.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 07, 2017, 01:41 (2597 days ago) @ David Turell

There are many plants that catch and eat insects, etc. A good source of nitrogen and phosphorus:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-plants-evolved-into-carnivores/?WT.mc_id...

"Now, by studying the pitcher plant's genome—and comparing its insect-eating fluids to those of other carnivorous plants—researchers have found that meat-eating plants the world over have hit on the same deadly molecular recipe, even though they are separated by millions of years of evolution.

"We’re really looking at a classic case of convergent evolution,” says Victor Albert, a plant-genome scientist at the University of Buffalo, New York, who co-led the study.

"Carnivorous plants occur across the flowering-plant family tree. The Australian pitcher plant (Cephalotus follicularis)—native to a sliver of coastline in Southwest Australia—is closer kin to the starfruit (Averrhoa carambola) than to other species of pitcher plants found in the Americas and southeast Asia. This suggests that carnivory has evolved repeatedly in plants, probably to cope with the nutrient-scarce soils in which they grow, Albert says. “What they’re trying to do is capture nitrogen and phosphorus from their prey.”

***

"To determine how pitchers eat their prey, the researchers sampled the digestive cocktail fromCephalotus and several other unrelated carnivorous plants and identified a total of 35 proteins, using mass spectrometry. Many of the proteins are related to those that other flowering plants use to fend off pathogens. For instance, plants typically produce enzymes that break down a polymer called chitin as a defence against fungi, which make their cell walls out of the chemical. But Albert suspects that Australian pitchers and other carnivorous plants have repurposed the enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons, which are also made of chitin.

"In the new analysis, Albert and his colleagues also found that in distantly related carnivorous plants, including species of pitcher plants, the genes deployed to make the digestive-fluid proteins have a common evolutionary origin. What’s more, some of these genes have independently evolved to change the shape of the enzymes they encode in similar ways in the different species. The researchers don't have proof yet, but they think that the mutations might help to stabilize the enzymes when they are present together in digestive fluid.

"While researchers already appreciated the importance of convergent evolution for carnivorous plants, says Aaron Ellison, an ecologist at Harvard Forest in Petersham, Massachusetts, the new study is important because it demonstrates how this convergence can occur down to the molecular level, he says.

"Gaining the ability to eat an insect is of little use if a plant cannot first entrap one, and here evolution has come up with more diverse solutions, Albert notes. Venus fly-traps ensnare their prey, whereas bladderworts immobilize their victims using tiny suction cups. In his 1875 book Insectivorous Plants, Charles Darwin included detailed drawings of the tentacles that sundews use to pin insects to their leaves. "It's no wonder Darwin wrote an entire book on carnivorous plants,” Albert says."

Comment: Usual problem. This did not develop step-wise. Trapping is one step but without digesting enzymes, why bother? Saltation, once again.

Natures wonders: frog spit like ketchup

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2017, 01:15 (2596 days ago) @ David Turell

A frog's tongue snaps out and grabs an insect using a viscous, but changeable saliva:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/frog-spit-behaves-like-bug-catching-...

"Frog Spit Behaves Like Bug-Catching Ketchup

"The amphibians' saliva is what's known as a "shear-thinning fluid," like ketchup—sometimes thick, sometimes thin and flowing.

"You might think frogs catch insects ‘cause their tongues are sticky. "But why is the tongue sticky, and how does it actually adhere to these insects at these very high accelerations?" 

"Those are the questions Alexis Noel, a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering at Georgia Tech, wanted to answer. So she and her team got frog tongues from a dissection lab, and tested their consistency. Ten times softer than human tongues. A texture more like brain tissue. "Their tongue is very much like a sponge. It's infused with this thick, viscous saliva." 

"That saliva was their next study subject. "And in order to test the saliva we had to get about a fifth of a teaspoon of fluid. Which is a lot of saliva, in a frog's case." They put the saliva in a rheometer, a tool that can measure viscosity. And they found that frog saliva is what's called a 'shear-thinning fluid'—its viscosity changes, depending on conditions. 

"You might be more familiar with a different shear-thinning fluid. "Ketchup. When you smack the bottom of the ketchup bottle you're actually invoking shear forces within the ketchup itself. And ketchup, because it's shear thinning, its viscosity actually drops and allows it to slide out of the bottle easily." 

"So back to our frogs: the tongue shoots out, hits the bug and deforms around it. That impact is like a smack on a ketchup bottle—it changes the saliva from thick and sticky to more watery, free to flow all over the bug. Then the tongue bounces back, like a bungee cord, and the saliva thickens up again. What's next is beyond weird.
"Frogs actually take their bulbous eyeballs and bring them down into their mouth cavity and use their eyeballs to shove the insect down the throat." That force turns the saliva watery again, "and the insect slides down the gullet.'"

Comment: A frog tongue snaps out and snaps back. Its saliva must act this way to handle the speed of the action. Not a process that could develop stepwise. Many, many animal activities are like this, with no sensible way for development by Darwin's theory.

Natures wonders: amazing frog tongue

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2017, 15:35 (2596 days ago) @ David Turell

Along with the complex actions of the saliva, the tongue itself is extremely fast in its movements and it is stickier than any of our sticky inventions:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-frog-tongue-is-a-high-speed-adhesive?utm_source=...

"The versatile frog tongue can grab wet, hairy and slippery surfaces with equal ease. It does a lot better than our engineered adhesives – not even household tapes can firmly stick to wet or dusty surfaces. What makes this tongue even more impressive is its speed: Over 4,000 species of frog and toad snag prey faster than a human can blink. What makes the frog tongue so uniquely sticky? Our group aimed to find out.

***

"biomechanics researchers Kleinteich and Gorb were the first to measure tongue forces in the horned frog Ceratophrys cranwelli. They found in 2014 that frog adhesion forces can reach up to 1.4 times the body weight. That means the sticky frog tongue is strong enough to lift nearly twice its own weight. They postulated that the tongue acts like sticky tape or a pressure-sensitive adhesive – a permanently tacky surface that adheres to substrates under light pressure.

***

"Thoroughly intrigued, we wanted to understand how the sticky tongue holds onto prey so well at high accelerations. We first had to gather some frog tongues. Here at Georgia Tech, we tracked down an on-campus biology dissection class, who used northern leopard frogs on a regular basis.

"The plan was this: Poke the tongue tissue to determine softness, and spin the frog saliva between two plates to determine viscosity. Softness and viscosity are common metrics for comparing solid and fluid materials, respectively. Softness describes tongue deformation when a stretching force is applied, and viscosity describes saliva’s resistance to movement.

***

"After our tests, we found frog tongues are about as soft as brain tissue and 10 times softer than the human tongue. Yes, we tested brain and human tongue tissue (post mortem) in the lab for comparison.

***

"After testing, we were surprised to find that the saliva is a two-phase viscoelastic fluid. The two phases are dependent on how quickly the saliva is sheared, when resting between parallel plates. At low shear rates, the saliva is very thick and viscous; at high shear rates, the frog saliva becomes thin and liquidy. This is similar to paint, which is easily spread by a brush, yet remains firmly adhered on the wall. Its these two phases that give the saliva its reversibility in prey capture, for adhering and releasing an insect."

Comment: Saliva properties were described in other entries, but worth representing since it still presents an amazing set of properties, but the tongue itself seams like no other tongue in catching rapidly moving insects. Again this hunting mechanism is highly complex and is not explained by Darwin stepwise development theory.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2017, 01:28 (2596 days ago) @ David Turell

More comments on carnivorous plants:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48347/title/How-Plants-Evolved-to...

Albert and colleagues sequenced the Australian pitcher plant’s genome and compared the DNA in the plant’s carnivorous and non-carnivorous photosynthetic leaves. Their analyses revealed genetic changes associated with prey capture and digestion. “According to the results, leaves that catch insects have gained new enzymatic functions,” Julio Rozas, a study co-author and professor at the University of Barcelona, said in a statement. These includes chitinase, an enzyme that breaks down the chitin in insects’ exoskeletons, and purple acid phosphatase, which helps release phosphate from the prey, Rozas explained.

When the group compared Australian pitcher plant’s digestive fluid to that of three unrelated carnivorous plants, the results suggested that—despite the fact that the plants evolved separately—their digestive enzymes had similar genetic origins. “In a number of cases, the very same genes from non-carnivorous ancestors have been recruited for carnivorous purposes," Thomas Givnish, who studies plant evolution at the University of Wisconsin who was not involved in the study, told NPR.

Comment: Note the special enzyme to obtain phosphorus and digest the insects. How were these enzymes found by evolution's search among giant proteins? Further, digestive enzymes don't harm the plant. How was that defense arranged simultaneously with the development of the digestive enzyme itself? Not stepwise. In humans our stomach acid is equal to battery acid, and our stomachs are protected. Same issue of how was that developed? Darwin's theory doesn't work.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Wednesday, February 08, 2017, 12:31 (2596 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment (on the frog post) : A frog tongue snaps out and snaps back. Its saliva must act this way to handle the speed of the action. Not a process that could develop stepwise. Many, many animal activities are like this, with no sensible way for development by Darwin's theory.

DAVID’s comment: Note the special enzyme to obtain phosphorus and digest the insects. How were these enzymes found by evolution's search among giant proteins? Further, digestive enzymes don't harm the plant. How was that defense arranged simultaneously with the development of the digestive enzyme itself? Not stepwise. In humans our stomach acid is equal to battery acid, and our stomachs are protected. Same issue of how was that developed? Darwin's theory doesn't work.

DAVID’s comment (earlier one on carnivorous plants): Usual problem. This did not develop step-wise. Trapping is one step but without digesting enzymes, why bother? Saltation, once again.

Once more, many thanks for these amazing “natural wonders”. They are an education in themselves. I can understand your delight in sniping at Darwin, and I share your opinion that these complex processes could not have come about through random mutations followed by gradual, stepwise refinements. However, each time you snipe, I think back to your earlier insistence that all such processes can only have been brought about by God specially preprogramming them 3.8 billion years ago, or personally stepping in to mess around with the chemistry of the frogs/plants, because these froggy/planty tricks were essential to keep life going so that humans could evolve. Fortunately, you have now modified your stance and conceded that organisms may have an autonomous inventive mechanism designed by your God, who only steps in if he’s not happy with what’s going on. May I then, as we join forces in rejecting Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations and gradualism, also assume that in all these cases you now believe that the cell communities of the organisms concerned may have used their (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence to design these processes, or do you still think your God preprogrammed them / personally dabbled them for the sake of humans?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2017, 02:23 (2595 days ago) @ dhw


dhw:Once more, many thanks for these amazing “natural wonders”. They are an education in themselves. I can understand your delight in sniping at Darwin, and I share your opinion that these complex processes could not have come about through random mutations followed by gradual, stepwise refinements. However, each time you snipe, I think back to your earlier insistence that all such processes can only have been brought about by God specially preprogramming them 3.8 billion years ago, or personally stepping in to mess around with the chemistry of the frogs/plants, because these froggy/planty tricks were essential to keep life going so that humans could evolve. Fortunately, you have now modified your stance and conceded that organisms may have an autonomous inventive mechanism designed by your God, who only steps in if he’s not happy with what’s going on. May I then, as we join forces in rejecting Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations and gradualism, also assume that in all these cases you now believe that the cell communities of the organisms concerned may have used their (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence to design these processes, or do you still think your God preprogrammed them / personally dabbled them for the sake of humans?

My thought pattern re' God and evolution is still quite simple. I have presented hundreds if not thousands of examples of complexity in the workings of the genetic mechanisms, complexity in biological processes supporting life, and in many of the lifestyle arrangements like the insect trapping plants. All of it strongly supports saltation, that is, all the various necessary parts appeared at once. Thus chance plays no role, which only leaves design, and so I think God is the designer and runs evolution. You struggle for a third way, when none appears obvious.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Thursday, February 09, 2017, 15:35 (2595 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more, many thanks for these amazing “natural wonders”. They are an education in themselves. I can understand your delight in sniping at Darwin, and I share your opinion that these complex processes could not have come about through random mutations followed by gradual, stepwise refinements. However, each time you snipe, I think back to your earlier insistence that all such processes can only have been brought about by God specially preprogramming them 3.8 billion years ago, or personally stepping in to mess around with the chemistry of the frogs/plants, because these froggy/planty tricks were essential to keep life going so that humans could evolve. Fortunately, you have now modified your stance and conceded that organisms may have an autonomous inventive mechanism designed by your God, who only steps in if he’s not happy with what’s going on. May I then, as we join forces in rejecting Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations and gradualism, also assume that in all these cases you now believe that the cell communities of the organisms concerned may have used their (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence to design these processes, or do you still think your God preprogrammed them / personally dabbled them for the sake of humans?

DAVID: My thought pattern re' God and evolution is still quite simple. I have presented hundreds if not thousands of examples of complexity in the workings of the genetic mechanisms, complexity in biological processes supporting life, and in many of the lifestyle arrangements like the insect trapping plants. All of it strongly supports saltation, that is, all the various necessary parts appeared at once. Thus chance plays no role, which only leaves design, and so I think God is the designer and runs evolution. You struggle for a third way, when none appears obvious.

A masterly evasion of my question. If your God endowed living organisms with an autonomous inventive intelligence (which you have agreed is possible), chance plays no part other than through the random changes of the environment (unless your God arranged all of these himself). This is only a “third way” in the sense that it provides an alternative to divine preprogramming and direct intervention. You have accepted the possibility of an autonomous IM, provided it was designed by your God and he approved of what it did, so do you think the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, personally dabbled by your God (in both cases, to keep life going so that humans could evolve), or the product of the cell communities’ autonomous intelligence, and approved by your God?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2017, 18:54 (2595 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: My thought pattern re' God and evolution is still quite simple. I have presented hundreds if not thousands of examples of complexity in the workings of the genetic mechanisms, complexity in biological processes supporting life, and in many of the lifestyle arrangements like the insect trapping plants. All of it strongly supports saltation, that is, all the various necessary parts appeared at once. Thus chance plays no role, which only leaves design, and so I think God is the designer and runs evolution. You struggle for a third way, when none appears obvious.

dhw: A masterly evasion of my question. If your God endowed living organisms with an autonomous inventive intelligence (which you have agreed is possible), chance plays no part other than through the random changes of the environment (unless your God arranged all of these himself). This is only a “third way” in the sense that it provides an alternative to divine preprogramming and direct intervention. You have accepted the possibility of an autonomous IM, provided it was designed by your God and he approved of what it did, so do you think the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, personally dabbled by your God (in both cases, to keep life going so that humans could evolve), or the product of the cell communities’ autonomous intelligence, and approved by your God?

You are the supreme evader. Your 'cell autonomous intelligence', designed by God, is still design. We still have only chance or design as operative in advancing evolutionary complexity, even if you especially designate it as under organismal control to start with! I've always granted that pre-programming or dabbling were the viable options for God to control evolution. You have introduced nothing that resembles a third choice!

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Friday, February 10, 2017, 13:33 (2594 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My thought pattern re' God and evolution is still quite simple. I have presented hundreds if not thousands of examples of complexity in the workings of the genetic mechanisms, complexity in biological processes supporting life, and in many of the lifestyle arrangements like the insect trapping plants. All of it strongly supports saltation, that is, all the various necessary parts appeared at once. Thus chance plays no role, which only leaves design, and so I think God is the designer and runs evolution. You struggle for a third way, when none appears obvious.

dhw: A masterly evasion of my question. If your God endowed living organisms with an autonomous inventive intelligence (which you have agreed is possible), chance plays no part other than through the random changes of the environment (unless your God arranged all of these himself). This is only a “third way” in the sense that it provides an alternative to divine preprogramming and direct intervention. You have accepted the possibility of an autonomous IM, provided it was designed by your God and he approved of what it did, so do you think the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, personally dabbled by your God (in both cases, to keep life going so that humans could evolve), or the product of the cell communities’ autonomous intelligence, and approved by your God?

DAVID: You are the supreme evader. Your 'cell autonomous intelligence', designed by God, is still design. We still have only chance or design as operative in advancing evolutionary complexity, even if you especially designate it as under organismal control to start with!

Of course it’s still design! That is the whole point: I have offered you an alternative design theory to your preprogramming and dabbling, and you have accepted it on condition that God designed the mechanism and approved of its products.

DAVID: I've always granted that pre-programming or dabbling were the viable options for God to control evolution. You have introduced nothing that resembles a third choice!

In this theistic scenario, the third choice is not between chance and design but between preprogramming/dabbling and the autonomous mechanism designed by your God and autonomously producing innovations, lifestyles and wonders of which he approves. So do please tell me whether you think the carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues were preprogrammed, dabbled, or produced by the autonomous cellular intelligence which your God designed in the first place.
7

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 11, 2017, 01:47 (2593 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: You are the supreme evader. Your 'cell autonomous intelligence', designed by God, is still design. We still have only chance or design as operative in advancing evolutionary complexity, even if you especially designate it as under organismal control to start with!

dhw: Of course it’s still design! That is the whole point: I have offered you an alternative design theory to your preprogramming and dabbling, and you have accepted it on condition that God designed the mechanism and approved of its products.

dhw: In this theistic scenario, the third choice is not between chance and design but between preprogramming/dabbling and the autonomous mechanism designed by your God and autonomously producing innovations, lifestyles and wonders of which he approves. So do please tell me whether you think the carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues were preprogrammed, dabbled, or produced by the autonomous cellular intelligence which your God designed in the first place.

You continue to talk around my challenge! Note my comment before yours:

DAVID: I've always granted that pre-programming or dabbling were the viable options for God to control evolution. You have introduced nothing that resembles a third choice!

Your theistic scenario is just fine, but my question is: we see the causes of the universe and humans as either chance or design. I want a third choice from you other than those two. All you have offered is a theistic possibility of an organismal intelligence advancing evolution. Fine. If chance did not design the organisms and their intelligent design abilities, what did? I reject chance. Life is obviously too complex to pop up by chance. I offer God, accepting pre-programming or dabbling, and I will accept your possibility the organisms are programmed o do some inventing, corrected by God as necessary. Now, is there a third agent at work to produce our reality? To me it is obvious agency, not chance, is required.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Saturday, February 11, 2017, 13:19 (2593 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your theistic scenario is just fine, but my question is: we see the causes of the universe and humans as either chance or design. I want a third choice from you other than those two.

As regards the origin of the universe and of the mechanisms for life and evolution (not just humans), I can only offer you my panpsychist hypothesis in which individual bits of matter “somehow” possess a rudimentary form of consciousness which evolves with time and experience – a hypothesis which I regard as no more and no less likely than your single “somehow” know-it-all-for-ever consciousness and the “somehow” blind miracle-workings of chance. However, this is totally irrelevant to the question I have now asked you three times about how carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues may have evolved. See below.

DAVID: All you have offered is a theistic possibility of an organismal intelligence advancing evolution. Fine. If chance did not design the organisms and their intelligent design abilities, what did? I reject chance.

See above. I have agreed a thousand times that your God may have designed the autonomous intelligent mechanism.

DAVID: Life is obviously too complex to pop up by chance. I offer God, accepting pre-programming or dabbling, and I will accept your possibility the organisms are programmed to do some inventing, corrected by God as necessary. Now, is there a third agent at work to produce our reality? To me it is obvious agency, not chance, is required.

Again see above: either some sort of God or chance or an evolving panpsychist consciousness was responsible for producing life and the autonomous intelligent inventive mechanism which you have explicitly agreed is possible. So now let us go back to your theistic model of evolution, and tell me which you think is more likely: that your God preprogrammed the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue 3.8 billion years ago (presumably in order to keep life going until humans arrived), personally intervened to design them, or left them to do their own designing with the intelligence which you agree he might have given them?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 11, 2017, 15:46 (2593 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Life is obviously too complex to pop up by chance. I offer God, accepting pre-programming or dabbling, and I will accept your possibility the organisms are programmed to do some inventing, corrected by God as necessary. Now, is there a third agent at work to produce our reality? To me it is obvious agency, not chance, is required.

dhw: Again see above: either some sort of God or chance or an evolving panpsychist consciousness was responsible for producing life and the autonomous intelligent inventive mechanism which you have explicitly agreed is possible. So now let us go back to your theistic model of evolution, and tell me which you think is more likely: that your God preprogrammed the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue 3.8 billion years ago (presumably in order to keep life going until humans arrived), personally intervened to design them, or left them to do their own designing with the intelligence which you agree he might have given them?

Your panpsychist third way is consciousness without God's consciousness. You've just offered a subset of the God hypothesis, that is all. Why not call that type of consciousness God? Whatever the first cause is, humans are here. Principle: God guided evolution to produce humans. Under that umbrella, all of your above thoughts are possible. We've settled it.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Sunday, February 12, 2017, 09:15 (2592 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your panpsychist third way is consciousness without God's consciousness. You've just offered a subset of the God hypothesis, that is all. Why not call that type of consciousness God?

I suspected that this would provide a nice diversion for you from the subject of the autonomous inventive mechanism, which you can’t even bring yourself to mention now! No, the panpsychist type of consciousness I have described is totally different from that of your God. Firstly, it is multiple, and secondly, as I explained in the part of my post you have omitted, it begins at a rudimentary level and evolves with time and experience. Your single God works top downwards, and my multiple panpsychist consciousnesses work bottom upwards, and as we have no idea how they might have developed their rudimentary consciousness, they are closer to chance than to God. But as I said, in my view this hypothesis is just as likely/unlikely as the other two.

DAVID: Whatever the first cause is, humans are here. Principle: God guided evolution to produce humans. Under that umbrella, all of your above thoughts are possible. We've settled it.

Sorry, but far from settled. Our starting point on this thread was carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues, and I really cannot understand why your God would specially design such things in order to keep life going so that humans could arrive. They seem to me to be ideal examples of how your God’s autonomous inventive mechanism would carry on producing wonder after wonder without his interference and without any link to the production of humans. This would give us a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and you can still have your God stepping in to produce humans. So for the fourth time, would you not agree that these two examples are far more likely to be the product of the cell communities’ God-given autonomous intelligence (the possible existence of which you have agreed to) than the product of his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or his direct dabbling?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 12, 2017, 16:06 (2592 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Whatever the first cause is, humans are here. Principle: God guided evolution to produce humans. Under that umbrella, all of your above thoughts are possible. We've settled it.

dhw: Sorry, but far from settled. Our starting point on this thread was carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues, and I really cannot understand why your God would specially design such things in order to keep life going so that humans could arrive. They seem to me to be ideal examples of how your God’s autonomous inventive mechanism would carry on producing wonder after wonder without his interference and without any link to the production of humans. This would give us a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and you can still have your God stepping in to produce humans. So for the fourth time, would you not agree that these two examples are far more likely to be the product of the cell communities’ God-given autonomous intelligence (the possible existence of which you have agreed to) than the product of his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or his direct dabbling?

I don't accept your cell communities theory in any way, but I have agreed that God could have given organisms an inventive mechanism, evidence for which has not been found so far. Chance or design are the only ways evolution advances. You are still pushing your concept of 'designer-lite'. Remember that is God. Why not accept it?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Monday, February 13, 2017, 13:40 (2591 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Whatever the first cause is, humans are here. Principle: God guided evolution to produce humans. Under that umbrella, all of your above thoughts are possible. We've settled it.
dhw: Sorry, but far from settled. Our starting point on this thread was carnivorous plants and frogs’ tongues, and I really cannot understand why your God would specially design such things in order to keep life going so that humans could arrive. They seem to me to be ideal examples of how your God’s autonomous inventive mechanism would carry on producing wonder after wonder without his interference and without any link to the production of humans. This would give us a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and you can still have your God stepping in to produce humans. So for the fourth time, would you not agree that these two examples are far more likely to be the product of the cell communities’ God-given autonomous intelligence (the possible existence of which you have agreed to) than the product of his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or his direct dabbling?

DAVID: I don't accept your cell communities theory in any way, but I have agreed that God could have given organisms an inventive mechanism, evidence for which has not been found so far.

A multicellular organism is a community of cell communities. If an organism has an autonomous inventive intelligence, then that is the same as saying the cell communities that constitute the cell community (organism) have an autonomous inventive mechanism. You have accepted that this is possible. Evidence for your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders has not been found so far, and nobody has yet observed God dabbling. We therefore have three alternative, unproven design hypotheses for the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. Your two hypotheses suggest that these were essential to keep life going so that humans could evolve. Mine suggests that they were not essential, and that they provide good examples of how your God’s hypothetical IM would be allowed to go its own way (God obviously doesn’t disapprove so he doesn’t need to interfere.) Of the three hypotheses, which do you think is most likely?

DAVID: Chance or design are the only ways evolution advances. You are still pushing your concept of 'designer-lite'. Remember that is God. Why not accept it?

For the purposes of our discussion, I have accepted that your God may have designed the autonomous mechanism you have agreed may exist. I have suggested that this autonomous, God-made IM provides a better explanation for the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or your direct divine intervention geared to the production of humans. And so which of the three unproven hypotheses do you now think fits in better with the history of evolution as we know it?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Monday, February 13, 2017, 17:06 (2591 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Chance or design are the only ways evolution advances. You are still pushing your concept of 'designer-lite'. Remember that is God. Why not accept it?

dhw: For the purposes of our discussion, I have accepted that your God may have designed the autonomous mechanism you have agreed may exist. I have suggested that this autonomous, God-made IM provides a better explanation for the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or your direct divine intervention geared to the production of humans. And so which of the three unproven hypotheses do you now think fits in better with the history of evolution as we know it?

All the possible mechanisms you describe fit the history of evolution producing the bush of life as we see it. Since I see God as guiding evolution, yours is much less likely as a mechanism. But it is God-lite, not the third way other than chance or design. You still have not offered a true alternative to chance or design.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 12:07 (2590 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Chance or design are the only ways evolution advances. You are still pushing your concept of 'designer-lite'. Remember that is God. Why not accept it?

dhw: For the purposes of our discussion, I have accepted that your God may have designed the autonomous mechanism you have agreed may exist. I have suggested that this autonomous, God-made IM provides a better explanation for the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or your direct divine intervention geared to the production of humans. And so which of the three unproven hypotheses do you now think fits in better with the history of evolution as we know it?

DAVID: All the possible mechanisms you describe fit the history of evolution producing the bush of life as we see it. Since I see God as guiding evolution, yours is much less likely as a mechanism. But it is God-lite, not the third way other than chance or design. You still have not offered a true alternative to chance or design.

OK, that’s settled then: in your view, your hypothesis that the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or resulted from God’s personal intervention - for the purpose of keeping life going so that humans could come on the scene - is far more likely than my hypothesis that the plants and the frog designed their own method of survival, using the autonomous inventive mechanism you accept as a possibility so long as it was designed by your God and its products meet with his approval.

I am not trying to offer an alternative to chance or design. All three hypotheses offer design.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 14:33 (2590 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I am not trying to offer an alternative to chance or design. All three hypotheses offer design.

Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 08:33 (2589 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: OK, that’s settled then: in your view, your hypothesis that the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or resulted from God’s personal intervention - for the purpose of keeping life going so that humans could come on the scene - is far more likely than my hypothesis that the plants and the frog designed their own method of survival, using the autonomous inventive mechanism you accept as a possibility so long as it was designed by your God and its products meet with his approval.
I am not trying to offer an alternative to chance or design. All three hypotheses offer design.

DAVID: Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite.

In this discussion we are not even considering chance. It is now clear, then, that although you actually accept the possibility that God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism, he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. I was only wondering where you would draw the line as to what God might have allowed organisms to invent for themselves, but like the weaverbird’s nest, these examples are too God-lite for you. Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 18:48 (2589 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite.

dhw: In this discussion we are not even considering chance. It is now clear, then, that although you actually accept the possibility that God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism, he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. I was only wondering where you would draw the line as to what God might have allowed organisms to invent for themselves, but like the weaverbird’s nest, these examples are too God-lite for you. Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.

IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Thursday, February 16, 2017, 09:15 (2588 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite.

dhw: In this discussion we are not even considering chance. It is now clear, then, that although you actually accept the possibility that God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism, he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. I was only wondering where you would draw the line as to what God might have allowed organisms to invent for themselves, but like the weaverbird’s nest, these examples are too God-lite for you. Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 16, 2017, 20:34 (2587 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.[/i]

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?

The insect catchers have a complex mechanisms. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think god helped.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by dhw, Friday, February 17, 2017, 14:11 (2587 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?

DAVID: The insect catchers have a complex mechanism. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think god helped.

I have not denied that the mechanisms are complex and I have not suggested “stepwise”. God “helped” is a little odd. Presumably it means these plants and frogs had a great idea but couldn’t quite pull it off, so God stepped in to show them, because without their special methods of catching prey, there would be no balance of nature to enable life to go on so that he could eventually dabble with the brains of pre-humans.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Friday, February 17, 2017, 19:25 (2586 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?

DAVID: The insect catchers have a complex mechanism. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think God helped.

dhw: I have not denied that the mechanisms are complex and I have not suggested “stepwise”. God “helped” is a little odd. Presumably it means these plants and frogs had a great idea but couldn’t quite pull it off, so God stepped in to show them, because without their special methods of catching prey, there would be no balance of nature to enable life to go on so that he could eventually dabble with the brains of pre-humans.

Remember each of these organisms are in their own micro-econiches of balance of nature. It is not one huge balance. I don't think the organisms could pull this off in several steps. They look like they need to be developed all at once, as a saltation. God helping would not be 'odd'.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by BBella @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 05:51 (2586 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.[/i]

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?


The insect catchers have a complex mechanisms. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think god helped.

Using your imagination (it doesnt have to be factual), how would you imagine he helped? Using what methods?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 15:39 (2586 days ago) @ BBella

dhw: Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.[/i]

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?


dhw: The insect catchers have a complex mechanisms. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think god helped.


BBella: Using your imagination (it doesnt have to be factual), how would you imagine he helped? Using what methods?

I don't have to use my imagination. We know the genomic controls are still not completely understood, but speciation occurs. God manipulated internal genome controls.

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by BBella @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 18:58 (2585 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.[/i]

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

dhw: So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?


dhw: The insect catchers have a complex mechanisms. I doubt it could develop stepwise, I think god helped.


BBella: Using your imagination (it doesnt have to be factual), how would you imagine he helped? Using what methods?


I don't have to use my imagination. We know the genomic controls are still not completely understood, but speciation occurs. God manipulated internal genome controls.

I understand those occurrences you pointed out did happen. But, you say above God manipulated internal genome controls. In what way? How? This is where I am asking you to use your imagination as an observer to this manipulation. What do you think you would be observing if you were watching "how" God did it in the moment of time it was done?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 19:14 (2585 days ago) @ BBella

BBella: Using your imagination (it doesnt have to be factual), how would you imagine he helped? Using what methods?


David: I don't have to use my imagination. We know the genomic controls are still not completely understood, but speciation occurs. God manipulated internal genome controls.


BBela: I understand those occurrences you pointed out did happen. But, you say above God manipulated internal genome controls. In what way? How? This is where I am asking you to use your imagination as an observer to this manipulation. What do you think you would be observing if you were watching "how" God did it in the moment of time it was done?

God would have had to change genes with new mutations. He would modify transcription and translation factors, thus changing the direction of genome drives. That is a technical description. He does this with his mind. If you read my entry yesterday on the development of the big brain and all the problems it presents to the Darwin theory, it indicates that must be a designer at work. Do you have an another view in mind?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by BBella @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 21:07 (2585 days ago) @ David Turell

BBella: Using your imagination (it doesnt have to be factual), how would you imagine he helped? Using what methods?


David: I don't have to use my imagination. We know the genomic controls are still not completely understood, but speciation occurs. God manipulated internal genome controls.


BBela: I understand those occurrences you pointed out did happen. But, you say above God manipulated internal genome controls. In what way? How? This is where I am asking you to use your imagination as an observer to this manipulation. What do you think you would be observing if you were watching "how" God did it in the moment of time it was done?


God would have had to change genes with new mutations. He would modify transcription and translation factors, thus changing the direction of genome drives. That is a technical description. He does this with his mind. If you read my entry yesterday on the development of the big brain and all the problems it presents to the Darwin theory, it indicates that must be a designer at work. Do you have an another view in mind?

I understand you mean by the mind of God, but if you were observing this change in the genome as it's happening, would you see a sudden change as if by magic, for no apparent external/internal reason?

Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 18, 2017, 23:42 (2585 days ago) @ BBella


God would have had to change genes with new mutations. He would modify transcription and translation factors, thus changing the direction of genome drives. That is a technical description. He does this with his mind. If you read my entry yesterday on the development of the big brain and all the problems it presents to the Darwin theory, it indicates that must be a designer at work. Do you have an another view in mind?


BBella; I understand you mean by the mind of God, but if you were observing this change in the genome as it's happening, would you see a sudden change as if by magic, for no apparent external/internal reason?

That is what I would think. When one looks at speciation it is always in big jumps in body form (phenotype) and function. No tiny steps are ever found. This is Gould's reason for developing the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Natures wonders: new gecko sheds scales, escapes

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2017, 16:10 (2595 days ago) @ David Turell

A new type of lizard has scales! sheds them in escape:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48388/title/A-New-Species-of-Geck...

"Geckolepis megalepis, a gecko from Madagascar, has a unique survival strategy. When under attack the lizard sheds it skin, leaving predators with a mouthful of scales as it runs away with its pink flesh exposed. Researchers described this new species in PeerJ on Tuesday (February 7).

"Tearaway skin is not the only thing that makes these creatures unique—they are also one of only a few species of gecko that have large, fish-like scales. "What's really remarkable though is that these scales—which are really dense and may even be bony, and must be quite energetically costly to produce—and the skin beneath them tear away with such ease, and can be regenerated quickly and without a scar," Mark Scherz, study co-author and a doctoral student at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, said in a statement.

"These skin-shedding creatures are not easy specimens to study. "Generally, what we do is lure the geckos into a container or plastic bag, so that we have the minimum possible contact with them," Scherz told Live Science. "It is possible to catch them by hand without losing scales, but it takes a lot of practice and is not always successful.'"

Comment: The bush of life gets weirder! How did this develop?

Natures wonders: army ant has a passenger

by David Turell @, Monday, February 13, 2017, 20:31 (2590 days ago) @ David Turell

A tiny beetle hitches a ride on the back end of an ant while the army ants are on the move:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120872-new-beetle-species-bites-army-ants-butt-an...

"Nymphister kronaueri uses its mandibles to do this when its hosts are on the move to a new nest, attaching between the ant’s thorax and abdomen.

"This emerged after Christoph von Beeren at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany and Daniel Kronauer at the Rockefeller University in New York noticed that an ant they were observing in a collection vial looked as though it had two abdomens.

“'When Daniel shook the vial, the beetle detached and expanded its legs and antennae. That is the moment we realised we had discovered something new here,” says von Beeren.

"Hitching rides with army ants in this way is nothing new. Other critters regularly ride on their backs, follow in their wake on foot, or stow themselves on top of “booty” that the ants carry from nest to nest. N. kronaueri’s method of clinging on as a second rear end appears to be unique, however.

"The army ants, which assume the role of an unwitting rainforest taxi service, might have a hard time noticing that N. kronaueri is there: the beetle has cunning adaptations to look like its host’s abdomen, being similar in both size and appearance.

"It may seem strange that the ant wouldn’t notice a beetle hanging from its rear, and precisely how the creature fools both its host and others in the colony is still unknown.

"What exactly N. kronaueri gains from all this deception is not well understood either, because information about its basic biology has yet to be collected.
But other hitchhiking species exploit ant colonies for protection from predators, to find a place to sleep, and so they can get food easily without having to look too hard themselves.

"Joseph Parker at Columbia University in New York says that when looking at adaptations in species that live with and depend on ants, the “bizarre almost becomes the norm”. But among those, he says, N. kronaueri’s adaptation is one of the most remarkable.

"Given that N. kronaueri managed to go undetected by people, despite living with one of the most well-studied species of army ant (Eciton mexicanum), von Beeren suggests it’s highly likely there are more of these bizarre critters out there waiting to be found.

"Parker agrees, adding that the strategic use of ants by other species is an underexplored area of biology: “This is evolution at its most extreme: the more we look, the more these creatures force us to modify our ideas of how organisms make a living.'”

Comment: This activity does not seem complex unless you note the fact that the beetle has used a biomimetic approach, looking like the back end of the ant. The beetle had to evolve that look, possibly by epigenetic alterations. This might be good evidence for dhw's favorite 'cell community' adaptation. Still the same species, however.

Natures wonders: plant munchers defend themselves

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 19, 2017, 23:57 (2584 days ago) @ David Turell

A strange symbiotic relationship in which worms and beetles and caterpillars have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria who help turn off the plants own defenses:

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-three-way-herbivores-microbes-unveiled.html

"'Plants are subject to attack by an onslaught of microbes and herbivores, yet are able to specifically perceive the threat and mount appropriate defenses," said Gary W. Felton, professor and head of entomology. "But, herbivores can evade plant defenses by using symbiotic bacteria that deceive the plant into perceiving an herbivore threat as microbial, suppressing the plant's defenses against herbivores."

"Felton's research looked at two crop pests—tomato fruit worms and the Colorado potato beetle—plant reactions to the pests, and the microbes that they carry.

***

"Plants have two lines of defense against these predators. One reaction, regulated by jasmonic acid, comes into play when insects chew on the plant's leaves, stems or fruit, damaging the plant and leaving insect saliva. The other is turned on when an insect regurgitates stomach contents containing microbes onto the plant triggering a response by the plant to microbial pathogens that uses salicylic acid.

"When microbes—viruses and bacteria—are symbiotic companion of the insects, these pathways can be interrupted.

"'Parasitoids (predatory insects) inject eggs into the caterpillar and the developing parasitoid eventually kills the caterpillar," said Felton. "Along with the eggs, the parasitoid injects a symbiotic virus that knocks out the immune system of the caterpillar and kill the component in the caterpillar saliva that signals the plant that it is being attacked."

"When a parasitoid-infected tomato fruit worm attacks a plant, the plant does not realize the caterpillar is chewing on it, none of the chemical defense systems in the plant activate. This benefits the caterpillar and the symbiotic microbe, but does not do much for the plant.

"When the Colorado potato beetle—which likes potato plants, but will eat all the plants in the nightshade family—regurgitates its stomach contents onto a leaf, the bacteria from the beetle's gut triggers the plant's microbial response, but turns off the plant's response to chewing. The bacteria are able to spread and the herbivore, the beetle, gets to strip the leaves without encountering the plant's chemical response

***

"The Colorado potato beetle suppresses the plants chewing response only when the beetles feed on tomatoes or potatoes, not when they feed on other members of the nightshade family like eggplants or peppers. The symbiotic bacteria only develop in the beetle gut when feeding on tomatoes and potatoes."

Comment: How this complex action of organisms developed is difficult to understand, especially when considering a stepwise process. Could it have developed all at once fully intact? Note the last paragraph above, in which symbiotic bacteria are allowed to develop selectively based on the type of plant preyed upon.

Natures wonders: two ant species live together

by David Turell @, Monday, February 20, 2017, 00:11 (2584 days ago) @ David Turell

One type is large and apparently rather placid. The tiny ones are like pit bulls to any invader:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2121545-ant-odd-couple-work-together-to-build-and-...

"One is a massive black ant, the other is a tiny, only distantly related, brown ant. But together they form a perfect team to build and guard a shared nest.

"This insect odd couple is found in the forests of the Lamto Ecological Reserve in Ivory Coast. The 15-millimetre-long Platythyrea conradti is a highly skilled engineer, building nests from the organic material – like leaf mulch – it finds in its environment. Small species then move into the organic matter – providing the large ants with a ready meal.

"One species the large ant doesn’t eat is the 2.5-millimetre-long Strumigenys maynei. This small ant moves into the nests, where its highly aggressive nature helps deter any unwanted invaders.

“'This is a remarkable and rare example of cooperation between two ant species that share little in common,” says Thomas Parmentier, an evolutionary biologist from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. “One is large and the other minuscule, they belong to unrelated genera and have markedly different behaviour.”

Together, though, they can maintain a safe and efficient home, he says.

***

"Parasitic species often sneak into nests by producing odours that match those of their host. But the team’s results show that, in this case, both species produce unique odour cues as they move around the nest. Despite this, the species are almost never aggressive to one another.

“'It was astonishing that both ant species tolerate each other’s presence in spite of clearly distinct nest-mate recognition cues,” says Parmentier. But he says the biggest surprise was how the ants behaved towards intruders.

“'The large Platythyrea ant was very shy and avoided direct confrontations with smaller enemies. The Strumigenys ants were, in contrast, small pitbulls which attacked and deterred enemies very efficiently,” he says.

***

"these two ants seem to form a truly mutually beneficial relationship, called parabiosis, because the two species share a common home and both gain.

"It is still unclear why they might cooperate, says Parmentier. Perhaps the larger ants lack a defence worker caste and the smaller ants took on the job and in return can benefit from the small prey thriving in the nest constructed by Platythyrea."

Comment: This relationship is easy to understand. The personality of each colony compliment each other.

Natures wonders: gulping whales with special nerves

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2017, 00:44 (2583 days ago) @ David Turell

When whales feed they gulp huge volumes of water and stretch out a tissue sac of the lower jaw. This requires the nerves to be very flexible:

http://www.livescience.com/57909-wavy-nerve-lets-whales-stretch-mouth.html?utm_source=l...

"Being a baleen feeder isn't easy. When baleen whales — like the enormous blue whale — gulp up a mouthful of water to filter for food, a pouch of skin under their chins stretches to accommodate the load. This stretch should hurt, but new research finds that whale nerves are specially adapted to prevent these giant beasts from feeling pain.

"A study of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) finds that their nerves have two levels of waviness. The whales' nerves are coiled like an old-fashioned telephone cord so that they can still work when stretched. Within the coils is a second level of waviness that allows the nerve fibers to twist around the curves without stretching.

"'Waviness in nerves per se isn't surprising, but we saw what appeared to be tight
hairpin turns in the tissue that we thought couldn't be right — nerves shouldn't be able to bend so tightly," study leader Margo Lillie, a zoologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in a statement.

***

" a group of baleen whales known for their pleated throats. The pleats allow the whales to take in huge gulps of water, which they then push out of their mouths with their tongues, past their bristle-like baleen. The water gets forced out, while prey gets trapped and swallowed.

"In the fin whale, the throat can expand to 162 percent of its resting circumference when feeding, Lillie and her colleagues wrote in the journal Current Biology. That's a big change for nerves to absorb, so the researchers decided to find out how whale nerves cope.

***

"the researchers used a micro-computed tomography (CT) scanner to get a closer look at the nerve structure. Each nerve was actually a bundle of nerve fibers called fascicles, which had their own small-scale waviness, the scientists found. The wavy structure of the fascicles was most apparent on the inside of the larger coils.

***

"'This made sense from the engineering theory of bending strain, which tells us that when a rod is bent, the material on the outside is stretched and on the inside compressed," Lillie said.

"Two tiers of waviness allow the fascicles to bend within the main nerve core without damage. When the whale has a mouthful of seawater, Lillie and her colleagues wrote, the fascicles are stretched straight, as is the main nerve. As the whale empties its feeding pouch, the fascicles are the first to start folding up. The main nerve relaxes a bit during this phase as the fascicles lend it some slack, but it stays straight.

"As the whale empties its pouch further, the nerve relaxes into its next phase. The main nerve core begins to coil, too. The twists and turns of the main nerve would normally damage the fascicles within, but their coils allow them the slack to traverse the bends of the main nerve without pain or injury, the scientists said."

Comment: It is possible to understand this as a stepwise development, but the changes in the nerves are complex bringing the issue that this had to be designed. Baleen feeding uses flat structures much like a giant venetian blind acting like a sieve when the water is pushed out. Note the complex changes for a mammal who becomes aquatic.

Natures wonders: hydra regeneration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2017, 18:23 (2583 days ago) @ David Turell

Hydras are very simple tubular animals with a thin layer of cells, a tubular body with tentacles that sting, and can regenerate themselves from a bit of body:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/science/hydra-regeneration-video-scitake.html?emc=ed...

"The hydra is a favorite subject of middle school science. It is a fearsome-looking tentacled predator, but it is tiny — less than a half inch — and lives in ponds. You can collect or buy hydras and the tiny crustaceans they eat, then watch the capture under a dissecting microscope. Hydras, like jellyfish, have stinging cells in their tentacles.

"They usually reproduce by budding. If you cut them up in pieces, the odds are good that a piece will become a new hydra, sometimes a hydra with two heads.

***

"Hydras are much simpler, made of just a few layers of cells. But they still respond to chemical signals sent out by genes as they grow into a tubelike body and tentacle-encircled maw.

"However, scientists in Israel, who cut up a lot of hydras in the process of their experiments, found that there are structures in even a small bit of hydra that also guide growth.

"A hydra body has a kind of scaffolding made of protein fibers that act like muscles and help the organism keep its shape. The way these actin fibers are arranged helps determine how the hydra grows, even in a hydra scrap.

***

"this is not simply a matter of growing along the length of the fibers, because the first thing a bit of hydra does in regenerating a full animal is fold into a sphere. Somehow — and this is a subject for future research — the aligned fibers tell the growing ball of cells which direction to grow.

"Some scraps grow better than others. A ring cut horizontally through the body of the hydra often ends up with a confused alignment of the fibers when it folds into a ball. The result may be a hydra with two heads."

Comment: It is amazing what living organisms can do. If the Times website will allow it, look at the one minute video of regeneration. This is a very simple organisms, but some Earthworms can be cut in pieces and each with regenerate, and they are more complex with nerve networks. Lizards can drop tails and replace them.

Natures wonders: tircky flowery fungus

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 23, 2017, 15:14 (2581 days ago) @ David Turell

A fungus uses flowery perfume to lure insects to spread fungus spores:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48063/title/The-Fungus-that-Poses...

Unwanted company
Shriveled, sickly white berries are an unwelcome sight on any blueberry farm, symptoms of a crop-wasting infection called mummy berry disease. Researchers recently profiled the modus operandi of the fungus responsible, Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi (Mvc), uncovering a previously unappreciated tactic for spreading its spores.

"Faking it
The fungus starts off as an airborne spore riding on the breeze, waiting to land on a new leaf of a blueberry plant. There, the spore multiplies and exudes a sticky, sugary, fragrant, spore-laden film, which is called a pseudoflower for its ability to attract insects. Visiting pollinators carry the spores to real flowers, giving the fungus the opportunity to invade nascent fruits that eventually shrivel, fall to the ground, and crack open to release more spores to the wind.

"Tools of the con
The adaptive role of the pseudoflower has not been clear, says Cornell University ecologist Scott McArt. Other fungal pseudoflowers fall into two categories: some mimic their host flower, while others form their own, unique kind of flower. To draw the distinction, McArt and his colleagues analyzed the volatile compounds responsible for the Mvc pseudoflower’s scent and discovered a close match to those released by actual blueberry flowers. “The degree of the mimicry is pretty extraordinary,” says University of Oregon ecologist Bitty Roy.

"Aiding and abetting
A genetic analysis found Mvc fungal DNA on 56 percent of bees and wasps and 31 percent of flies captured, implicating them as spore vectors. But behavioral data on the preference for infected versus uninfected plants was equivocal, leaving the insects’ exact roles to be quantified in future field studies."

Comment: What is interesting is the DNA transfer. Did this spore transfer mechanism start with all parts operational from the beginning.? Hard to imagine how it developed bit by bit.

Natures wonders: dating by light flash frequency

by David Turell @, Friday, February 24, 2017, 21:42 (2579 days ago) @ David Turell

A technique used by blow flies:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/dating-advice-from-a-blow-fly?utm_source=Today+in+Co...

"A recent study led by Simon Fraser University researcher Gerhard Gries uncovered the dating tool utilised by blow flies to filter out incompatible contenders and find their perfect soul mate.

"The research published in BioMed Central unveiled that the complex sexual communication system was orchestrated by photoreceptors located within the fly’s eyes. “We discovered that the immense processing speed of flow flies’ photoreceptors in their large sexually dimorphic eyes played a critical role in their visual mate recognition system” says Gries.

"Young single female blow flies shared their personal mating profiles by reflecting light off their wings at the precise frequency of 178, Hertz (Hz), or light flashes per second, to attract their male counterparts which communicate at a frequency of 212 Hz. “They use light flash frequency from their wings to communicate to their peer’s things like age, sex and even mating status” Gris explains.

"In this study, researchers mimicked this form of sexual communication by utilising a pulsing LED light set to 178 Hz to match the frequency of the female blow fly signals.

"Remarkably, the transmission of these light flashes alone was sufficient to attract male blow flies, even in the absence of any female flies.

"The intricacies of this dating system enables single blow flies on the search for a mate the ability to be a bit picky.

"They can screen for the desired age and sex of their prospective partners simply by filtering out certain flash frequencies from the pool of all those transmitted."

Comment: This would seem to require a learning process. Each sex would have to interpret the frequency of the other sex and interpret the flashes.

Natures wonders: caterpillar vibrations communicate?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 28, 2017, 17:07 (2576 days ago) @ David Turell

Caterpillars appear to communicate to each other by vibrating body parts:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2122825-caterpillars-vibrate-anuses-to-send-food-a...

:The tiny birch caterpillar makes special vibrations, inaudible to human ears, using their mouths, body and anal parts. These appear to send out information about food and shelter to other caterpillars nearby.

:Within a couple of hours, a small group of some 2-6 individuals forms around the drummer – a behaviour that may provide safety from predators or bad weather.

“These tiny caterpillars produce a complex diversity of signals – they shake their bodies, drum and scrape their mouthparts, and drag specialised anal ‘oars’ against the leaf surface to create bizarre signals,” says evolutionary biologist Jayne Yack at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, who led the new study.

***

"The study is the first to provide evidence for the use of vibratory signals for complex acoustic communication in caterpillars, Yack says.

"But why does this tiny caterpillar need such a complex repertoire of signals? This is still not clear, says Yack. “But probably they are using different signals to gauge distance or different food quality, or to help others localise the source,” she adds.

"In fact, the vibrations continue even after the group has formed. “They keep communicating with each other,” says Yack. “Maybe they are saying things like ‘hey, we need to fix this big hole in the shelter’ or ‘Hey guys, I’m over here! I found a really good feeding spot!’ or perhaps ‘Move over! this is MY spot!’

"Until recently caterpillars were thought to rely primarily on chemical signals such as pheromones to communicate – unlike insects such as wasps, bees and ants, which use both vibratory and chemical signals to communicate information about food or safety.

"In an earlier study, Yack’s team discovered the vibratory signals in the late stages of these caterpillars. They found that the signals were used to solve territorial disputes – the anal scraping, for example, was thought to have evolved as a way to avoid one-to one confrontations.

"The latest study reveals a whole new facet of this behaviour. Yack’s team recorded the vibrations made by the early stages of these caterpillars, as they formed their groups.

"Analysis of the sounds showed that they produce four different types of vibratory signals associated with feeding and silk-making, which is used to build shelters. They used their mandibles and anal parts to scrape the surface of the leaf, shook their body to make a buzzing sound, and drummed with their mandibles.

"The big difference between the vibrational signals sent by these young caterpillars compared with their older counterparts lies in the intentions, says Yack. These younger caterpillars only use their vibrations to tell other caterpillars about food and shelter, rather than to fight over a piece of leaf.

***

"However, not everyone agrees that the caterpillars are using the vibrations to communicate. Tomer Czaczkes, from the University of Regensburg in Germany, says there might be another explanation.

“'For me the smoking gun is missing: without playing back the vibrations to caterpillars, and seeing them approach the vibrations, we don’t actually know it’s the vibrations that are important. Maybe the caterpillars are releasing chemicals while doing this scraping behaviour?” he says."

Comment: If true it looks like a learned behaviour. There are many ways to communicate by making sounds or using chemical pheromones.

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 01, 2017, 18:08 (2575 days ago) @ David Turell

Specialized symbiotic bacteria control insect reproduction. he entire process is not completely understood:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48647/title/How-Bacteria-Interfer...

"Two papers published in Nature and Nature Microbiology yesterday (February 27) resolve one of the longest-standing puzzles in entomology: how Wolbachia bacteria cause cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) in their insect hosts. This strategic sterility, in which bacteria-infected female insects can reproduce readily while uninfected ones struggle, turns out to be regulated by two neighboring bacterial genes that encode interacting proteins.

"Wolbachia bacteria are intracellular parasites that infect approximately two-thirds of the world’s arthropods. Passed onto offspring via infection of the egg, but not sperm, these bacteria have developed a range of reproduction-manipulating mechanisms that ensure their continued prevalence. Chief among these is CI, a phenomenon in which infected males can only successfully reproduce with infected females. Matings with uninfected females result in early embryonic death. In some cases, matings with females carrying a competing Wolbachia strain also fails to yield offspring,
Because CI is such a widespread phenomenon, and because it is employed in strategies to stamp out insect pests—or the diseases they carry—researchers would like to know how it works.

“'People have been trying to figure out the molecular mechanisms and the genes responsible for CI . . . for a long time—decades,” said entomologist and epidemiologist Jason Rasgon of Penn State University who also did not participate in the research. “It’s one of the holy grails in the Wolbachia community.”

"But it has not been an easy question to answer, explained Seth Bordenstein of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who led the Nature study. For one thing, he said, the bacteria live inside cells and are “fastidiuous.”

“'It’s very difficult to work with these bacteria outside of their host cell environment. You can’t culture them,” he explained, which makes genetic manipulations troublesome."

Comment: Evolution has resulted in some strange arrangements. This on is not fully understood and I've left out the genome research which is incomplete. But what has happened is that the Wolbachia have found a comfortable home in most insects to continue their lifestyle. why they interfere with reproduction is still not fully understood. I have no idea if God played a role because we don't know if any purpose is present.

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by dhw, Thursday, March 02, 2017, 13:14 (2574 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: Evolution has resulted in some strange arrangements. This one is not fully understood and I've left out the genome research which is incomplete. But what has happened is that the Wolbachia have found a comfortable home in most insects to continue their lifestyle. why they interfere with reproduction is still not fully understood. I have no idea if God played a role because we don't know if any purpose is present.

If they have found a comfortable home, I would regard that as a purpose in itself. All living organisms have the purpose of survival. You have always been resolute in your insistence that other organisms have to be guided or preprogrammed by your God with all their innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, and that since bacteria do not have a brain they are incapable of working anything out for themselves. I’m therefore a little surprised and quite excited that you now think they may have worked out this mode of survival without any input from your God.

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by David Turell @, Friday, March 03, 2017, 00:45 (2573 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: Evolution has resulted in some strange arrangements. This one is not fully understood and I've left out the genome research which is incomplete. But what has happened is that the Wolbachia have found a comfortable home in most insects to continue their lifestyle. why they interfere with reproduction is still not fully understood. I have no idea if God played a role because we don't know if any purpose is present.

dhw: If they have found a comfortable home, I would regard that as a purpose in itself. All living organisms have the purpose of survival. You have always been resolute in your insistence that other organisms have to be guided or preprogrammed by your God with all their innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, and that since bacteria do not have a brain they are incapable of working anything out for themselves. I’m therefore a little surprised and quite excited that you now think they may have worked out this mode of survival without any input from your God.

They found a comfortable accepting home as you say. Since infections occur, it may have happened by chance. we don't know if God has a role, since we don't understand the process or see if purpose might be inferred. I equate God's role as being discovered if showing a purpose appears to be present, i.e., the arrival of humans with their giant brain. What infers some purpose is that so many insects are infected. Either the infections occur easily or God may be involved.

Natures wonders: vines taste to climb other plants

by David Turell @, Friday, March 03, 2017, 01:43 (2573 days ago) @ David Turell

This study illustrates the tasting. Since they are limber they want to find strong to climb:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123328-climbing-plants-use-taste-to-avoid-clingin...

"Climbing plants are known to have a highly attuned sense of touch, which helps them scale other plants and structures. As soon as their tendrils brush up against a potential scaffold, they coil tightly around it.

"Yuya Fukano at the University of Tokyo has now shown that some vines can also sense chemicals. If they don’t like the “taste” of the plant to which they are tethered, they will uncoil themselves and retreat.

"Fukano found that tendrils of the Cayratia japonica vine only stayed wrapped around other plants if they were non-vine species like shrubs. When presented with other C. japonica specimens, they held on for less than 2 hours.

***

"As for how vines can tell what plants they are in contact with, Fukano showed that C. japonica tendrils can taste a chemical called oxalate. C. japonica itself contains high levels of oxalate, so detecting the chemical tells the tendril whether it is touching a member of its own – or a different – species.

"When presented with a variety of plants, the vine avoided those with high oxalate contents the most. It also avoided plastic sticks coated with oxalate, but not other chemicals, like agarose and citric acid.

"This is the first report of a plant being able to sense chemical cues via direct contact, Fukano says. Some parasitic plants can “smell” chemicals emitted by other plants, but oxalate is non-volatile and so can only be detected upon contact.

"Fukano and his colleagues have now shown that several species of vines are also capable of chemical sensing during contact, suggesting the ability may be widespread among this group of plants.

"The next step will be to determine exactly how plants detect chemicals. One possibility is that vine tendrils contain oxalate receptors, says Fukano.

"It’s a feasible theory, says Mike Haydon at the University of Melbourne, Australia, but he feels it’s not conclusive that oxalate is the compound that’s being sensed. “It could be some other chemical signal,” he says. “We have a lot to learn about plant receptors that sense signals from the environment.'”

Comment: Since vines must climb to survive, this mechanism must have appeared at the same time, all at once, when the plant developed, not step by step. Saltation? Probably.

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by dhw, Friday, March 03, 2017, 12:42 (2573 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: All living organisms have the purpose of survival. You have always been resolute in your insistence that other organisms have to be guided or preprogrammed by your God with all their innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, and that since bacteria do not have a brain they are incapable of working anything out for themselves. I’m therefore a little surprised and quite excited that you now think they may have worked out this mode of survival without any input from your God.

DAVID: They found a comfortable accepting home as you say. Since infections occur, it may have happened by chance. we don't know if God has a role, since we don't understand the process or see if purpose might be inferred. I equate God's role as being discovered if showing a purpose appears to be present, i.e., the arrival of humans with their giant brain. What infers some purpose is that so many insects are infected. Either the infections occur easily or God may be involved.

You wrote: “what has happened is that the Wolbachia have found a comfortable home in most insects to continue their lifestyle.” That is their purpose, just as it is the purpose of the weaverbird to build itself a comfortable home (difficult to connect with the arrival of humans and their giant brain), and the purpose of carnivorous plants and frogs and parasitic wasps to find ways of ensuring their survival or continuing their lifestyle. According to you, only God could devise the methods and apparatus they use, whereas I propose that they work it all out for themselves. I see very little difference between the parasitism of the wasps and that of the Wolbachia. So please tell me: if your God is not involved, how do you think the bacteria devised this particular lifestyle?

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by David Turell @, Friday, March 03, 2017, 15:18 (2573 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: According to you, only God could devise the methods and apparatus they use, whereas I propose that they work it all out for themselves. I see very little difference between the parasitism of the wasps and that of the Wolbachia. So please tell me: if your God is not involved, how do you think the bacteria devised this particular lifestyle?

You apparently did not read this sentence of mine: Since infections occur, it may have happened by chance. we don't know if God has a role, since we don't understand the process or see if purpose might be inferred. The Wolbachia simply infected the Crustaceans and the rest followed.

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by dhw, Saturday, March 04, 2017, 13:04 (2572 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:You wrote: “what has happened is that the Wolbachia have found a comfortable home in most insects to continue their lifestyle.” That is their purpose, just as it is the purpose of the weaverbird to build itself a comfortable home (difficult to connect with the arrival of humans and their giant brain), and the purpose of carnivorous plants and frogs and parasitic wasps to find ways of ensuring their survival or continuing their lifestyle. According to you, only God could devise the methods and apparatus they use, whereas I propose that they work it all out for themselves. I see very little difference between the parasitism of the wasps and that of the Wolbachia. So please tell me: if your God is not involved, how do you think the bacteria devised this particular lifestyle?

DAVID: You apparently did not read this sentence of mine: Since infections occur, it may have happened by chance. we don't know if God has a role, since we don't understand the process or see if purpose might be inferred. The Wolbachia simply infected the Crustaceans and the rest followed.

I dealt with purpose above. I agree with you that it is perfectly possible for organisms to discover new lifestyles by chance, and indeed I suspect that may well be the origin of many parasitic and symbiotic systems. The next step, of course (glossed over by the expression “the rest followed”) concerns those twin pillars of intelligent education, observation and communication, both of which bacteria are obviously perfectly capable of. And so, theistic version, once your God has given them the powers of observation and communication and the ability to use the information obtained and communicated, who knows what discoveries bacteria and other organisms might make, whether by chance or by experimentation, and entirely without your God having to play any further role at all?

Natures wonders: bacteria control insect reproduction

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 04, 2017, 14:50 (2572 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You apparently did not read this sentence of mine: Since infections occur, it may have happened by chance. we don't know if God has a role, since we don't understand the process or see if purpose might be inferred. The Wolbachia simply infected the Crustaceans and the rest followed.


dhw: I dealt with purpose above. I agree with you that it is perfectly possible for organisms to discover new lifestyles by chance, and indeed I suspect that may well be the origin of many parasitic and symbiotic systems. The next step, of course (glossed over by the expression “the rest followed”) concerns those twin pillars of intelligent education, observation and communication, both of which bacteria are obviously perfectly capable of. And so, theistic version, once your God has given them the powers of observation and communication and the ability to use the information obtained and communicated, who knows what discoveries bacteria and other organisms might make, whether by chance or by experimentation, and entirely without your God having to play any further role at all?

I agree with you but I still think their reactions and communications are more automatic than you do.

Natures wonders: bees smelly feet hlp hunt flowers

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 07, 2017, 17:55 (2569 days ago) @ David Turell

They can recognize an essence of flower type and of hive mate traces:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170307100352.htm

"Scientists from the University of Bristol have discovered that bumblebees have the ability to use 'smelly footprints' to make the distinction between their own scent, the scent of a relative and the scent of a stranger.

"And by using this ability, bees can improve their success at finding good sources of food and avoid flowers that have already been visited and mined of nutrients by recognising who has been there previously.

***

"'Bumblebees secrete a substance whenever they touch their feet to a surface, much like us leaving fingerprints on whatever we touch.

"'Marks of this invisible substance can be detected by themselves and other bumblebees, and are referred to as scent-marks.

"'We performed three separate experiments with bumblebees, where they were repeatedly exposed to rewarding and unrewarding flowers simultaneously that had footprints from different bees attached to them."

"Each flower type either carried scent-marks from bumblebees of differing relatedness (either their own marks, sisters from their nest, or strangers from another nest), or were unmarked.

"They discovered that bees were able to distinguish between these four different flower types, showing that not only can bees tell the marks of their own nest mates from strangers, but also that they can discriminate between the smell of their own footprints and those of their nest mate sisters.

"Richard Pearce added: "This is the first time it has been shown that bumblebees can tell the difference between their scent and the scent of their family members. This ability could help them to remember which flowers they have visited recently.

"'Bumblebees are flexible learners and, as we have discovered, can detect whether or not it is they or a different bumblebee that has visited a flower recently. These impressive abilities allows them to be cleverer in their search for food, which will help them to be more successful.'"

Comment: Not at all surprising that bees have this ability. After all they dance to give other bees the directions to food flowers.

Natures wonders:fish sense with electrical fields

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 08, 2017, 16:28 (2568 days ago) @ David Turell

A variety of fish can sense electrical fields. it is now understood how the mechanism works:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48748/title/How-Skates--Sharks-Us...

"Sharks, rays, and skates can detect minute fluctuations in electric fields—signals as subtle as a small fish breathing within the vicinity—and rely on specialized electrosensory cells to navigate, and hunt for prey hidden in the sand. But how these elasmobranch fish separate signal from noise has long baffled scientists. In an environment full of tiny electrical impulses, how does the skate home in on prey?

"In a study published this week (March 6) in Nature, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), have analyzed the electrosensory cells of the little skate (Leucoraja erinacea). They found that voltage-gated calcium channels within these cells appear to work in concert with calcium-activated potassium channels, both specifically tuned in the little skate to pick up on weak electrical signals.

***

"Every time a fish breathes, seawater contacts the animal’s mucus membrane and generates a minor electrical field. Skates and other elasmobranch fish evolved to pick up on these electrical blips and use them to find hidden prey, navigate treacherous waters, and avoid undesirable fish.

***

"Bellono and colleagues first isolated electrosensory cells from little skate ampullary organs. “These are tough experiments,” Julius said. “The cells in these ampullary organs are very small and hard to get out. The technical aspect of this was actually quite challenging.” The researchers then measured ionic currents within the cells in response to different electrical stimuli. “We found that there were these two major currents, a calcium current and a potassium current, coupled to one another,” Bellono said, noting that these currents amplify small electrical signals. The team then carried out gene expression experiments to confirm the presence of specialized calcium and potassium channels within the cells. “We were trying to close the gap between genetics and physiology,” Julius said.

"In a final experiment, the researchers used drugs to block these channels in several skate specimens, and compared their hunting abilities to those of wild-type skates. The team then hid electrical apparatuses under the sand in a skate tank, and watched as wild-type skates homed in on the signal while the altered skates did not. “In perfect world you’d use genetics, like in mice, and you’d knock out the genes of interest and ask if you’ve perturbed this behavior,” Julius said. “In skates we can’t do this, so we used the next best thing to block the ion channels—pharmacology.”

***

"Christopher Braun of Hunter College in New York City agreed. “It’s really interesting, because it shows a mechanism of tuning that adjusts the sensitivity of those electroreceptor cells to the stimuli that the animal cares about,” he said. “The ionic mechanisms the paper describes make it very clear how the cells can be specifically tuned into those stimuli that are ecologically relevant.”

"Braun added that his own work focuses on how animals sort stimuli, and differentiate between their own electrical discharges and that of other animals. “That difference is often based on frequency,” Braun said. “The cellular mechanisms described in this paper provide a very low level way for the brain to only receive information that’s important to it, and not be distracted by other information.'”

Comment: Evolved or designed? If not present at first, how do the fish get to sense prey and eat? Seems to be irreducibly complex and had to be a saltation.

Natures wonders: strange virus wasp symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, March 10, 2017, 15:49 (2566 days ago) @ David Turell

The virus changes the sex ratio of offspring of the wasp and lengthens its life span:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/gender-bending-virus-grants-insect-killing-wasps-lon...

"The virus infects a chalcid wasp called Pteromalus puparum, a parasitoid. This means it lays its eggs in other living insects. Butterfly caterpillars are a particular favourite.

"A team led by Gongyin Ye from Zhejiang University in China discovered the virus when trawling through the wasp’s transcriptome – a read-out of the wasp’s active genes. The team noted that one of the read-outs didn’t belong to the wasp, but to a virus.

"Wasps and viruses often form symbiotic alliances against their insect hosts. For example, some wasps need particular viruses in order to produce the pathogens necessary to defeat host-insect immune systems and thus boost survival chances for implanted eggs.

"Ye’s team recognised the previously unknown virus as a member of the family Nyamiviridae. They dubbed it Pteromalus puparum negative-strand RNA virus 1, or PpNSRV-1 for short.

"The researchers wanted to find out whether it confers any advantages on the wasp – and it turns out that it does, at least in the laboratory.

"Wasps infected with the virus lived about a third longer than uninfected ones. It’s not yet known whether this effect will hold for wasps in the wild – where the team found infection rates running between 17% and 38% – but if it does, it could suggest a nifty evolutionary strategy on the part of both partners: the longer the wasp lives, the greater its opportunity to spread the virus.

"But that’s not all the virus does. It also skews the sex ratio of the wasps, reducing by around half the number of females that hatch.

“'It’s quite unusual,” says entomologist Ary Hoffmann from the University of Melbourne, who was not involved in the study. Whereas there are several examples of insect-infecting bacteria that kill males, he says, “here we have an example of a virus that seems to be doing the opposite”.

"Teasing out the virus’s effects in wild wasp populations and butterfly hosts will require further work.

"According to Hoffman, the study highlights the staggering diversity of insect infections, both viral and bacterial, that are only now coming to light thanks to advances in molecular sequencing techniques.

“'There is this amazing biodiversity of [insect] viruses out there and we really don't know much about them,” he says."

Comment: Looks like an accidental relationship with no important purposeful results. We must await more research.

Natures wonders: beetles look like army ants, eat young

by David Turell @, Friday, March 10, 2017, 21:36 (2565 days ago) @ David Turell

A real trick of mimicking as a look alike. these beetles really resemble army ants and hang around to eat their young:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124050-sneaky-beetles-evolved-disguise-to-look-li...

"It’s one of the sneakiest ploys that has ever evolved. Rove beetles blend seamlessly into army ant societies, but instead of helping out, they devour the young of their unsuspecting companions.

"The deceit is so successful that it has independently evolved in at least 12 parasitic rove beetle species – a phenomenon called convergent evolution.

"The beetles’ entire body shape evolved to resemble the army ants they prey on, and they smell and act like the ants too. They even go marching on raids with them.

“'What we found is that multiple times, the ancestors of these rove beetles adapted to life inside army ant colonies,” says Joseph Parker at Columbia University in New York. “Each time, their body shape and behaviour underwent the same radical changes.”

"Parker discovered the phenomenon with his colleague, Munetoshi Maruyama of Kyushu University Museum in Fukuoka, Japan. He says the finding challenges arguments by famous palaeontologist and author Stephen Jay Gould and others that completely different creatures would evolve if the evolutionary clock was restarted from scratch.

"Instead, the findings suggest that evolution may take the same predictable path whenever a certain scenario arises. In this case, beetles first prey on army ants directly, but later evolve to sneak into the army itself.

***

"DNA analysis of the beetles allowed him and Maruyama to assemble a family tree showing how all the species were related and to estimate their divergence from each other. The creatures seem to have last shared a common ancestor 105 million years ago, around the same time that our ancestors diverged from mice.

"Parker says the length of time since the common ancestor in this example of convergent evolution is remarkable, because most known examples from elsewhere in the animal kingdom — including marsupials, cichlids, stickleback fish, and mammal teeth and ears – happened in the past few million years.

***

"The beetles are remarkably adept at mimicking the shape of the ants, which have disproportionately long hind legs, tiny constricted waists and a rear body segment that protrudes upwards at an angle.

“'The ants are blind and use chemical and, we believe, tactile signals to recognise nest mates, so our evidence indicates that the beetles mimic the ant shape to ‘feel’ like a real one,” says Parker.

“'The most remarkable thing is the fact that this exceptional body shape has independently evolved at least 12 times, indicating a certain level of predictability in the evolution of ant-associated rove beetles,”

***

"The beetles have also evolved to smell like ants, developing hydrocarbon-based scents on their outer body surface that mimic those on ants. “The beetles are often seen grooming the ant bodies, presumably to physically procure these chemicals from their hosts,” says Parker.

"But over the millennia, have the beetles evolved to earn their keep by serving some useful purpose for the army ants?

“'This is something we’re very interested in,” says Parker. “Maybe the beetles produce something in their various glands that’s in some way beneficial to the ants. Perhaps they also feed on things like mites attached to the ants’ bodies, and this kind of effect might keep the colony’s parasite burden down.”

"How the rove beetles seek out mates among the army hordes is also a mystery.

“'If their main chemical profiles match those of the host ants, maybe they use alternative chemicals to recognise mates,” says Parker. “The likelihood is that they breed within the army ant colony, but there’s much we don’t know, including where they lay their eggs, where their larvae develop, and what the larvae even look like.'”

Comment: This could not have developed stepwise or the ants would have attacked the beetles. Saltation? DNA studies showing the convergence in many beetle species indicate the adaptation was built into their DNA perhaps as the beetles developed.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 12, 2017, 01:18 (2564 days ago) @ David Turell

Fabulous long range vision from its complex compound eye and high speed in flight allows it to hone in at a fast closing angle to get its prey:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309142257.htm

"A small fly the size of a grain of rice could be the Top Gun of the fly world, with a remarkable ability to detect and intercept its prey mid-air, changing direction mid-flight if necessary before sweeping round for the kill.

***

"The robber fly has incredibly sophisticated eyes: like all flies, it has compound eyes made up of many lenses -- in the case of the robber fly, it is thought to have several thousand lenses per eye. However, unlike many species of fly, it has a range of lens sizes, from just over 20 microns to around 78 microns -- the width of a human hair. The larger lenses are the same size as those of a dragonfly, which is believed to have the best vision of all insects but is 10 times larger, and help reduce diffraction which would otherwise distort the image.

***

" the robber fly has a concentration of larger lenses in the centre of its vision, accounting for only around one thousandth of its visual space. The lenses get smaller in size around the outside of the eye. Importantly, the team of researchers also showed that below the very large central lenses, this robber fly has evolved extremely small light detectors, which are placed almost parallel to each other and much further away from the lens than normal. This arrangement preserves the high local image resolution, which is very close to that of much larger dragonflies.

"When it sees a potential prey, the fly launches itself upwards while maintaining a 'constant bearing angle' -- in other words, it moves in a direction such that while moving closer and closer to its prey, it still maintains the same relative bearing. This ensures that it will intercept its prey.

***

"This strategy of maintaining the constant relative bearing also allows the robber fly to manoeuvre itself mid-air in the event that its prey changes direction. The researchers demonstrated this by switching the direction of their fake prey while the robber fly was mid-flight and observing how the fly responded.

"Once the fly is around 29 cm away from its prey -- though exactly how it judges this distance is still unclear -- the fly displays a remarkable strategy never before observed in a flying animal. It 'locks-on' to its prey while changing its own trajectory, enabling it to sweep round, slow down and come alongside the prey to make its final attack.

"'What you see is similar to a baton pass in a relay race: when the two runners are heading in a similar direction and speed, they are more likely to be successful than if they are passing each other at ninety degrees," says Dr Trevor Wardill.

"The researchers believe the robber fly's sensory system, which maximises precision in its vision while minimising the amount of information needing processing, is the key to its ability to capture prey as accurately is it does while retaining such a small body size."

Comment: Amazing how that tiny brain computes the calculus of baring in on a snack. I would put this in the category of another saltation. I can't imagine the insect learning tis stepwise. It would have stayed very hungry.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 12, 2017, 18:59 (2563 days ago) @ David Turell

Fabulous long range vision from its complex compound eye and high speed in flight allows it to hone in at a fast closing angle to get its prey:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309142257.htm

"A small fly the size of a grain of rice could be the Top Gun of the fly world, with a remarkable ability to detect and intercept its prey mid-air, changing direction mid-flight if necessary before sweeping round for the kill.

***

"The robber fly has incredibly sophisticated eyes: like all flies, it has compound eyes made up of many lenses -- in the case of the robber fly, it is thought to have several thousand lenses per eye. However, unlike many species of fly, it has a range of lens sizes, from just over 20 microns to around 78 microns -- the width of a human hair. The larger lenses are the same size as those of a dragonfly, which is believed to have the best vision of all insects but is 10 times larger, and help reduce diffraction which would otherwise distort the image.

***

" the robber fly has a concentration of larger lenses in the centre of its vision, accounting for only around one thousandth of its visual space. The lenses get smaller in size around the outside of the eye. Importantly, the team of researchers also showed that below the very large central lenses, this robber fly has evolved extremely small light detectors, which are placed almost parallel to each other and much further away from the lens than normal. This arrangement preserves the high local image resolution, which is very close to that of much larger dragonflies.

"When it sees a potential prey, the fly launches itself upwards while maintaining a 'constant bearing angle' -- in other words, it moves in a direction such that while moving closer and closer to its prey, it still maintains the same relative bearing. This ensures that it will intercept its prey.

***

"This strategy of maintaining the constant relative bearing also allows the robber fly to manoeuvre itself mid-air in the event that its prey changes direction. The researchers demonstrated this by switching the direction of their fake prey while the robber fly was mid-flight and observing how the fly responded.

"Once the fly is around 29 cm away from its prey -- though exactly how it judges this distance is still unclear -- the fly displays a remarkable strategy never before observed in a flying animal. It 'locks-on' to its prey while changing its own trajectory, enabling it to sweep round, slow down and come alongside the prey to make its final attack.

"'What you see is similar to a baton pass in a relay race: when the two runners are heading in a similar direction and speed, they are more likely to be successful than if they are passing each other at ninety degrees," says Dr Trevor Wardill.

"The researchers believe the robber fly's sensory system, which maximises precision in its vision while minimising the amount of information needing processing, is the key to its ability to capture prey as accurately is it does while retaining such a small body size."

Comment: Amazing how that tiny brain computes the calculus of baring in on a snack. I would put this in the category of another saltation. I can't imagine the insect learning tis stepwise. It would have stayed very hungry.

I might add another comment: How did that very complex compound eye develop? Not stepwise either. It requires a designer.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by dhw, Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 08:47 (2562 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’S comment: Amazing how that tiny brain computes the calculus of baring in on a snack. I would put this in the category of another saltation. I can't imagine the insect learning tis stepwise. It would have stayed very hungry.

DAVID: I might add another comment: How did that very complex compound eye develop? Not stepwise either. It requires a designer.

I hadn’t intended to comment on this, as my comments have become just as repetitive as your own, but I wouldn’t want you to think that these wonderful articles go unread. Firstly, I don’t have a problem with the idea that generations of tiny brains can improve on the skills of the original tiny brains, and that the compound eye might have started out from simpler forms and improved once the cell communities had realized that there were advantages to having multiple fields of vision. But my main concern is the usual one: why on Earth would your God have specially designed the strategy and the organ when all he really wanted to do was create humans? See the “goldylocks” and “asteroid” threads for the implications.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 17:40 (2562 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’S comment: Amazing how that tiny brain computes the calculus of baring in on a snack. I would put this in the category of another saltation. I can't imagine the insect learning tis stepwise. It would have stayed very hungry.

DAVID: I might add another comment: How did that very complex compound eye develop? Not stepwise either. It requires a designer.

dhw: I hadn’t intended to comment on this, as my comments have become just as repetitive as your own, but I wouldn’t want you to think that these wonderful articles go unread. Firstly, I don’t have a problem with the idea that generations of tiny brains can improve on the skills of the original tiny brains, and that the compound eye might have started out from simpler forms and improved once the cell communities had realized that there were advantages to having multiple fields of vision. But my main concern is the usual one: why on Earth would your God have specially designed the strategy and the organ when all he really wanted to do was create humans? See the “goldylocks” and “asteroid” threads for the implications.

The problem for you is chance can't design that fly or its eye. And the fly fits into its natures balance niche which keeps life going until evolution reaches humans. All simple concepts to comprehend.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by dhw, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 13:29 (2561 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But my main concern is the usual one: why on Earth would your God have specially designed the strategy and the organ when all he really wanted to do was create humans? See the “goldylocks” and “asteroid” threads for the implications.

DAVID: The problem for you is chance can't design that fly or its eye. And the fly fits into its natures balance niche which keeps life going until evolution reaches humans. All simple concepts to comprehend.

Chance is not a problem if cell communities have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to do their own inventing. The problem for you is that it makes no sense for God to design the fly’s eye and hunting strategy if his aim was to produce humans, unless you opt for the theory that although he was perfectly capable of designing every organ, limb and strategy under the sun, the one thing he couldn’t do for 3.X billion years was the one thing he wanted to do: enlarge the pre-human brain.

Natures wonders:robber fly top gun of flying insects

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 14:50 (2561 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The problem for you is chance can't design that fly or its eye. And the fly fits into its natures balance niche which keeps life going until evolution reaches humans. All simple concepts to comprehend.


dhw: Chance is not a problem if cell communities have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to do their own inventing. The problem for you is that it makes no sense for God to design the fly’s eye and hunting strategy if his aim was to produce humans, unless you opt for the theory that although he was perfectly capable of designing every organ, limb and strategy under the sun, the one thing he couldn’t do for 3.X billion years was the one thing he wanted to do: enlarge the pre-human brain.

It is simple to recognize God might have wanted to evolve the big brain over time as His choice of development. You are suggesting a limited God, which possibility I originally expressed, but that He wanted this other approach to development is just as probable. This discussion shows why it is so difficult to pin down just how God works when not following the Biblical approach.

Natures wonders: tiny mite protected by cyanide

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 00:08 (2555 days ago) @ David Turell

Like the bombardier beetle, this mite uses a very dangerous chemical to defend itself:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-mite-uses-cyanide-to-fight-predators/?W...

"Although the Oribatula tibialis mite is only the size of a pin head, it packs a punch when it comes to defending itself from predators. It produces a compound that releases hydrogen cyanide – one of the quickest acting and most toxic poisons – when it comes into contact with an attacker’s saliva.

"Of the 80,000 known arachnid species many use toxins to kill their prey or protect themselves, but the soil-dwelling oribatid mite is the first to defend itself using hydrogen cyanide – a poison usually only found in plants like the South American cassava and in a handful of other animals, most of them insects.

"The mite stores cyanide as mandelonitrile hexanoate in oil glands to avoid poisoning itself. If a predator eats the mite the cyanide precursor compound is hydrolysed on contact with water leading to the release of hydrogen cyanide – a potentially deadly surprise

"Michael Heethoff and his team from the Technical University Darmstadt, Germany, were surprised to find that the Oribatula tibialis mite secretes a hydrogen cyanide precursor from its oil glands when attacked by predators such as centipedes. To avoid poisoning itself, the mite stores hydrogen cyanide in the form of mandelonitrile hexanoate. This compound hydrolyses on contact with moisture, for example from the predator’s saliva, to release the active poison. A mouthful of deadly hydrogen cyanide not only deters attackers, but might also make sure that the same predator will never bother the mite again."

Comment: the mite must with develop its organ of cyanide producing chemical either very carefully in stepwise fashion, or all at once by saltation. Random mutations will not work. How does a similar organism like the bombardier beetle produce a caustic liquid without harm to itself? Again no clear answer from Darwin theory:

http://newatlas.com/bombardier-beetle-defensive-jet/37465/

The safest way is build the chemical chamber first and then find the chemical reactions to fit in. By chance mutation, no way!

Natures wonders: tiny mite protected by cyanide

by dhw, Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 08:36 (2555 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: the mite must with develop its organ of cyanide producing chemical either very carefully in stepwise fashion, or all at once by saltation. Random mutations will not work. How does a similar organism like the bombardier beetle produce a caustic liquid without harm to itself? Again no clear answer from Darwin theory:
http://newatlas.com/bombardier-beetle-defensive-jet/37465/
The safest way is build the chemical chamber first and then find the chemical reactions to fit in. By chance mutation, no way!

This is the tenor of all your comments on these extraordinary natural wonders and various other complexities of living organisms. We have long since agreed that random mutations are not an option. The problem is the alternatives, and inevitably this brings us back to the issue of how innovation takes place. You know what’s coming next, but I’ll say it all the same because with every such post I also know what your comment is going to be. The only explanations you have offered us are: 1) Your God preprogrammed all these innovations 3.8 billion years ago; or 2) he personally dabbled them. And yet you insist that his purpose from the very beginning was to produce humans, not cyanide producing mites. I have summed up the rest of the argument in my post on “God and evolution”, so you do not need to answer twice. But flogging the dead horse of Darwinian random mutations does not remove the anomalies from the Turellian alternatives.

Natures wonders: tiny mite protected by cyanide

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 14:11 (2555 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have summed up the rest of the argument in my post on “God and evolution”, so you do not need to answer twice. But flogging the dead horse of Darwinian random mutations does not remove the anomalies from the Turellian alternatives.

I've answered decisively your God Evolution post. Your anomalous interpretation of my panentheism philosophy is the problem.

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2017, 03:22 (2545 days ago) @ David Turell

They have slender wings with complex motions for lift:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330115241.htm

"Well known carriers of diseases, mosquitoes' abnormally long, narrow wings and distinctive flight behaviour set them apart from other insects. Not only that, but when flapped, these wings move back and forth approximately 800 times each second -- far faster than any other insect of comparable size. To compensate for these rapid movements, their stroke amplitude (the angle through which the wing sweeps) is less than half that of any other insect measured to date.

***

..."revealing that mosquitoes enhance their flight forces using two novel aerodynamic mechanisms that make use of rapid and exquisitely controlled wing rotations.

"In addition to generating lift by leading-edge vortices, which are rotational, bubbles of low pressure created along the edge of the wing, mosquitos use two novel aerodynamic mechanisms to make them fly; trailing edge vortices and rotational drag. The trailing-edge vortex is a new form of 'wake capture', where the mosquitoes align their wings with the fluid flows they created during the previous wingbeat, recycling energy that would otherwise be lost to the environment.

''The usual flapping pattern of short, fast sweeps means that mosquitoes cannot rely on conventional aerodynamic mechanisms that most insects and helicopters use." says Dr Richard Bomphrey of the Royal Veterinary College, who led the study, published this week in the journal Nature. "Instead, we predicted that they must make use of clever tricks as the wings reverse their direction at the end of each half-stroke.'

***

"These new aerodynamic mechanisms help explain the unusual shape of mosquito wings. 'In most insects, aerodynamic forces increase as you move out along the wing length because the wing tip travels faster than the wing root,' says Dr Toshiyuki Nakata, from Chiba, who ran the computer simulations. 'However, by exploiting aerodynamics that rely on rapid pitching of the wing, the force can be produced along the entire length. Having a long slender wing can therefore increase lift force and simultaneously reduce the cost of flight.''

Comment: With the unusual wing shape it is hard to imagine this developed stepwise. The shape and the motions all had to develop at once or the insect would not fly.. Saltation. In a way reminiscent of hummingbird flight.

Natures wonders: opioid fish poison

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2017, 03:38 (2545 days ago) @ David Turell

A tiny fish protects itself by injecting a predator with poison:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330142149.htm

"Fang blennies are small fish with big teeth. Specifically, they have two large canine teeth that jut out of their lower jaw. Since blenny fish are only about two inches long, these 'fangs' would be less than intimidating if not for the venom within. Blenny fish venom most likely causes a sudden drop in blood pressure in would-be predators, such as grouper fish, that have been bitten by blennies.

***

"When the researchers did a proteomic analysis of extracted fang blenny venom, they found three venom components -- a neuropeptide that occurs in cone snail venom, a lipase similar to one from scorpions, and an opioid peptide. And, surprisingly, when they injected the blenny venom into lab mice, the mice didn't show any signs of pain.

***

"Fang blenny venom, however, seems to have a very different effect on its victims. Since the researchers used rodents for the pain test, they can't entirely rule out the possibility of blenny venom causing pain in fish, but it seems plausible that the neuropeptide and opioid components may cause a sudden drop in blood pressure, most likely leaving the blenny's attacker disorientated and unable to give chase. "By slowing down potential predators, the fang blennies have a chance to escape," says Fry. "While the feeling of pain is not produced, opioids can produce sensations of extremely unpleasant nausea and dizziness [in mammals]."

***

"Nonvenomous fang blennies and other small fish capitalize on the venom's success by mimicking venomous fang blennies' colors and patterns. "Predatory fish will not eat those fishes because they think they are venomous and going to cause them harm, but this protection provided also allows some of these mimics to get very close to unsuspecting fish to feed on them, by picking on their scales as a micropredator," says study co-author Nicholas Casewell of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. "All of this mimicry, all of these interactions at the community level, ultimately are stimulated by the venom system that some of these fish have."

"Another surprise from the study was the evidence suggesting that fang blenny fangs evolved before the venom. "This is pretty unusual, because often what we've found -- for example, in snakes -- is that some sort of venom secretions evolved first, before the elaborate venom delivery mechanism evolved," says Casewell. Evolution favored the tiny fish with large teeth first and later found a way to enhance them with venom.
"These unassuming little fish have a really quite advanced venom system, and that venom system has a major impact on fishes and other animals in its community," says Casewell.

"The researchers went into the study with "no grand hypothesis, just basic wonderment" according to Fry, but they plan to follow up the study by comparing and contrasting the composition of venoms from different blenny species."

Comment: How does the fish protect itself from its own venom? That aspect had to b e developed as the venom was developed. Further thought: biomimicry is also a problem for stepwise evolution. Either you are protected by being a look-a-like or you are in trouble. Again, design is strongly suggested.

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2017, 14:50 (2545 days ago) @ David Turell

Another take on these unusual aerodynamic wings, the only of its kind in the insect world:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/mosquito-wing-s-the-thing?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos...

"On the face of it, mosquitoes shouldn’t be able to fly, because their entire angular wing sweep is only 40 degrees, less than half that of honey bees.

"And while the wings beat rapidly, at a frequency of 800 Hz, their strokes are the shallowest of any known insect group.

"Yet fly they can, and with devastating accuracy. Research led by Richard Bomphrey of London’s Royal Veterinary College has discovered exactly how.

"In addition to generating lift through leading edge vortices – areas of low pressure at the front of the wing – the mosquitoes also make complementary vortices on wing trailing edges, and an additional type of lift mechanism generated by wing rotation.

"Mosquitoes appear to be unique in utilising this mode of flying, and the evolutionary pressures that led to it remain unclear. The study was published in Nature Research. " (my bold)

Comment: Funny but Darwin-leaning scientists usually have a just so story-to explain these funny wings. What is wrong with design by God?

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by dhw, Saturday, April 01, 2017, 10:19 (2544 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Mosquitoes appear to be unique in utilising this mode of flying, and the evolutionary pressures that led to it remain unclear. The study was published in Nature Research. "

DAVID’s comment: Funny but Darwin-leaning scientists usually have a just so story-to explain these funny wings. What is wrong with design by God?

As a matter of interest, how do you think your God’s design of mosquito wings is related to his only goal of producing humans?

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 01, 2017, 14:31 (2544 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Mosquitoes appear to be unique in utilising this mode of flying, and the evolutionary pressures that led to it remain unclear. The study was published in Nature Research. "

DAVID’s comment: Funny but Darwin-leaning scientists usually have a just so story-to explain these funny wings. What is wrong with design by God?

dhw: As a matter of interest, how do you think your God’s design of mosquito wings is related to his only goal of producing humans?

It all goes back to balance of nature. Even mosquitos fit into an eco-niche for food supply.

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, April 01, 2017, 15:30 (2544 days ago) @ dhw

Mosquitos pollinate nectar bearing flowers. They are integral to sustaining life on earth.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by dhw, Sunday, April 02, 2017, 13:08 (2543 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID’s comment: Funny but Darwin-leaning scientists usually have a just so story-to explain these funny wings. What is wrong with design by God?

dhw: As a matter of interest, how do you think your God’s design of mosquito wings is related to his only goal of producing humans?

DAVID: It all goes back to balance of nature. Even mosquitos fit into an eco-niche for food supply.

TONY: Mosquitos pollinate nectar bearing flowers. They are integral to sustaining life on earth.

All organisms fit into an eco-niche of food supply, and this would also be true if there were no humans. Tony, as you will see from my comment, the discussion you have entered into concerns David’s insistence that his God’s only goal was to produce humans, and everything else is/was related to that.

Natures wonders: mosquito aerodynamics

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 02, 2017, 14:55 (2543 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: Funny but Darwin-leaning scientists usually have a just so story-to explain these funny wings. What is wrong with design by God?

dhw: As a matter of interest, how do you think your God’s design of mosquito wings is related to his only goal of producing humans?

DAVID: It all goes back to balance of nature. Even mosquitos fit into an eco-niche for food supply.

TONY: Mosquitos pollinate nectar bearing flowers. They are integral to sustaining life on earth.

dhw: All organisms fit into an eco-niche of food supply, and this would also be true if there were no humans. Tony, as you will see from my comment, the discussion you have entered into concerns David’s insistence that his God’s only goal was to produce humans, and everything else is/was related to that.

Tony is only supporting my view of balance of nature.

Natures wonders: fully armed plankton

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 06, 2017, 02:35 (2539 days ago) @ David Turell

These guys are armed to the teeth:

http://www.livescience.com/58533-plankton-ballistic-weaponry-revealed.html?utm_source=l...

"Single-celled organisms of the sea shoot their prey with Spiderman webbing and tiny Gatling guns.

"Dinoflagellates called Nematodinium and Polykrikos are microscopic plankton, the kind of flotsam that whales gulp up by the ton. But these dinoflagellates, a type of protist, have their own drama-filled lives. They are hunters that eat other dinoflagellates, which themselves are bristling with armor, microscopic munitions and even chemical weapons.

"Dinoflagellates are "basically just objectively the coolest cells," Gavelis told Live Science. He previously discovered that Nematodinium has an eyespot with a lens and a light-sensitive pigment, suggesting that even though it's a single cell, it might, on some level, see.

"Nematodinium's weird clusters of weaponry are called nematocysts. Gavelis and his colleagues used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to image these nematocysts as well as the nematocysts of another well-armed dinoflagellate, Polykrikos kofoidii.
They also captured the firing of P. kofoidii's weaponry in high-speed video for the first time.

"What they saw were some intricately complex structures: Nematodinium has nematocysts that are clustered in rosette shapes and look like the multibarrel configuration of a Gatling gun
 
"Now, new research finds that the tiny weapons of Nematodinium and related dinoflagellates are their own invention: Though the weapons look a lot like the stingers of jellyfish, the structures evolved independently, possibly because an arms race has developed in a plankton-eat-plankton world.

***

"Things got weird with P. kofoidii. This dinoflagellate, the researchers found, sports capsules on its surface, each of which is topped by a finger-like projection called a taeniocyst. When it comes into contact with prey, the taeniocyst explodes, perhaps shooting out an adhesive similar to Spider-Man's webbing, Gavelis said. The eruption of the taeniocyst, in turn, triggers the capsule, or nematocyst, to shoot out a coiled tube tipped with a pointy, dagger-like projection called a stylet. The stylet pierces its way out of the capsule and penetrates the prey. The coil dissolves, but the stylet is still attached to the predator dinoflagellate by a towline.

"'It uses that towline, basically like someone pulling a harpooned fish to its demise," Gavelis said.

***

"There were no relationships. The genes that build nematocysts in dinoflagellates are entirely different from those that build them in cnidarians, Gavelis said. The new findings, published March 31 in the journal Science Advances, mean that cnidarians and dinoflagellates evolved similar-looking weaponry separately."

Comment: A very simple animal has very complex weaponry. It is another example of convergence. I think this was not developed stepwise because of its complexity

Natures wonders: dolphin eats octopus

by David Turell @, Monday, April 10, 2017, 15:47 (2535 days ago) @ David Turell

It can be quite a battle as this article describes. Each of the eight legs, which can be quite strong and enervated to be semi-independent battlers. the intelligent dolphins have worked out a battle plan:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/tackling-the-kraken-unique-dolphin-strategy-delivers...

"In particular, a large octopus can be a risky prey for predators to tackle. This is especially so for marine mammals, such as dolphins, which don’t have hands to help them keep control of this clingy, eight-armed prey.

"Our new research highlights the development of complex behaviours that allow dolphins to eat octopus, thereby improving their ability to survive and reproduce.

"It’s another example of a strategy that helps to drive the success of dolphins in coastal environments around Australia.

"In 2015 an adult male bottlenose dolphin was found dead on a beach in Bunbury, southwest Australia.

"Wild dolphins face many threats in today’s oceans, yet it was a gruesome surprise when we found octopus arms hanging out of the stranded dolphin’s mouth.
Recommended

"An examination by a veterinary pathologist revealed that this otherwise healthy dolphin, known as “Gilligan” to the research team, had suffocated to death while trying to eat an octopus.

"As strange as it sounds, this is not the first recorded case of a dolphin choking to death on an octopus in southwest Australia. There have also been several observations from around the world of dolphins facing difficulties while tackling octopus.
So what is it that makes octopus so hard to handle?

***

"During these events, dolphins were observed shaking and tossing octopus around at the water’s surface. In some instances, the prey was gripped in the teeth before being slapped down onto the water.

"This likely helped both to kill the octopus and to tear it into smaller, more digestible pieces. In other instances, the octopus was tossed across the surface of the water before being recaptured and tossed again.

"By tossing the octopus across the water, dolphins avoid letting the octopus latch onto their bodies. This behaviour also likely assists in wearing out the octopus’s reflex responses that make the suckered arms so dangerous to swallow.

"Once the prey has been battered and tenderised enough that the arms are unresponsive, it is then safe for the dolphins to proceed with swallowing their catch.

"It’s quite a process the dolphins have developed to deal with the octopus. They have a short, fused neck which means they have to arch their whole body to toss their prey out of the water.

***

"When we looked closely at when these observations were made, we found that the dolphins were targeting octopus more frequently over winter and spring. These cooler times of year are also the octopus’s breeding time.

"Octopus are semelparous, which means they slowly become weaker and then die in the weeks after they finish breeding. It is possible that as they become weaker, they also become easier to catch, making them a relatively easy meal for any opportunistic dolphins swimming by.

"At the end of the day, octopus are just part of the broad diet eaten by wild bottlenose dolphins.

"Dolphins have also been found to use several other highly specialised feeding behaviours, including processing cuttlefish by popping out the cuttlebone, stranding themselves while hunting fish, and using a marine sponge as a tool to probe the seafloor while searching for buried fish hiding in the sediment.

"Octopus shaking and tossing is yet another example that illustrates how intelligent and adaptable these charismatic marine predators are."

Comment: Bigger brains can think and find solutions.

Natures wonders: fly and butterfly drinking

by David Turell @, Friday, April 14, 2017, 23:16 (2530 days ago) @ David Turell

They both as independently developed narrow tubes in which the fluid rises by capillary action:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170413164207.htm

"Butterflies and flies have mouthparts that have a channel for fluids to travel from the liquid source to the head for ingestion, Lehnert said. This study also found that there is a limiting pore size from which each individual can feed -- butterflies and flies with smaller mouthpart channels will be able to feed on liquids from smaller pores, which might have an advantage for the insects and more broadly for the ecosystem in case of a drought.

"Lehnert, three of his Kent State Stark undergraduate student assistants and four other researchers found that flies, butterflies and moths (20 percent of all animals) use capillary action, or the movement of liquids seamlessly from one place to another, as the guiding principle when feeding on liquid films -- their primary source of food. An insect's proboscis, a body part that allows them to drink liquids, acts like a highly-sophisticated sponge and straw that uses capillary action to send nectar or other liquids to the insect's diges tive system.

***

"In order to feed on nectar and other liquid films, natural selection has favored the evolution of specialized mouthparts in fluid-feeding insects. In butterflies and flies, the mouthparts consist of a proboscis adapted for using capillary action to pull thin films of fluid from surfaces for subsequent feeding. Usually, the proboscis of flies and butterflies is held close to the underside of the head when not in use and when the insect is searching for food.

"The team's findings show that capillary action is an essential and ideal method for removing small amounts of fluids from surfaces, Lehnert said.

***

"'It was previously known that flies and butterflies independently evolved mouthparts adapted for feeding on fluids, but what was unknown before our study was that they both use the same principles for ingesting fluids -- capillary action," Lehnert said. "Our findings have applications to the production of novel microfluidic devices that can be developed to mimic the functionality of insect mouthparts, which have the advantage of being impacted by natural selection over millions of years.'"

Comment: If these insects had to wait for natural selection to develop these very narrow channels, how did they drink before the development? Perhaps a saltation by God. The very special properties of water, which is vital for life, allow for capillary action, the same action that allows trees to send water up from roots to their tops. Also designed by God so life can exist even if the organisms does not have the capacity to suck water.

Natures wonders:eels use magnetic field to migrate

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 01:10 (2527 days ago) @ David Turell

European eels travel to the Sargasso Sea twice in their lifetimes. they seem to use the magnetic field:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49201/title/Migratory-Eels-Use-Ma...

"The long journeys of European eels (Anguilla anguilla) from the Sargasso Sea in the North Atlantic Ocean to European rivers and streams have baffled scientists for more than a century. But the eels may be helped along their winding trajectories by employing an uncommon sense: magnetoreception.

"In Current Biology on Thursday (April 13), researchers reported that juvenile eels use magnetic fields to guide the direction they’re heading. “The eels oriented in a manner that would increase their entrainment into the Gulf Stream system,” Lewis Naisbett-Jones, who led the study while he was a student at Aberystwyth University in the U.K., told NPR.

"Naisbett-Jones collected young A. anguilla and put them in a tank. He then subjected the fish to various magnetic fields and watched which way they swam. A magnetic field simulating what the animals would experience in the Sargasso Sea led the fish southwestward, while a magnetic field mimicking the northwest Atlantic caused them to head northeastward. In both situations, the responses would have aimed the fish toward the Gulf Stream, had they been in the wild.

“'This study adds to the growing body of evidence that the magnetic sense may be an important component of fishes that make long migrations in the ocean,” Michael Miller, an eel biologist at Nihon University in Fujisawa, Japan, told Science.

"Last year, a different group of researchers made another insight into eel migration: they tagged the slippery adults with electronic data loggers and found—contrary to the century-old belief that eels make it from European freshwater to spawning grounds in the Sargasso Sea in a single season—some individuals linger out at sea for a year.

“'We can say that it’s highly unlikely that a significant number of the eels leaving Europe will actually make it down to the Sargasso Sea ready for the coming spawning,” Kim Aarestrup, a senior researcher at the National Institute of Aquatic Resources in Denmark and one of the authors of the study, told The Scientist several months ago. “Which then leads us to the conclusion that they’re probably part of the next spawning, which happens 12 months later.”

"Naisbett-Jones’s study did not meet with universal enthusiasm. As Gizmodo reported, the paper was first turned down by Nature Communications. “I identified the major weaknesses of their study such as the use of the wrong life-stage: using 2 year old eels called juveniles [or “glass eels”] and assuming they would behave as newly hatched larvae,” Caroline Durif, a senior research scientist at the Institute of Marine Research in Norway who reviewed the paper for Nature Communications, told Gizmodo. “Compared to larvae, the glass eels have undergone a metamorphosis and have a totally different sensory system.'” 

Comment: the findings are likely correct. Magetic field use is found all across the various migrating organisms.

Natures wonders: shipworms live with symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 14:06 (2527 days ago) @ David Turell

Those helpful bacteria are back again. A giant shipworm living in his calcified shell is supplied food by the bacteria living in his gills:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/bizarre-new-species-of-giant-shipworm-found-in-the-p...

"A worm-like creature that grows to almost two metres long, lives in stinking mud and doesn’t eat a thing is shedding new light on evolution and the nature of co-dependence.

"Described in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the giant shipworm (Kuphus polythalamia) has been found alive for the first time, after a scientist saw it in a wildlife documentary aired on Philippines television and realised it was a species unknown to science.

"In one sense, Kuphus polythalamia has been known for centuries, because the characteristic long empty shells it leaves behind have often been collected by fisherfolk and travellers.

"However, no one had ever seen a live specimen, much less discovered where it lived or what it ate.

"The answer to the first question, it turns out, is remote lagoons filled with rotting wood and deep, sucking mud that emits large amounts of hydrogen sulfide – often called, for good reason, rotten-egg gas.

"And the answer to the second question seems to be nothing at all – and it is at this point that a mollusc almost as tall as a basketball player gets even more interesting.

"A team of researchers led by Daniel Distel of Northeastern University in Massachusetts, US, discovered that the shipworms harbor in their gills colonies of bacteria that survive by digesting the hydrogen sulfide – a type of consumption known as chemosynthesis.

"Chemosynthetic bacteria are not uncommon. They colonise many environments where sunlight is absent, ranging from deep-sea hydrothermal vents to animal corpses and rotting plant matter. While some derive energy from rotten egg gas, others process ammonia, molecular hydrogen, ferrous iron or sulfur.

"In processing the hydrogen sulfide, the bacteria in Kuphus polythalamia gills produce organic carbon that provides its nourishment. That this has been a very long-term symbiosis is evidenced by the fact that many of the shipworm’s internal digestive organs have atrophied.

"The discovery of the living giants provides welcome support for Distel, who has been studying the shipworm family, Teredinidae, for decades.

"All other types of shipworm are comparatively small, and live exclusively in rotting wood. Some 20 years ago Distel suggested that other species would need to strike up intimate relationships with chemosynths in order to colonise less narrow environments.

"In Kuphus polythalamia he appears to have found proof, and perhaps the first of many examples.

“'We are also interested to see if similar transitions can be found for other animals that live in unique habitats around the world,” he says."

Comment: An amazing adaptive lifestyle that demonstrates how the balance of nature provides energy for life to continue as it evolves. We don't know how the chemosynthetic bacteria and the shipworm found each other, but they were obviously co-existing in regions where waste wood and other materials were rotting. Another example of how extremophiles adapt to severe areas and have a simple life in an unlikely place.

Natures wonders: living with oxygen stress

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 14:33 (2527 days ago) @ David Turell

If you have ever used a muscle group over and over in an unaccustomed fashion and the next day have a sore muscle, you will understand the problem solved by this moth:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49214/title/Sweet-Trick--Hawkmoth...

"Insects belonging to Family Sphingidae, commonly referred to as hawkmoths, hover hard and eat sweet. As adults, hawkmoths subsist entirely on nectar from flowers, above which they flitter, beating their wings rapidly while inserting their straw-like proboscises into sugary storage compartments. But nectar is mostly sugar, mainly lacking the antioxidants necessary to protect muscle cells from the oxidative damage resulting from the high rates of aerobic respiration that fuels flight.

"A team of researchers has detailed how one particular hawkmoth species, the Carolina sphinx moth (Manduca sexta), is able to keep its flight muscles functioning smoothly without the input of dietary antioxidants: the insect manufactures its own antioxidants from nectar. The team detailed its finding—that the hawkmoths shuttle glucose from nectar through the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) to yield products that can protect against reactive oxygen species and heal damage from oxidative stress—in a paper published in Science in February. The sweet oxidative relief experienced by hawkmoths might be a characteristic shared with other animals,” wrote biologists Carlos Martinez del Rio and Michael Dillon, who were not involved in the study, in an accompanying perspective piece. “During migratory flights, animals experience prolonged bouts of strenuous activity, elevating oxidative stress.”

"In 2015, researchers discovered that hawkmoths had another neat trick up their sleeves: they use olfactory receptors on the tips of their proboscises to sniff out suitable nectar sources."

Comment: Oxygen is a problematic energy source. It burns as a sore muscle will tell you. The moth has the same eating process as hummingbirds, hovering with rapidly beating wings. How did the moth gather nectar before developing the antioxidants? One answer is "It probably didn't", but that makes no sense. The moth must have developed in one step by saltation. By God's laws and principles according to Tony.

Natures wonders: termites and fungi in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 20:01 (2526 days ago) @ David Turell

The two organisms have evolved to need each other in digesting wood:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170417155028.htm

"According to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, when poplar wood undergoes a short, 3.5-hour transit through the gut of the termite, the emerging feces is almost devoid of lignin, the hard and abundant polymer that gives plant cells walls their sturdiness. As lignin is notorious for being difficult to degrade, and remains a costly obstacle for wood processing industries such as biofuels and paper, the termite is the keeper of a highly sought after secret: a natural system for fully breaking down biomass.

"'The speed and efficiency with which the termite is breaking down the lignin polymer is totally unexpected," says John Ralph, a UW-Madison professor of biochemistry, researcher at the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) and lignin expert. "The tantalizing implication is that this gut system holds keys to breaking down lignin using processes that are completely unknown."

"Hongjie Li, co-first author of the study, began studying the termite as graduate student at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. Now a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of UW-Madison bacteriology professor and GLBRC researcher Cameron Currie, Li was the first to keep this genus of termite alive in a lab setting, and the first to observe close-up the symbiotic system that unites the termites with the white rot fungus Termitomyces.

"The entire process, as is often the case with social insects, is complex. Young termites, or young workers, collect and eat the wood. The termites' fungal-laden feces then become an integral part of a fungal comb, a sponge-like structure the termites create within a protected chamber. On the comb, the white rot fungi further degrade the wood until its simple sugars are ready, some 45 days later, to be consumed by old worker termites.

***

"'This system is unique because the fungus and the termite can't live without each other," says Yelle. "They're symbiotic, and they work together very efficiently to do things white rot fungi can't do in nature. Together they do everything more rapidly."

"The system may be symbiotic, but the processes involved in the gut transit -- or the mechanisms by which the termite gut succeeds in cleaving even the hardest-to-cleave portions of the lignin -- are still unknown. Future research will focus on determining which enzymes or bacterial systems might be at work in the gut. If that super enzyme or process can be replicated outside of the termite, it could result in a dramatic improvement in the way we process wood and make biofuels, improving economics and cutting energy use.

"'This is a great example of the value of basic science research," says Currie. "Studying how termites process plant biomass in nature not only helps us understand our natural world, but it could contribute to our own efforts to break down biomass.'"

Comment: Since they are so interdependent, we can wonder how they got together. Did the termites pick a specific fungus or simply picked one and worked with it. But the feeding of sugar to older termites requires the system be in operation from the beginning. It appedars to be irreducibly complex, and therefore requires saltation.

Natures wonders: species training by generations

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 20:14 (2526 days ago) @ David Turell

This is seen in homing pigeons:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170418094512.htm

"Homing pigeons may share the human capacity to build on the knowledge of others, improving their navigational efficiency over time, a new study has found. The ability to gather, pass on and improve on knowledge over generations is known as cumulative culture. Until now humans and, arguably some other primates, were the only species thought to be capable of it.

***

"Takao Sasaki and Dora Biro, Research Associates in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University, conducted a study testing whether homing pigeons can gradually improve their flight paths, over time. They removed and replaced individuals in pairs of birds that were given a specific navigational task. Ten chains of birds were released from the same site and generational succession was simulated with the continuous replacement of birds familiar with the route with inexperienced birds who had never flown the course before. The idea was that these individuals could then pass their experience of the route down to the next pair generation, and also enable the collective intelligence of the group to continuously improve the route's efficiency.

"The findings, published in Nature Communications, suggest that over time, the student does indeed become the teacher. The pairs' homing performance improved consistently over generations -- they streamlined their route to be more direct. Later generation groups eventually outperformed individuals that flew solo or in groups that never changed membership. Homing routes were also found to be more similar in consecutive generations of the same chain of pigeon pairs than across them, showing cross-generational knowledge transfer, or a "culture" of homing routes.

"Takao Sasaki, co-author and Research Fellow in the Department of Zoology said: 'At one stage scientists thought that only humans had the cognitive capacity to accumulate knowledge as a society. Our study shows that pigeons share these abilities with humans, at least to the extent that they are capable of improving on a behavioural solution progressively over time. Nonetheless, we do not claim that they achieve this through the same processes.'

"When people share and pass knowledge down through generations, our culture tends to become more complex over time, There are many good examples of this from manufacturing and engineering. By contrast, when the process occurs between homing pigeons, the end result is an increase in the efficiency, (in this case navigational), but not necessarily the complexity, of the behaviour."

Comment: The presence of a brain can allow for generational training and copying of a rather simple property, since homing pigeons have all the basic equipment. The 100th monkey story fits this, briefly teaching how to wash off sandy sweet potato to then eat them. After a number of monkeys saw the method, they all adopted it. Page 173 Science vs. Religion.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, April 21, 2017, 15:58 (2524 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, April 21, 2017, 16:16

Fungi on roots gets nutrients from photosynthesis from the plant:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/symbiotic-connections-of-plants-and-fungi?utm_source...

A photo to see:

"Fluorescent green tendrils of fungi form tree-like structures known as arbuscules within their host plant cells.

"This image, captured by confocal microscopy, depicts the interrelationship between plants and a group of fungi called Glomeromycota in a process known as Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis. In this mutual barter, the fungus inhabiting the plant’s roots extends its branches (known as hypha) into the nearby soil to extract and provide additional nutrients to its host plant. In return, the fungus receives food produced by the plant via photosynthesis.

"Previously, it was assumed that this food source contained only high-energy sugars, however new research published in New Phytologist suggests otherwise. Researchers from the University of Bonn have provided the first experimental evidence of the exchange of lipids or fats in AM symbiosis demonstrating the fungus’ reliance on its host plant for its supply of complex lipids essential for its survival. "

Comment: this type of nutritional inter relational is not uncommon, but the lipid transfer is very unusual, and the method of membrane transfer is not yet known. One must wonder how it all began. Probably as a 'friendly' invasion by the fungus, not as a harmful infection, with epigenetic adaptations that followed. Until the complexity of the methods are known, necessity for design help is unclear. My point is complexity requires design, simple adaptions do not.

Natures wonders: mole rats survive low oxygen:

by David Turell @, Friday, April 21, 2017, 22:59 (2523 days ago) @ David Turell

They have a special mechanism because they live in a low oxygen environment:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/how-naked-mole-rats-survive-without-oxygen?utm_sourc...

"Naked mole rats can exist for extended periods in oxygen-depleted environments without any ill effects, research shows.

"Scientists from the Max Delbrück Centre of Molecular Medicine in Berlin, Germany, have discovered that the animals, which live in large subterranean colonies, can switch their metabolism from burning glucose to burning fructose whenever the oxygen supply runs low.

"And that’s something that happens pretty much on a daily basis. Naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber) sleep together underground in closely packed groups of up to 100. In such circumstances, oxygen levels gradually decrease and, for the animals in the centre of the slumbering bundle, fall well below levels that would suffocate other mammals.

"But poor ventilation while asleep, it seems, doesn’t push the mole rats even close to their limits. Lab tests have shown that the animals can survive up to 18 minutes without any oxygen at all, becoming unconscious and dramatically lowering their heart rate, only to revive immediately when oxygen is reintroduced.

"In research published in the journal Science, team led by Gary Lewin reveal that the naked mole rats’ remarkable survival ability stems from its ability to switch from metabolising glucose to fructose. This ensures internal organs that in other mammals would quickly succumb to low oxygen levels are protected.

"Some other species are known to sometimes use fructose as an energy source, but only in specific organs, notably the kidneys and the liver. Such organs can make use of the sugar because they carry a specific transporter molecule called GLUT5, along with a fructose-processing enzyme, KHK.

"The lack of GLUT5 and KHK in other organs – the brain and the heart, for instance – means the energy bound in fructose is unavailable to them, causing them to fail in low-oxygen environments.

"Lewin’s team discovered very high levels of both substances throughout the mole rats, a distribution pattern never seen before.

"The team took scores of blood samples from naked mole rats of various ages and compared them to samples taken from mice.

“'There was nothing different in the use of the usual energy source – glucose – between naked mole rats and mice when there was no oxygen around,” says team member Jane Reznick.

“'But we were quite surprised to find high levels of two unusual sugars – fructose and especially sucrose – in the blood of oxygen-deprived naked mole-rats. These sugars are mainly known for causing metabolic syndrome and sucrose is only made by plants.”

"The role of sucrose in the animal’s metabolism is unknown, but it is a disaccharide, a complex sugar comprising equal parts of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose.

***

“'Our work is the first evidence that a mammal switches to fructose as a fuel,” says Lewin."

Comment: A very unusual but required adaptation. Of course humans can metabolize fructose as food but not in this way.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by dhw, Saturday, April 22, 2017, 11:15 (2523 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: this type of nutritional inter relational is not uncommon, but the lipid transfer is very unusual, and the method of membrane transfer is not yet known. One must wonder how it all began. Probably as a 'friendly' invasion by the fungus, not as a harmful infection, with epigenetic adaptations that followed. Until the complexity of the methods are known, necessity for design help is unclear. My point is complexity requires design, simple adaptions do not.

When you say “design”, I presume you mean one of your two methods: God preprogramming or God dabbling. I would argue that even the simplest adaptation requires intelligent interaction – both partners must “know” what is good for them and act accordingly. If you think your God gave fungi the ability to design “simple adaptations” for themselves, I see no reason why you should not extend the same concession to bacteria. I would also be very hesitant to draw solid lines between simple epigenetic adaptations, complex epigenetic adaptations and complex epigenetic innovations. Different organisms have different degrees of consciousness/ intelligence, but of course no-one has ever witnessed any full-blown evolutionary innovation. The autonomous IM is simply a hypothesis based on mechanisms we know must exist, as proven over and over again by these marvellous natural wonders.Thank you again for drawing our attention to them.

From the article on “whales”:
QUOTE: "With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less."

David’s comment: The planning required for these changes is very complex and requires intricate and complicated coordination for it all to work. Only God's mind can do it in the known time frame.

Nobody knows how innovation occurs or how long it would take an intelligent organism to redesign itself. Five million years hardly represents a saltation. If we allow ten years for each generation, we have 500,000 generations of pre-whales to design these innovations. Please tell me on what authority anyone can state that 500,000 generations of intelligent organisms are not enough to design the engineering and do the rewiring.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 01:48 (2522 days ago) @ dhw


From the article on “whales”:
QUOTE: "With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less."

David’s comment: The planning required for these changes is very complex and requires intricate and complicated coordination for it all to work. Only God's mind can do it in the known time frame.

dhw: Nobody knows how innovation occurs or how long it would take an intelligent organism to redesign itself. Five million years hardly represents a saltation. If we allow ten years for each generation, we have 500,000 generations of pre-whales to design these innovations. Please tell me on what authority anyone can state that 500,000 generations of intelligent organisms are not enough to design the engineering and do the rewiring.

The article has a discussion of mutation rates, which is different than looking at generational rates:

"The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility."

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by dhw, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 10:31 (2522 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody knows how innovation occurs or how long it would take an intelligent organism to redesign itself. Five million years hardly represents a saltation. If we allow ten years for each generation, we have 500,000 generations of pre-whales to design these innovations. Please tell me on what authority anyone can state that 500,000 generations of intelligent organisms are not enough to design the engineering and do the rewiring.

DAVID:The article has a discussion of mutation rates, which is different than looking at generational rates:
"The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility."

I would suggest that generations are a far more significant factor than time, and this brings us up to a million generations, as opposed to my 500,000! I'm not sure what the authors mean by “two specific co-ordinated mutations”. If mutations (by which I mean changes, not necessarily random) are beneficial, I'd have thought they were bound to be coordinated or they wouldn't survive. And if it is not beyond the bounds of credibility for God to do the engineering within a million generations, why is it beyond the bounds of credibility that a possibly God-given intelligent inventive mechanism could do the same?

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 23, 2017, 15:11 (2522 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID:The article has a discussion of mutation rates, which is different than looking at generational rates:
"The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility."

dhw: I would suggest that generations are a far more significant factor than time, and this brings us up to a million generations, as opposed to my 500,000! I'm not sure what the authors mean by “two specific co-ordinated mutations”. If mutations (by which I mean changes, not necessarily random) are beneficial, I'd have thought they were bound to be coordinated or they wouldn't survive. And if it is not beyond the bounds of credibility for God to do the engineering within a million generations, why is it beyond the bounds of credibility that a possibly God-given intelligent inventive mechanism could do the same?

You are stepping into the arcane field of population genetics and its convoluted math that I am not trained to understand. But I know the opinions it offers. It starts with Haldane in 1957 and his 'dilemma', and again voiced in the Wister 1967 institute conclusion that Darwin's approach does not have enough time to accomplish evolution by random mutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma

I think it is best to accept the opinions of these genetic mathematicians that whalegenetic changes at each step don't fit the time limits we find. If chance mutations can't work, the implications for design become overwhelming. Your alternative?

Natures wonders: venus fly trap specifics

by David Turell @, Monday, April 24, 2017, 00:18 (2521 days ago) @ David Turell

The Venus fly trap digests insects. Here is a fairly complete description:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170421103741.htm

"When a prey tries to escape the closed trap, it will inevitably touch the sensory hairs inside. Any mechanical contact with the hairs triggers an electrical signal that spreads across the trap in waves. From the third signal, the plant produces the hormone jasmonate; after the fifth signal, the digestive glands that line the inside of the traps like turf are activated.

"What happens next in the gland cells? They increasingly produce membranous bubbles filled with liquid (secretory vesicles) and give off their content. This happens after mechanical stimulation of the sensory hairs but also when the glands come into contact with the hormone jasmonate. The entire process depends on calcium and is controlled by a number of specific proteins.

"Moreover, genes are activated in the glands: "We assume that they provide for the vesicles being loaded with protons and chloride, that is hydrochloric acid," Hedrich explains

***

"Should the vesicles contain hydrochloric acid in the first hours after catching the prey but no digestive enzymes yet? And no molecules yet that assure the enzymes' functioning in the acidic environment? Does the plant have to produce all this first?

"That's exactly how it works: Molecular biologist Ines Fuchs found out that the plant only starts to produce the enzymes that decompose the prey after several hours. The first characteristic signals occurred after six hours and the process was in full swing 24 hours later. During this phase, the trap is completely acidic and rich in digestive enzymes.

"Professor Heinz Rennenberg (Freiburg) also found glutathione (GSH) in the secreted enzyme. This molecule keeps the enzymes functional in the acidic environment of the Venus flytrap.

"The same processes as described above take place in the same chronological order both when the sensory hairs are stimulated and when exposing the trap to the hormone jasmonate only. "A touch will very quickly trigger the jasmonate signalling pathway, but it takes time until the vesicles are produced and loaded with the proper freight which is facilitated by the hormone," Hedrich explains.

***

"His experiments also showed that when the influx of calcium into the glands is blocked, the trap remains dry. "The calcium activation of the gland cells is therefore crucial," Hedrich says. "So we will now take a closer look at the biology of the calcium channels of Venus flytrap. "

Comment: Humans also use hydrochloric acid in their stomach for digestion. It seems evolution develops the same pattern here. The big question both for the plant and for humans is how did the digestive mechanism develop with protection built in for the digestive pouch. Both the acid and the protection had to develop at the same time. Only simultaneous development by saltation is reasonable. The plant did not develop this bit by bit, per Darwin.

Natures wonders: marine mammal sex

by David Turell @, Monday, April 24, 2017, 14:48 (2521 days ago) @ David Turell

Both sexes had to evolve their organs to work together under water:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-ins-and-outs-of-dolphin-sex?utm_source=Today+in+...


"Most species of marine mammal are known to have unusually shaped genitalia, but until now there has been little research into how the actual mechanics of sex work.

“'While it may seem intuitive that the penis fits well into the vagina during copulation, the biomechanics and details of the anatomical fit can be quite complex and have seldom been explored,” says Orbach.

“'Whales, dolphins and porpoises have unusual vaginal folds, spirals and recesses that the penis and sperm must navigate through to successfully fertilise the egg.”

"Studying the ins and outs of cetacean and pinnipede sex presents some obvious challenges. To circumvent these, Orbach and his team amassed a collection of reproductive organs from animals that had died of natural causes.

"They then developed a system to inflate the penises to full turgidity and used computed tomography scans to investigate how, and how deeply, they penetrated the appropriate vaginal tract, and at which points contact was made.

"With this information, the team then made silicone models of the vaginal system, allowing the scientists a clear view of the mechanics involved. The information permitted some informed deductions about how the male and female reproductive systems co-evolved.

"Orbach set out to understand how marine mammals deal with a very different mating environment to those occupied by terrestrial mammals. Porpoises and dolphins, for instance, have to perform in a liquid three-dimensional space, and also have to contend with the potential problem of seawater leaking into the uterus.

"Surprisingly, the work is one of the few times the way in which male and female marine mammal anatomy interacts has been studied.

“'Most previous research on genitalia has focused on the penis,” notes Orbach.
He adds that his findings have potential to greatly improve the results of captive breeding programs, particularly those using artificial insemination."

Comment: Obviously special changes have to take place to both sets of sex organs to keep sea water out. The real issue is how do the two sexes coevolve at the same time and in ways to continue reproduction, if it is all by chance mutations. Not likely. Back to saltation. The same issue arises when considering the enlarging human head in the newborn babies and the shape and size of the female pelvis to accommodate it. Further as bipedalism developed the birth canal changed, another complication. Coevolution by chance? Darwin theory cannot handle this issue.

Natures wonders: marine mammal sex

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 21:24 (2519 days ago) @ David Turell

More on this issue:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dolphins-watertight-sex-involves-a-strange-t...

"Marine mammals in particular are known for their twisty, curvy vaginas. Whales, dolphins and other marine mammals also have to manage sex while floating in water, and they have to keep seawater out of the uterus. Orbach and her colleagues wanted to understand how seals, porpoises and whales pull it off.

"The researchers removed the reproductive tracts from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) that had died of natural causes. They created molds of the vaginas with silicon so they could understand its shape. Then, they froze the actual vaginal tissue and  thawed and stained it with iodine right before their experiments. The penises were pumped full of saline using a nitrogen air pump and then put in formalin to "fix" them in the erect position. The penis was then inserted inside the thawed vaginas. Both sets of genitals were then scanned with computed tomography (CT) the researchers could see how they fit together.

***

"The researchers revealed their findings only for the bottlenose dolphins at the Chicago conference; the research has yet to be published, Orbach said, so they are not yet making their full results public. But the images revealed that the bottlenose dolphin penis has to navigate around the female's vaginal fold for successful insemination, Orbach and her colleague, Patricia Brennan, of Mount Holyoke College reported. Diane Kelly of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Mauricio Solano of Tufts University also collaborated on the work.

"'We think that the positioning of the bodies of the males and females are hugely important in terms of the amount of fertilization success," Orbach said. A female might be able to influence whether a male inseminates her simply by shifting her body position slightly so that his penis doesn't penetrate beyond the labyrinthine curves of her vagina."

Comment: These vaginal changes are complex. They could not have developed when the animals took to water. It had to be arranged beforehand or there would have been no way to proceed with reproduction. If the changes happened in that order, purposeful change would have to be recognized. This is a problem for Darwin theory as well as the issue of both sexes changing together. All of this requires saltation by design.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by dhw, Monday, April 24, 2017, 15:01 (2521 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I would suggest that generations are a far more significant factor than time, and this brings us up to a million generations, as opposed to my 500,000! I'm not sure what the authors mean by “two specific co-ordinated mutations”. If mutations (by which I mean changes, not necessarily random) are beneficial, I'd have thought they were bound to be coordinated or they wouldn't survive. And if it is not beyond the bounds of credibility for God to do the engineering within a million generations, why is it beyond the bounds of credibility that a possibly God-given intelligent inventive mechanism could do the same?

DAVID: You are stepping into the arcane field of population genetics and its convoluted math that I am not trained to understand. But I know the opinions it offers. It starts with Haldane in 1957 and his 'dilemma', and again voiced in the Wister 1967 institute conclusion that Darwin's approach does not have enough time to accomplish evolution by random mutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma

I think it is best to accept the opinions of these genetic mathematicians that whalegenetic changes at each step don't fit the time limits we find. If chance mutations can't work, the implications for design become overwhelming. Your alternative?

How often do I have to repeat that I do not accept Darwin’s theory of random mutations? Why do you ask for my alternative, when I keep telling you that it is an autonomous inventive intelligence, possibly God-given? Not proven of course, any more than your God’s dabbling or his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for pre-whales turning into whales all for the sake of humans has been proven.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 00:47 (2520 days ago) @ dhw


DavidI think it is best to accept the opinions of these genetic mathematicians that whalegenetic changes at each step don't fit the time limits we find. If chance mutations can't work, the implications for design become overwhelming. Your alternative?

dhw: How often do I have to repeat that I do not accept Darwin’s theory of random mutations? Why do you ask for my alternative, when I keep telling you that it is an autonomous inventive intelligence, possibly God-given? Not proven of course, any more than your God’s dabbling or his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for pre-whales turning into whales all for the sake of humans has been proven.

Sorry. You are the one to raise an issue over the math of population genetics. My dabbling or pre-programming hypotheses are just as will o' the wisp as your auto inventions. My positive view is God guided evolution. I just cannot give a positive description of His methodology, so I guess. As you are guessing.

Natures wonders: sea urchin defense

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 01:20 (2520 days ago) @ David Turell

They fire toxic barbs:

http://www.livescience.com/58794-sea-urchins-launch-mobile-jaws-at-predators.html?utm_s...

"A common and colorful sea urchin has some truly bizarre appendages that seem to move independently from its body, and now scientists know why: It shoots these tiny, venomous jaws into the water to deter predators.

"These teensy, toothy jaws are called pedicellariae, and when scientists discovered them in the early 1800s, they thought the jaws were parasites because they seemed to move independently from the urchin. Now, researchers find that urchins use their pedicellariae not only to defend themselves when attacked, but also as a warning to fish and other sea creatures to "stay away!"

***

"Pedicellariae are found only in echinoderms, particularly sea stars and sea urchins. The type found on collector urchins are known as globiferous, meaning they have a three-pronged jaw and a venom sac at the end of a long stalk. When disturbed, the urchins shoot a cloud of pedicellariae into the water around their bodies. Those that meet their mark sink their tiny, venomous teeth into the predator's skin. Even if a predator fish tears away the structure in its haste to flee, the jaws remain embedded, and the venom sac keeps pumping irritating toxins into the fish's flesh.

***


"What Sheppard Brennand and her colleagues discovered was that fish don't have to make direct contact with sea urchins to be shot with pedicellariae. To prompt T. gratilla to shoot off these structures, the researchers poked the sea urchins with forceps in a lab for 30 seconds, to simulate predation. Then, they incorporated pedicellariae into squid snacks and offered them to two species of fish that prey on urchins: the black axil chromis (Chromis atripectoralis) and the stocky anthias (Pseudanthias hypselosoma). In an aquarium setting, the fish ate 50 percent fewer treats containing venomous pedicellariae compared with treats containing no pedicellariae. When the researchers washed the pedicellariae of their venom, the fish readily accepted between 80 percent and 90 percent of the squid snacks embedded with tiny jaws, compared with fewer than 20 percent of the treats if the venom wasn't rinsed.

***

"Discovering that the pedicellariae cloud deterred fish was the most exciting finding," Sheppard Brennand said. "We had hypothesized that this might be the case, but until you actually do the research and examine the data, you don't know what the outcome will be."

"Deterring predators with a long-range defense may save the urchins a lot of wear and tear, since they don't necessarily have to be bitten by every fish that needs to learn to stay away, the researchers wrote. Lots of animals have "pursuit-deterrent" signals like this that don't require contact with predators. Porcupines have their quills, for example, and some species of spider kick off tiny, irritating hairs. Bombardier beetles spray hot, irritating chemicals. And urchins, it seems, have their mobile bite."

Comment: Defense at a distance is a great concept. This is a simple early form of an animal with a very complex defense. Hard to imagine it evolved by chance.

Natures wonders: seabirds share nest care

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 26, 2017, 15:32 (2519 days ago) @ David Turell

They signal each other about fatigue and need for rest:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/love-in-a-cold-climate-how-seabirds-share-and-care?u...

"For a great example of complex co-parenting, perhaps we should be looking to wildlife – in particular, seabirds.

"A new study published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances describes the collaborative parenting efforts of the common murre (Uria aalge) – a thin-billed seabird found in the cooler waters of the northern hemisphere.

"While brooding their young, a pair of common murres share their roles throughout the day – one stays at home looking after chicks while the other leaves the nest to forage for food – but this isn’t the interesting part.

"Fascinatingly, parenting murres have developed a complex language exhibited through preening, to let each partner know how the other is faring, and whether rest is needed.

"The research team studying murre reproductive behavior in Witless Bay, Newfoundland, observed a surprising variety in the nest behaviours of parenting birds – in particular, the swapping over of duties, or ‘nest relief’, between parents.

"'Some nest reliefs were short and businesslike, while other nest reliefs seemed to involve a lot of interaction between the mates, and it took a long time for the mates to exchange brooding duty,” explains study co-author Carolyn Walsh, a behavioural scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

"The team then observed 16 pairs of murres over one summer, recording their nest-relief processes and periodically measuring their body weights. The results indicate the preening ceremonies preceding role-swaps took longer when one bird was especially low in body mass.

"This suggests a nesting bird can delay preening to let their partner know they’re not ready to take over foraging, with the returning forager perhaps pulling a double shift to give their mate more rest time; conversely a nesting bird might let a tired partner take a rest even if they have returned from foraging without food.

"It’s a level of open communication that would not go astray among humans."

Comment: Not surprising. All advanced animals use body language.

Natures wonders: fanged fish use venom to escape

by David Turell @, Friday, April 28, 2017, 21:59 (2516 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like snakes, but this venom doesn't cause pain, it drops blood pressure:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49305/title/Behavior-Brief/&u...

"When eaten, a poisonous fang blenny (Meiacanthus) will bite the inside of its predator’s mouth, injecting a venom that has potent hypotensive effects. This can cause blood pressure to drop by nearly 40 percent, according to a study published earlier last month (March 30) in Current Biology.

“'If you had such a big crash in blood pressure, you would immediately feel faint and dizzy,” coauthor Nick Casewell of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in the U.K told The New York Times. “We don’t know that fish get faint or dizzy, but it’s extremely likely such a large drop would impact coordination and swimming ability.”

"Casewell and colleagues analyzed the venom of 11 fang blenny species and discovered three main toxins: enkephalines (opioid-like molecules), neuropeptide Y (molecules that cause blood pressure to plummet), and phospholipase A2 (enzymes that promotes inflammation). “What’s really unusual are these opioid-like neuropeptides called enkephalins, which don’t induce pain,” Casewell told New Scientist. “Most animals that produce venom use it to inflict pain, yet we found no evidence of that with the blenny venom.” Casewell said he thinks that these molecules act together with neuropeptide Y to exert powerful hypotensive effects, according to New Scientist.

"Not all fang blenny species are venomous, but many nonvenomous fish, such as Plagiotremus, mimic the appearance and behavior of poisonous ones. “In some places, Plagiotremus is very cryptic, hiding in holes and waiting for its prey to swim by, at which point it darts and takes a bite,” Luiz Rocha of the California Academy of Sciences who was not involved in the study, told The Atlantic. “But when Plagiotremus mimics the venomous Meiacanthus, it doesn’t hide.'”

Comment: Two evolutionary problems: how did the fish find this combination of proteins when they developed as a species? Also the proteins had to be onboard from the beginning or the fish would not have survived. Further, the fish has to have a setup which protects itself from these proteins, or they would be in constant trouble. Looks designed.

Natures wonders:playing dead to avoid sex

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 29, 2017, 02:05 (2516 days ago) @ David Turell

Female dragonflies do it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129185-female-dragonflies-fake-sudden-death-to-av...

"Female dragonflies use an extreme tactic to get rid of unwanted suitors: they drop out the sky and then pretend to be dead.

"Rassim Khelifa from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, witnessed the behaviour for the first time in the moorland hawker dragonfly (Aeshna juncea). While collecting their larvae in the Swiss Alps, he watched a female crash-dive to the ground while being pursued by a male.

"The female then lay motionless on her back. Her suitor soon flew away, and the female took off once the coast was clear.

“'I was surprised,” says Khelifa, who had never previously seen this in 10 years of studying dragonflies.

"Female moorland hawkers are vulnerable to harassment when they lay their eggs since, unlike some other dragonflies, they aren’t guarded by their male mates. A single sexual encounter with another male is enough to fertilise all eggs and copulating again could damage their reproductive tract.

"Khelifa found that the females often retreat to dense vegetation near ponds at this time, probably to hide. And they often act dramatically when they emerge.

"He observed 27 out of 31 females plummeting and playing dead to avoid males, with 21 of these ploys successful. Plunging at high speed is risky though, and according to Adolfo Cordero-Rivera at the University of Vigo in Spain, it may be a strategy that they use only in areas with lots of dragonflies. “Females may only behave in this way if male harassment is intense,” he says.

"Few animals have been caught feigning death to trick suitors. The behaviour has been seen in a species of spider (the males use it to improve their chances of mating), two species of robber fly and a type of mantis.

"Playing dead to avoid predators, however, is more common and has been observed in dragonflies. “It’s likely that females expanded its use to overcome male coercion,” says Khelifa.

"Khelifa is interested in finding out whether the behaviour is unique to species that lay eggs alone or whether it is more widespread. Using extreme tactics to resolve sexual conflict isn’t unique to moorland hawkers: in their damselfly relatives, for example, females eat their partner."

Comment: Instinct or learned behaviour? If repeated copulation causes damage it is more like an instinct.

Natures wonders:playing dead to avoid sex

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, April 29, 2017, 06:35 (2516 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Comment: Instinct or learned behaviour? If repeated copulation causes damage it is more like an instinct.

I'm starting to think this tactic is common to females of all species. :-P

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders :insect vision in the dark

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 02, 2017, 14:57 (2513 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

A review of how some insects can see in the dark; the physiology of using a few photons to find nectar at night:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/how-do-animals-see-in-the-dark?utm_source=Today+in+C...

"Despite their diminutive visual systems, it turns out that nocturnal insects see amazingly well in dim light. In recent years we have discovered that nocturnal insects can avoid and fixate on obstacles during flight, distinguish colours, detect faint movements, learn visual landmarks and use them for homing. They can even orient themselves using the faint celestial polarisation pattern produced by the moon, and navigate using the constellations of stars in the sky.

"In many cases, this visual performance seems almost to defy what’s physically possible. For example, the nocturnal Central American sweat bee, Megalopta genalis, absorbs just five photons (light particles) into its tiny eyes when light levels are at their lowest – a vanishingly small visual signal. And yet, in the dead of night, it can navigate the dense and tangled rainforest on a foraging trip and make it safely back to its nest – an inconspicuous hollowed-out stick suspended within the forest understorey.

***

"The nocturnal European Elephant hawkmoth, Deilephila elpenor, is a gorgeous creature cloaked in feathery pink and green scales and does all its nectar gathering in the dead of night. A number of years ago we discovered that this moth can distinguish colours at night, the first nocturnal animal known to do so.

"But this moth recently revealed another of its secrets: the neural tricks it uses to see well in extremely dim light. These tricks are certainly used by other nocturnal insects like Megalopta. By studying the physiology of neural circuits in the visual centres of the brain, we discovered that Deilephila can see reliably in dim light by effectively adding together the photons it has collected from different points in space and time.

"For time, this is a little like increasing the shutter time on a camera in dim light. By allowing the shutter to stay open longer, more light reaches the image sensor and a brighter image is produced. The downside is that anything moving rapidly – like a passing car – will not be resolved and so the insect won’t be able to see it.

"To add together photons in space, the individual pixels of the image sensor can be pooled together to create fewer but larger (and so more light-sensitive) “super pixels”. Again, the downside of this strategy is that even though the image becomes brighter, it also becomes blurrier and finer spatial details disappear. But for a nocturnal animal straining to see in the dark, the ability to see a brighter world that is coarser and slower is likely to be better than seeing nothing at all (which would be the only alternative).

"Our physiological work has revealed that this neural summation of photons in time and space is immensely beneficial to nocturnal Deilephila. At all nocturnal light intensities, from dusk to starlight levels, summation substantially boosts Deilephila’s ability to see well in dim light. In fact, thanks to these neural mechanisms, Deilephila can see at light intensities around 100 times dimmer than it could otherwise. The benefits of summation are so great that other nocturnal insects, like Megalopta, very likely rely on it to see well in dim light as well.

"The world seen by nocturnal insects may not be as sharp or as well resolved in time as that experienced by their day-active relatives. But summation ensures that it is bright enough to detect and intercept potential mates, to pursue and capture prey, to navigate to and from a nest and to negotiate obstacles during flight. Without this ability it would be as blind as the rest of us."

Comment: this is not an ability to be developed from a situation of not seeing in the dark. This insect and others like it feed on flowers. They HAD to be able to do this from the beginning of their lifestyle, which means to me, this type of vision was designed this way.

Natures wonders: ant queen control

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 03, 2017, 23:50 (2511 days ago) @ David Turell

Pheromones control the production of ant queens, by signaling who should be a queen and who should not:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-princess-pheromone-ants-larvae-destined.html

"If a larva gives signs of maturing into a queen at the wrong time, it is physically harassed into remaining a humble worker. But the same cues at the right time give the larva access to the resources it needs to thrive and develop as a queen. Now scientists have identified the "princess pheromone" that tells a colony when an ant larva is aiming for coronation.

"People have been studying pheromones in ants for more than 50 years, and pretty much everything we've learned regards how adult ants use pheromones to communicate with each other," says Clint Penick, a postdoctoral researcher at North Carolina State University and lead author of this study. "This is one of the only instances - maybe even the first time - that we've found ant larvae producing pheromones that influence colony behavior."

"Every year, around the time of the first summer rains, colonies of H. saltator rear the newest crop of queens, which leave their colonies after reaching maturity and embark on a mating flight. The queens breed with winged males and then establish new colonies of their own.

"However, if an ant larva indicates that it is developing into a queen at the wrong time of year - such as midwinter - that's a problem. The timing is all wrong for a mating flight, and the larva would be using colony resources for no reason. So when worker ants detect a nascent queen at the wrong time, they chew on it. Literally.The stress induced by biting the larva induces the larva to develop as a worker

***

"'Workers may also prevent queen development if more queens are developing than the colony can support," Penick says. "By the same token, the princess pheromone, when released at the right time, ensures that workers facilitate the development of the next generation of queens."

"The researchers could tell that some sort of non-visual cue was passing information from H. saltator larvae to workers based on observations of how worker ants interacted with seemingly identical larvae.

"To investigate, the researchers examined the wax layer found on the cuticle of larvae. Specifically, they took samples from the wax layer on large larvae that were clearly about to become queens and from smaller larvae that were likely to be workers. They found that the chemical compositions of the different wax layers were clearly distinct.

"The researchers then experimented by transferring the wax layer from queen larvae to the cuticle of worker larvae. The presence of traces from the queen larvae was enough to get workers to respond to the small worker larvae as if they were developing into queens.

"In addition, by treating worker larvae with a hormone known to trigger queen development, the researchers were able to make the larvae produce the princess pheromone. This also happened when the hormone was given to male larvae; the males would produce the princess pheromone even though they were incapable of developing into queens. The presence of the pheromone alone was enough to trigger aggressive behavior from workers, even towards male larvae.

"'Signals like the princess pheromone are essential to social insects," Penick says. "Ants have to have a way to ensure that there are enough workers in the colony, otherwise all larvae could develop as queens and the insect 'society' would break down. Instead of ants, you would have something more like a colony of wasps.

"'This work sheds light on how castes are differentiated in this species and gives us more insight into the complex evolutionary biology behind social insect behaviors," Penick says. "Given that H. saltator is from one of the older lineages of ants, this mechanism is likely to be fairly common in social insects - but more work needs to be done to determine whether princess pheromones are present in other species.'"

Comment: this is a logical explanation to show how social ant colonies get their cues for activity: chemical signals as well as instinctual behaviour. The ants need queen/worker ratios for proper survival. One can wonder how evolution worked this all out. Certainly not by chance; more likely by design.

Natures wonders: sexy orchid gets pollinated

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 07, 2017, 21:33 (2507 days ago) @ David Turell

By producing female wasp pheromones smell-alikes , this orchid species invites the male wasps over for a visit and get pollinated:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-sexually-deceptive-spider-orchids-wasps.html


"Scientists at The University of Western Australia, in collaboration with researchers from The Australian National University, have uncovered the chemical compounds used by a species of spider orchid (Caladenia) to sexually seduce male wasp pollinators.

"Pollination by sexual deception is an extremely specialised pollination strategy used by many Australian orchids. These orchid mimic the sex pheromone of a female wasp in order to lure the male to pollinate the flower by the false promise of sex.

"Dr Bjorn Bohman from UWA's School of Molecular Sciences said the researchers were able to demonstrate for the first time the makeup of sulfur-containing chemicals the spider orchid uses to attract wasps for pollination.

"'We demonstrated the spider orchid, attracts its pollinator with a unique system of chemicals never seen before in science," Dr Bohman said.
 
"'The same chemicals mimic the sex pheromone of the wasp, and also represent the first occurrence of sulfur containing sex pheromones in the hymenoptera, the group of insects containing wasps, bees and ants."

***

"Spider orchids are a diverse collection of Australian orchids, comprising over 360 species. They use multiple pollination strategies including food-reward, food-deception and most bizarrely, sexual deception.

"Until now the identity of the chemicals involved in sexual deception have remained elusive for any spider orchid species.

"'Studies of the chemistry of this group, beyond revealing new natural chemicals, also offer a unique opportunity to understand the role of floral odors in the evolution of sexual deception as a pollination strategy," Dr Bohman said.

"The power of these sex pheromones can be seen in remarkable footage where a male wasp abandons his female partner in preference for copulation with the flower. 

"These unprecedented observations confirm the extreme sexual attractiveness of the spider orchid to the pollinators, via mimicry of the sex pheromones."

Comment: Pollination is a major step in producing the food chain. Without pollination many food sources would not exist. Pheromones are forms of perfume and are complex molecules. How did the orchid hit upon these compounds and this method of guaranteeing pollinaton? Not by chance, but by design.

Natures wonders: a parasite uses three hosts

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 07, 2017, 22:33 (2507 days ago) @ David Turell

A very complex lifestyle uses three different hosts, and the strangest part is that it controls a fish from the eyeball:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129880-parasite-living-inside-fish-eyeball-contro...

"A common parasite that lives in fish eyeballs seems to be a driver behind the fish’s behaviour, pulling the strings from inside its eyes.

When the parasite is young, it helps its host stay safe from predators. But once the parasite matures, it does everything it can to get that fish eaten by a bird and so continue its life cycle.

"The eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum has a life cycle that takes place in three different types of animal. First, parasites mate in a bird’s digestive tract, shedding their eggs in its faeces. The eggs hatch in the water into larvae that seek out freshwater snails to infect. They grow and multiply inside the snails before being released into the water, ready to track down their next host, fish. The parasites then penetrate the skin of fish, and travel to the lens of the eye to hide out and grow. The fish then get eaten by a bird – and the cycle starts again.

***

"Now, the same team has tested rainbow trout harbouring mature eye flukes – parasites ready to reproduce inside their bird hosts. The team found that these trout swam more actively than uninfected controls and stayed closer to the water’s surface.

"Both traits should make fish more conspicuous to birds. When the researchers simulated a bird attack by making a shadow swoop over the tank, the fish froze – but infected fish resumed swimming sooner than uninfected ones.

"Gopko says both studies show that how eye flukes manipulate their host’s behaviour depends on their age. Immature parasites “are too young and innocent to infect a next host”, he says, so their goal is to protect the fish they are living in. Mature parasites, however, are ready to reproduce – and to do so they need to get inside a bird’s gut.

"Some earlier studies suggested fluke-infected fish act differently because of impaired vision. But the authors say vision problems wouldn’t explain changes to unfreezing time, or the opposite effects of mature and immature parasites.

"The researchers also tested how long it took fish to unfreeze after attack when they were infected with both mature and immature parasites at once. Their behaviour matched that of fish carrying only mature parasites. When the parasites’ goals conflict, Gopko says, “mature guys are clear winners”.

"This fits a pattern of young parasites decreasing their host’s likelihood of being preyed on, while older parasites increase it, says Nina Hafer, a parasitologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Plön, Germany. Few studies have pitted mature and immature parasites against each other in one host, she says.

“'It contributes to showing how many traits and species can be affected by host manipulation, which should make it an important factor in how parasites alter the ecological interactions of their hosts,” she says."

Comment: How could this very complex lifestyle develop naturally? It is another part of the balance of nature which helps the bird eat the trout. I cannot think of a way this could have been developed by an evolutionary process. It must have been designed.

Natures wonders: picking queen bees by pheromone

by David Turell @, Monday, May 08, 2017, 15:24 (2507 days ago) @ David Turell

Juvenile larvae have pheromones that identify their future:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347217301094

"Workers of the Indian jumping ant bite larvae to inhibit queen development.

"Biting can be elicited by transferring queen cuticular compounds to worker larvae.

"Queen larvae have a greater proportion of short-chained compounds on their cuticle.

"These short-chained cuticular compounds may serve as a ‘princess pheromone’.

"Princess pheromone production is linked to increased juvenile hormone (JH) levels.

"Numerous studies have identified cuticular compounds that distinguish adult queens from workers in social insect colonies, but how future queens are identified at the larval stage is poorly understood. Nevertheless, the ability of workers to discriminate queen and worker larvae is necessary for them to regulate caste determination and queen production. In the ant Harpegnathos saltator, workers bite larvae to inhibit queen development, and we used biting as an assay to test how workers identify queens at the larval stage. The transfer of cuticular compounds from queen to worker larvae through direct physical contact (rubbing) or using a hexane extract both elicited biting. Gas chromatography revealed significant differences in cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of queen and worker larvae that could be induced by treatment with a juvenile hormone (JH) analogue. Finally, treatment of male larvae with a JH analogue also elicited worker biting, which suggests a direct connection between JH levels and the production of a larval queen signal. These results demonstrate that workers identify larval caste using a chemical signal present on the cuticle, a ‘princess pheromone’, that reflects endocrine changes associated with queen development. Based on the connection between JH levels and the production of a larval queen signal, we developed a model for caste determination in H. saltator that incorporates endocrine, pheromonal and behavioural control of caste development."

Comment: This is another example of automatic responses in insects to control the ratio of queens to workers in bees. I think this method was selected by design.

Natures wonders: water is structure in soft plants

by David Turell @, Monday, May 15, 2017, 18:00 (2500 days ago) @ David Turell

When a green plant (not a tree) gets limp it is because it does have enough water to fill its tubules. Trees with hard back have tough lignin to keep them upright. Both types of plants have the water come up from the roots by capillary action:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-does-all-the-water-go-when-you-water-a-plant-1494596625

"A plant is just an engine for turning water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugars, a process known as photosynthesis. But even though this mechanism defines a plant, less than 1% of the water sucked up by the roots is used in this way. The other 99% forms a slow upward fountain that starts at the roots, flows up inside the stem and then evaporates from tiny holes on the leaves. This seems tremendously wasteful until you consider the benefit: access to carbon dioxide.

"Those little holes on the leaves allow carbon dioxide in, but they also happen to let water out. During the day (when the holes, called stomata, are open), every plant we look at is sucking water upward through a thin fragile system of plumbing that ends at the leaves. This throughput of water is the sacrifice necessary to maintain the carbon-dioxide supply. But if it’s just passing through, why is the loss of water so serious?

"If I forget to water for a few days, the neglect is embarrassingly obvious to everyone. The tomatoes go first, wilting and then dramatically flopping over, triggering immediate guilt. And while I’m rushing to make it up to them with liters of aqueous elixir, the real truth of a plant is evident: The water isn’t just flowing passively through this beautiful green structure that happens to contain a photosynthesis factory. It’s holding it up.


***

"the plant cells become robust little bricks when you fill them with water. A typical car tire might be filled to twice atmospheric pressure, but the pressure in a typical plant cell might be five or six atmospheres.

"It’s all about natural hydraulics. Take the water away from a small plant, and the structure flops over. This method has its limits, though—bigger plants grow a woody reinforcement, a natural polymer called lignin, which takes over the structural support. That’s why trees don’t wilt.

"This system of hydraulic architecture gives us a final twist in the tale. My plants seem fixed in shape, but they’re not. At the base of some leaves, there’s a small section of stem that can move the leaf around, either to close it at night or to track the sun. By pumping water out of the cells on the top side of this section (shrinking them) and into the cells on the underside (puffing them up), the plant can raise the leaf upward.

"That hydraulic system allows plants to move in response to their surroundings. Sunflower buds, for instance, follow the sun across the sky using these little cellular pumps. The same system also opens and closes the stomata.

***

"When you next see a little green shoot poking out from the sidewalk, spare it an extra thought. A plant isn’t just a static green object. It’s a little living factory, fueled, supported and moved by one molecule: water."

Comment At some point during the 'plant bloom' period of evolution these green plants came into existence. This water mechanism had to be there in complete form all at once for the plants to survive. Not step by step, all at once. Only full design can accomplish this result.

Natures wonders: unfurling ladybug wings found

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 16, 2017, 14:38 (2499 days ago) @ David Turell

Researchers made a transparent prosthetic wing cover and high speed filming to discover how the wing unfolds and how its struts are designed to allow the storage and unfolding:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/artificial-wing-lifts-lid-on-secrets-of-ladybug-f...

"Beneath its distinctively patterned forewings, the ladybug guards a triumph of natural design that could revolutionise, among other things, the construction of umbrellas. The hardened front wings, known as elytra, protect the bug’s soft hindwings, which are both supple enough to be furled for compact storage, and rigid enough when unfurled to give the insect the power of highly manoeuvrable flight.

"While researchers have had an inkling of how the ladybug’s hindwings unfold and fold, deduced from origami-like creases on the wings, the exact process has been hidden by the fact the bug carries out that operation under the cover of its closed elytra; and because the elytra are an intrinsic part of the unfolding/folding process, scientists could not simply remove a bug’s forewings to study the hindwings.

"To see what lies underneath, a Japanese research group, led by Kazuya Saito of the University of Tokyo's Institute of Industrial Science, has replaced one of a ladybug’s elytra with a transparent prosthetic, made from a resin often used in nail art.

"Then, using high-speed cameras, they observed how the ladybug uses the edge and lower surface of its forewings, whose curvature matches the shape of the hindwing veins, to fold the wings along their crease lines, while using abdominal thrusts to pull the hindwings into their dorsal storage space.

"Microscopic computed tomography (CT) scans also showed how the curvature of the veins helps support the wing structure, similar to the curve of a carpenter’s measuring tape."

Comment: Biomimetics is the study of designs in nature that humans had not thought of. Nature's designs are smarter than what we can come up with. That certainly implies a designer.

Natures wonders: humped bladderwort

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 15:00 (2498 days ago) @ David Turell

A tiny aquatic form which acts like a venus flytrap:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/life-sucks-when-you-re-a-bladderwort?utm_source=Toda...

"The tiny bladders of the aquatic humped bladderwort plant are key to its evolutionary success. The bladders, just a millimetre in length, use vacuum pressure to suck in prey. The process takes a fraction of a second, and anything that brushes against the appendages, triggering the bladder trap, is fair game.

"Just how valuable the plant’s carnivorous lifestyle has been is shown by the results of an improved genomic study of the plant, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Over millions of years the species has repeatedly retained and enhanced genetic material associated with its carnivorous nature, despite tremendous evolutionary pressure to delete DNA. (my bold)

"'We used bioinformatics to identify genes that were preserved and enriched in the species,” explains one of the genome sequencers, Victor Albert, of the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, “and when we did that, these genes related to a carnivorous lifestyle were the ones that stood out. They were screaming out at us, telling us to look at them.'"

Comment: Again, a form of convergence in evolution, but what is most interesting is the comment in bold. In most evolution the advances are with deletion of DNA.

Natures wonders: aedes aegypti mosquito adapts

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 18, 2017, 18:10 (2497 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazing parts of its lifestyle:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/five-slightly-disgusting-facts-about-mosquitoes?utm_...

"1. The females stockpile sperm
That’s right. Female Aedes aegypti mozzies only need to mate once. Once they have, they carry the sperm around for the rest of their life, using it to fertilise their eggs as they lay them on the edge of water filled containers.

"2. Their eggs love to hitch a ride on used car tyres
The international trade in used car tyres is transporting more than just burnt rubber; Aedes aegypti love to lay their eggs inside the tyre where water collects. And because the eggs can survive for months, these freeriders are well suited to long sea journeys. At their destination, a good splash of rain is all that is needed for the eggs to hatch.

"3. Only the females bite
Like the 3,500 or so other species of mosquito, you only need to watch out for female Aedes aegypti – the males don’t bite. The female needs a blood meal, and all the good nutrients contained within it, to complete the development of her eggs.

"4. They are a domesticated mosquito
Aedes aegypti are the cockroaches of the mosquito world – they just love to hang out in our homes and prefer to snack on humans than any other species. Isn’t it nice to be adored?

"5. They can become immune to Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya
Researchers at the Peter Doherty Institute in Melbourne have discovered that a naturally occurring bacterium called Wolbachia can protect Aedes aegypti from nasty viruses like Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya, meaning they no longer pass these diseases onto humans.

"Some 900,000 people worldwide are already living with Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes, and the program is continuing to roll out internationally."

Comment: That symbiosis with Wolbachia has been presented before.

Natures wonders: plant and fungus in symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 07, 2020, 19:41 (1532 days ago) @ dhw

Another example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106141608.htm

"Like most plants, soybeans pair up with soil fungi in a symbiotic mycorrhizal relationship. In exchange for a bit of sugar, the fungus acts as an extension of the root system to pull in more phosphorus, nitrogen, micronutrients, and water than the plant could on its own.

"Mycorrhizal fungi occur naturally in soil and are commercially available as soil inoculants, but new research from the University of Illinois suggests not all soybean genotypes respond the same way to their mycorrhizal relationships.

***

"The process of root colonization starts before fungal spores even germinate in the soil. Roots exude chemicals, triggering spores to germinate and grow toward the root. Once the fungus makes contact, there's a complex cascade of reactions in the plant that prevents the usual defensive attack against invading pathogens. Instead, the plant allows the fungus to enter and set up shop inside the root, where it creates tiny tree-like structures known as arbuscules; these are where the fungus and plant trade sugar and nutrients.

"The study suggests there is a genetic component to root colonization rates in soybean. To find it, Pawlowski compared the genomes of the 350 genotypes and honed in on six genomic regions associated with differing levels of colonization in soybean.

"We were able to use all the information we have on the soybean genome and gene expression to find possible causal genes within these six regions," she says.

"According to the study, the genes control chemical signals and pathways that call fungus toward roots, allow the plant to recognize mycorrhizal fungus as a "good guy," help build arbuscules, and more. "For almost every step in the colonization process, we were finding related genes within those regions," Pawlowski says."

Comment: Both organisms benefit. How did this happen? Genes have to modified. That takes time unless it happens all at once due to God's action.

Natures wonders: mitochondria living with oxygen stress

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 06, 2021, 20:53 (1077 days ago) @ David Turell

To live we we create energy by using oxygen resulting in byproducts of oxygen, like super oxygen, one of the reactive oxygen species, that can badly damage cells. Mitochondria nave a special protective enzyme:

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-reveal-elusive-antioxidant-enzyme-therapeutic.html

"Mitochondria, known as the powerhouses within human cells, generate the energy needed for cell survival. However, as a byproduct of this process, mitochondria also produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). At high enough concentrations, ROS cause oxidative damage and can even kill cells.

"An enzyme called manganese superoxide dismutase, or MnSOD, uses a mechanism involving electron and proton transfers to lower ROS levels in mitochondria, thus preventing oxidative damage and maintaining cell health. More than a quarter of known enzymes also rely on electron and proton transfers to facilitate cellular activities that are essential for human health.

***

"MnSOD works by targeting superoxide, a reactive molecule that leaks from the mitochondrial energy production process and is the chemical precursor for other harmful ROS. The enzyme's active site turns superoxide into less toxic products by using its manganese ion to move electrons to and from the reactive molecule. The manganese ion is capable of stealing an electron from a superoxide molecule, converting it to oxygen. This stolen electron can then be given to another superoxide to make hydrogen peroxide.

"For this biochemical reaction to work, a series of proton movements need to take place between the enzyme's amino acids and other molecules at its active site. The protons act as instruments that enable the electrons to move. Until now, the enzyme's sequence of electron and proton transfers, also known as its catalytic mechanism, had not been defined at the atomic level because of challenges in tracking how protons are shuttled between molecules. A fundamental understanding of this catalytic process could inform therapeutic approaches that harness this enzyme's antioxidant abilities.

***

"Their analysis suggests that catalysis involves two internal proton transfers between the enzyme's amino acids and two external proton transfers that originate from solvent molecules. While the results of this study confirm some past predictions of the enzyme's biochemical nature, several aspects were unexpected and challenge previously held beliefs.

"For example, the team uncovered cyclic proton transfers occurring between a glutamine amino acid and a manganese-bound solvent molecule. This interaction is a central part of the catalytic process, as it allows the enzyme to cycle between its two electronic states. The researchers also found the proton movements within the active site to be unusual, as several amino acids did not have a proton where they normally would. The study demonstrates the dramatic effects a metal has on the chemistry of the active site that is usually not accounted for.

"'Our results suggest that this mechanism is more complex and atypical than what past studies had theorized," said Jahaun Azadmanesh, a researcher at UNMC and study co-author."

Comment: Step back and view the whole picture of evolution. At a point the Earth is flooded with oxygen and organisms begin to use it to create energy to sustain life, despite how dangerous it is. Logically Oxygen's use and the antioxidant protections had to develop simultaneously. Not by chance, it had to be designed.

Natures wonders: more on magnetic migration

by David Turell @, Friday, May 19, 2017, 20:02 (2495 days ago) @ David Turell

It appears that most migration is handled by magnetite in an imals dahat travel far distances. this article is about trout:

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-genes-trout-home.html

"In the spring when water temperatures start to rise, rainbow trout that have spent several years at sea traveling hundreds of miles from home manage, without maps or GPS, to find their way back to the rivers and streams where they were born for spawning.

***

"Generated by the flow of molten metal in its core, the Earth's magnetic field ranges from a mere 25 microteslas near the equator to 65 microteslas toward the poles—making it more than a hundred times weaker than a refrigerator magnet.

"Diverse animal species can detect such weak magnetic fields and use them to navigate. First identified in birds in the 1960s, this sense, called magnetoreception, has since been documented in animals ranging from bees and salamanders to sea turtles.

***

"Disrupting the fish's internal compass with the magnetic pulse triggered changes in 181 out of the roughly 40,000 genes they examined.

"Notably, the brains of treated fish showed increased expression of genes involved in making ferritin, a protein that stores and transports iron inside cells. Treated fish also showed changes in genes involved in the development of the optic nerve.

"The results suggest that the detection system is based on iron that may be connected with or inside the eyes," Johnsen said.

"The findings are consistent with the idea, first proposed nearly 40 years ago, that animals have tiny magnetic particles of an iron-containing compound called magnetite in their bodies. The magnetite particles are thought to act like microscopic compass needles, relaying information to the nervous system by straining or twisting receptors in cells as they attempt to align with the Earth's magnetic field.

"'You can think of them as mini magnets that the body's cells can sense," Fitak said.

"Magnetite has been found in the beaks of birds, the brains of sea turtles, the tummies of honeybees, and the nasal passages of rainbow trout. Other studies have even found minuscule amounts of magnetite in the human brain, but recent research suggests most of it comes from air pollution rather than occurring naturally, and it's unclear whether they give humans a subconscious magnetic sense.

***

"Next they plan to do similar experiments with other tissues, such as the retina, and additional species that live in the ocean but travel to their freshwater hatching grounds each spring to spawn, such as American shad.

"'Scientists don't know what proteins might be involved in magnetite-based magnetoreception, but now we have some candidate genes to work with," Fitak said."


Comment: It is logical that migratory animals would use the available magnetic field. What is an interesting issue is that the field reverses itself back and forth after roughly 200-300 thousand years. Does that disrupt the migrations? We don't know. What is not logical is how evolution arranged for this process. For dhw, how did cell communities know about the existence of a magnetic field and then find magnetite and place it in the right spots on the body? This system had to be put in place all at once. Saltation.

Natures wonders: more on magnetic migration

by dhw, Saturday, May 20, 2017, 10:36 (2495 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: For dhw, how did cell communities know about the existence of a magnetic field and then find magnetite and place it in the right spots on the body? This system had to be put in place all at once. Saltation.

I can’t answer this question or any question relating to how any organism acquired the chemicals, proteins, minerals etc. that are essential to life, reproduction, evolution or individual lifestyles. Nobody can. Some folk believe it all depends on chance combinations of materials. Others believe it all depends on a supernatural being who organizes it all, but they don’t know anything about the being or how it came to know about or manufacture the chemicals, proteins, minerals etc. that are essential to life etc. And some folk don’t know what to believe. I am one of those.

Natures wonders: more on magnetic migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 20, 2017, 16:02 (2495 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: For dhw, how did cell communities know about the existence of a magnetic field and then find magnetite and place it in the right spots on the body? This system had to be put in place all at once. Saltation.

dhw: I can’t answer this question or any question relating to how any organism acquired the chemicals, proteins, minerals etc. that are essential to life, reproduction, evolution or individual lifestyles. Nobody can. Some folk believe it all depends on chance combinations of materials. Others believe it all depends on a supernatural being who organizes it all, but they don’t know anything about the being or how it came to know about or manufacture the chemicals, proteins, minerals etc. that are essential to life etc. And some folk don’t know what to believe. I am one of those.

Magnetic migration in living organisms requires planning only a mind can do. Many of us believe this.

Natures wonders: plants are shown to hear sounds

by David Turell @, Monday, May 22, 2017, 20:17 (2492 days ago) @ David Turell

Several experiments sow that plans can respond to sounds:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-plants-hear/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20170522

"Monica Gagliano, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia, and her colleagues placed pea seedlings in pots shaped like an upside-down Y. One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed; the other arm had only soil. The roots grew toward the arm of the pipe with the fluid, regardless of whether it was easily accessible or hidden inside the tubing. “They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano says. Yet when the seedlings were given a choice between the water tube and some moistened soil, their roots favored the latter. Gagliano hypothesizes that these plants use sound waves to detect water at a distance but follow moisture gradients to home in on their target when it is closer.

***

"A 2014 study showed the rock cress Arabidopsis, a relative of cabbage, can distinguish between caterpillar chewing sounds and wind vibrations—the plant produced more chemical toxins after “hearing” a recording of feeding insects. “We tend to underestimate plants because their responses are usually less visible to us. But leaves turn out to be extremely sensitive vibration detectors,” says lead study author Heidi Appel, an environmental scientist now at the University of Toledo.

"Another hint that plants can hear comes from the phenomenon of “buzz pollination,” in which a bee buzzing at a particular frequency has been shown to stimulate pollen release. Other experiments have found that sounds can lead to hormonal changes in plants, influence their oxygen uptake and change their growth rates. A study published earlier this year revealed that sound waves can even influence gene expression in Arabidopsis.

"Michael Schöner, a biologist at University of Greifswald in Germany, who was not involved in the new research, believes that plants may have organs that can perceive noises. “Sound vibrations could trigger a response of the plant via mechanoreceptors—these could be very fine, hairy structures, anything that could work like a membrane,” he says."

Comment: It has also been shown that plans can release chemicals to warn other nearby plants.

Natures wonders: Monkeys steal, barter for food

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 25, 2017, 23:50 (2489 days ago) @ David Turell

This appears to be a learned cultural activity in a small area in Bali:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132748-monkey-mafia-steal-your-stuff-then-sell-it...

"Long-tailed macaques living near an Indonesian temple have figured out how to run a ransom racket on visiting tourists.

"The monkeys grab valuables, such as glasses, hats, cameras or, in one case, a wad of cash from the ticket booth, then wait for temple staff to offer them food before dropping their ill-gotten gains and dashing off with the tasty prize.

" Although this behaviour has been reported anecdotally at Uluwatu Temple on the island of Bali for years, it had never been studied scientifically in the wild. So Fany Brotcorne, a primatologist at the University of Liège in Belgium, and her colleagues set out to discover how and why it has spread through the monkey population.


“'It’s a unique behaviour. The Uluwatu Temple is the only place in Bali where it’s found,” she says, which suggests it is a learned behaviour rather than an innate ability.

"Brotcorne wanted to determine whether it was indeed cultural, which could help us better understand the monkey’s cognitive abilities, and even human evolution.

"She spent four months observing four different groups of monkeys that live near the temple. The two groups that spent the most time around tourists had the highest rates of robbing and bartering, supporting the idea that they were learning the behaviour by watching each other. Groups with more young males, who are more prone to risky behaviour, also had higher rates than other groups.

"Although this study is based on only a small sample, Brotcorne believes her team has found the first preliminary evidence that the behaviour is a cultural one, transmitted across generations by monkeys learning from each other.

"In the years since these observations, she has gathered more evidence: the members of a fifth group of macaques that moved into the area around the temple have also started to learn that they can barter stolen goods for snacks.

"Serge Wich, a primatologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, says Brotcorne’s work provides “a novel and quite spectacular example of flexibility in primate behaviour in response to environmental changes'”.

Comment: Certainly looks like a learned behaviour in which people offered food to get back a stolen item. The new troop learning the trick supports that. Monkey see, Monkey do.

Natures wonders: plant fungal symbiosis from signals

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 27, 2017, 00:55 (2488 days ago) @ David Turell

Special chemical signals released into the soil lead to the combination of plant and fungus:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-vitaleven-funghi.html

"Plant scientists at the University of Cambridge have found a plant protein indispensable for communication early in the formation of symbiosis - the mutually beneficial relationship between plants and fungi. Symbiosis significantly enhances a plant's ability to take up vital nutrients like phosphate from the soil,

"By analysing a mutant strain of maize (called Zmnope1) that does not form symbiotic associations with fungi, the scientists managed to identify the missing gene - NOPE1 - which codes for a transporter molecule not previously described in plants. The new study, published today in Nature Plants, suggests that the plant's NOPE1 gene must be working properly if beneficial fungi in the soil - called arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi - are to properly respond to signals released by plant roots and begin the process of forming this vital symbiotic relationship.

"The fungus and the plant need each other as symbiotic partners, and communication is vital in finding each other," says study principal investigator and research group leader Dr Uta Paszkowski. "Wild type plants release something that conditions the fungus for symbiosis, but if the plant can't talk to the fungus due to the missing transporter, the fungus won't be able to respond."

"The NOPE1 gene codes for a transporter of a molecule called N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc), a building block of chitin, which is a major component of the cell walls of most fungi and also of many signalling molecules. It has previously been shown in the fungal pathogen Candida albicans that when GlcNAc is transported into a fungal cell it activates cell signalling. It increases the expression of genes that promote hyphal growth leading to pathogenic interactions with a host plant. In this new study, exposure of AM fungi to the exudate of rice plant roots with functional NOPE1 had a similar effect, causing the fungi to invade the roots of plants, and also to express virulence genes that help them attach to host plant cells.

"The Cambridge team's work now provides the first evidence that the previously unknown plant GlcNAc transporter protein also plays a role at the other side of this relationship - in the initiation of plant root colonization by AM fungi. Wild type rice roots were shown to acquire and release GlcNAc, with uptake clearly dependent on NOPE1. The transporter they identified is the first plasma membrane transporter of GlcNAc ever identified in plants.

"'This is the first plant protein ever reported to be indispensable for communication between plants and the fungus in the rhizosphere," says Paszkowski. "Symbiosis starts when the plant roots and fungi exchange various types of chemical signal in the soil. Even before the two organisms have made physical contact, signalling molecules are released into the rhizosphere - the region of soil accessible to both fungus and plant root. They form symbiosis for life, so it's an important decision.'"

Comment: the two organisms benefit from each other, but how did this evolve? It requires signaling, and it also requires that each needed to recognize the benefits. It is difficult to imagine a stepwise development. Saltation?

Natures wonders: frog vocalizations

by David Turell @, Monday, May 29, 2017, 15:44 (2486 days ago) @ David Turell

Looking for sex, frogs are loud and clear:


"In anurans—the group of tailless amphibians to which frogs and toads belong—vocalization is all about sex. Males produce the majority of these sounds, most often to attract mates and defend territories. Many species have vocal sacs that amplify these so-called advertisement calls, which vary widely. “Every species has [its] own unique call,” says population geneticist Benjamin Pierce of Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. “Some are grunts, some are trills, some are peeping noises.”

***

"Frogs rarely call in isolation. Males typically broadcast amongst a gaggle of competitors, and across the population, vocalizations overlap and syncopate—the animals are said to be chorusing. “Listening to a chorus of frog calls, it definitely has rhythm—it builds, it dies down—and it certainly can be ‘music,’” says Carlos Davidson, a professor of environmental studies at San Francisco State University.

"There’s melody, harmony, and repetition in frog calls,” agrees Phil Bishop, who studies amphibian communication at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

"And the synchronization of the anuran chorus is not totally random. To attract the attention of potential mates in a competitive environment, male bird-voiced tree frogs (Hyla avivoca) adjust their pulse rates (Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 63:195-208, 2008). Female grey tree frogs (H. versicolor) showed a preference for leading pulses when researchers played a pair of overlapping pulsed signals that were typical of males of this species (Anim Behav, 80:139-45, 2010). And the calls of large groups of frogs are more likely to reach potential mates than the sounds of a lone amphibian, Davidson notes. While “each individual is calling for [his] sole benefit,” he says, “females will be more likely to hear and be attracted to . . . males all calling together.”

"Davidson is also interested in creatures that eavesdrop on frog calls, such as nearby predators that might use the sound to deduce the size and location of potential prey. “There may be audiences—other animals that hear the sound—for which it has a very different meaning,” he says.

"There are also human audiences. Pierce and colleagues survey frog calls in central Texas in order to identify which—and how many—frogs are present in a given environment. “You can [identify] about 90 percent of the species that are calling in 15 minutes,” Pierce says. “If you listen for 5 minutes or 10 minutes, you’re likely to miss some things.'”

Comment: Sound has been useful to most organisms throughout evolution, both in water and in air. All based on vibration waves with different sense organs to receive them.

Natures wonders: more on magnetic migration

by David Turell @, Monday, September 05, 2022, 18:19 (561 days ago) @ David Turell

Sharks use the field:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/omicron-booster-shot-vaccine-covid-coronavirus-pfiz...

"The navigational mechanism used to facilitate these movements is unresolved

"We show that sharks use the Earth’s magnetic field for homeward orientation

"This ability is useful for navigation and possibly maintaining population structure

"Migration is common in marine animals, and use of the map-like information of Earth’s magnetic field appears to play an important role. While sharks are iconic migrants and well known for their sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, whether this ability is used for navigation is unresolved. We conducted magnetic displacement experiments on wild-caught bonnetheads (Sphyrna tiburo) and show that magnetic map cues can elicit homeward orientation. We further show that use of a magnetic map to derive positional information may help explain aspects of the genetic structure of bonnethead populations in the northwest Atlantic. These results offer a compelling explanation for the puzzle of how migratory routes and population structure are maintained in marine environments, where few physical barriers limit movements of vagile species.


"Sharks, skates, and rays, from the subclass Elasmobranchii, are among the most ecologically important groups of marine fishes. Many species of elasmobranchs are highly mobile and their habitats can span thousands of kilometers, with some migratory species exhibiting site fidelity, in which individuals return to specific locations.29,30 Researchers have long known that elasmobranchs are sensitive to electromagnetic fields, and the possibility that sharks use their electrosensory organs in some capacity to glean information from Earth’s magnetic field (hereby referred to as the geomagnetic field [GMF]) for navigational purposes has been widely discussed. The GMF provides animals with both map and compass information. The map allows animals to garner spatial information relative to their location,7 while the compass allows animals to maintain a directed heading,32 and together, these facilitate successful migrations toward targeted locations. Elasmobranchs appear capable of discriminating between different components of the GMF14 and have also been trained to respond to geomagnetic polarity and intensity. Tracking studies of wild sharks have revealed striking associations between swimming trajectory and local magnetic maxima and minima extending from seamounts to feeding grounds;35 however, whether sharks use geomagnetic cues for navigation remains unresolved.

***

"These results suggest that sharks can differentiate geographic locations using map information from the GMF. Bonnetheads appeared to perceive the southern magnetic field as different from the field at the capture site and responded to the magnetic displacement with homeward orientation. It is tempting to speculate that the northern field did not elicit different orientation from the field at the capture site because the sharks had no experience with such strong magnetic fields and that their magnetic map is “learned.” Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico could learn that fields weaker than those at the capture site indicate more southward locations but would never experience stronger fields than the capture site and thus may not know how to respond to such conditions. However, the lack of response to the northern treatment is also consistent with findings in animals with innate magnetic maps; hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) failed to orient in magnetic fields far outside of their normal migratory route, but were strongly oriented within the typical population range.37 While our experiment suggests that magnetic fields that are more familiar (either from individual experience or evolutionary history) elicit more robust orientation responses, further study is required to conclude how bonnetheads derive and extrapolate magnetic map information.

***

"The use of magnetic maps appears to be a widely shared trait in species that occupy a variety of habitats, possess divergent life history strategies, and move over a wide range of spatial scales.39,43,44 Our work adds to the growing body of literature that the map-like use of the GMF is an evolutionary underpinning for how animals across a variety of taxa successfully derive spatial information from diverse habitats."

Comment: Animals used a magnetic compass mechanism long before we did!!!

Natures wonders: virus sponge symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 18:57 (1510 days ago) @ David Turell

Viruses help symbiotic bacteria in sponges to survive it appears:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/viruses-mediate-interactions-between-bacte...

"A newly identified group of viruses may help suppress eukaryotes’ immune response and promote tolerance of endosymbiotic bacteria.

***

"Digging further into the genomic data, the team noticed one group of previously unidentified bacteriophages that were particularly abundant in sponge viromes. To Jahn’s surprise, these phages contained genetic sequences for so-called ankyrin repeats, protein motifs usually studied in bacteria that help pathogenic or commensal microbes infect and manipulate eukaryotic hosts. He wondered if the viruses, which the team dubbed ankyphages, might facilitate interactions between sponges and their resident bacteria.

"Both sponge cells and their endosymbiotic bacteria are difficult to culture, so to test Jahn’s idea, the team set up an experiment with mouse cell lines and E. coli. The researchers first cultured E. coli with ankyrin protein synthesized from the viral sequences. Then they added the bacteria, which displayed the protein on their cell surfaces, to murine immune cells.

"Sure enough, the E. coli that had been cultured with ankyrin protein were better at surviving exposure to mouse immune cells: they escaped being engulfed by macrophages more often than control bacteria did. E. coli engineered to produce and secrete the phage proteins themselves also survived macrophage exposure. The team ran further experiments to confirm that the protein wasn’t toxic to either the bacterial or murine cells, and concluded that phage-derived ankyrin was indeed helping to suppress macrophage responses toward the bacteria.

***

"Scanning genome databases for other phyla, Jahn and his colleagues found evidence that ankyphages are also present in the microbiomes of other eukaryotic organisms, including humans. The findings hint at the importance of bacteriophages in eukaryotic function, says Jahn. Far from being incidental stowaways in eukaryotic organisms, phages “are central elements,” he says. “It opens a lot of perspective for further research.'”

Comment: The bush of life has many interlocking helpful arrangements, such as the human microbiome. Now more evidence of a helpful virome. This adds to our recognition of the importance of interlocked econiches which are just as helpful in supporting all of life. All of living organisms have a degree of dependence upon all other organisms. Not all viruses are dangerous like the new Chinese Corona virus. The competition which is a large part of the Darwin theory is only a small part of the story. Viruses, which are only partially alive in the sense they must be part of fully independent living forms, play a major role in life and perhaps in driving evolution, as previously proposed. Looks like they were created for a major set of purposes.

Natures wonders: virus integration into DNA

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 19:19 (1510 days ago) @ David Turell

It happened in the ancient past and even now:

https://viralzone.expasy.org/980?outline=all_by_protein

"Mandatory integration:
Viruses for which this is an obligatory event during viral replication. This is the cases for the retroviridae, pseudoviridae, metaviridae, some myoviridae and siphoviridae. Integration of the viral DNA results in permanent insertion of the viral genome into the host chromosomal DNA, referred as a provirus in the case of retroviruses or prophage in the case of prokaryotic viruses.

"Occasional integration:
This kind of integration is not necessary for virus replication, but confers some advantages to the host/virus couple. It can facilitate long term asymptomatic infection of cells (latency),and also provide an advantage to the host cell. Many bacterial toxines are carried out by prophages for example .

"Endogenous viral elements (EVE):
Viruses integrated long time ago and “fossilized” into a host genome, through a rare and sometimes accidental process. There are two kinds of endogenous viruses: endogenous retroviruses, and rare RNA virus integration.

"Endogenous retro-viruses: Integrated viral genome can remain latent and be passively replicated along with the host genome and passed on to the cell’s offspring. Host’s environmental condition changes can however reactivate the virus leading to viral transcription and production of new infectious viruses (productive infection).
Retrovirus genomes that become integrated in the germline are referred as endogenous retroviruses (ERV ) to distinguish them from horizontally transmitted, not passed on to host progeny, termed “exogenous” retroviruses. Hepadnaviridae have ben found also integrated inhost genome, notably in plants

"Endogenous ssDNA viruses: SsDNA viruses like circoviridae which don’t encode for an integrase have been found integrated in many genomes. It can happen also in plants: Geminivirus genome have been found in the tobacco genome .

"Rare RNA virus integration:dsRNA, ssRNA(+) and ssRNA(-) viruses do not get reverse transcribed and are unable to integrate in host genome. Still Arenavirus reverse-transcribed genome has been detected in mice . Also Bornaviridae , filoviridae and Totiviridae sequences have been found integrated into several mammalian genome, and Rhabdoviridae in insect genomes indicating tat this event can occur although it’s very rare.

And new current evidence:

"A virus has been observed integrating its DNA into the genomes of mice – an event that we knew took place in the ancient past but hasn’t been seen in action before. Even more surprisingly, the virus in question was one we thought was unable to do this. According to the researchers, the finding means that even more of the DNA of animals derives from viruses than we thought, and suggests that viral pandemics can alter the characteristics of animals by changing their genes."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2231402-animal-dna-is-full-of-viral-invaders-and-n... (paywall)

Comment: Entered to support my discussion in the previous entry.

Natures wonders: virus that eat bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 21:19 (1496 days ago) @ David Turell

Normally bacteriophages just infect bacteria. this giant group eats them as if they were fully alive:

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-huge-bacteria-eating-viruses-gap-life.html

"These phages—short for bacteriophages, so-called because they "eat" bacteria—are of a size and complexity considered typical of life, carry numerous genes normally found in bacteria and use these genes against their bacterial hosts.

***

"Among these is the largest bacteriophage discovered to date: Its genome, 735,000 base-pairs long, is nearly 15 times larger than the average phage. This largest known phage genome is much larger than the genomes of many bacteria.

***

"'These huge phages bridge the gap between non-living bacteriophages, on the one hand, and bacteria and Archaea. There definitely seem to be successful strategies of existence that are hybrids between what we think of as traditional viruses and traditional living organisms."

"Ironically, within the DNA that these huge phages lug around are parts of the CRISPR system that bacteria use to fight viruses. It's likely that once these phages inject their DNA into bacteria, the viral CRISPR system augments the CRISPR system of the host bacteria, probably mostly to target other viruses.

***

"The team identified 351 phage genomes that were more than 200 kilobases long, four times the average phage genome length of 50 kilobytes (kb). They were able to establish the exact length of 175 phage genomes; the others could be much larger than 200 kb. One of the complete genomes, 735,000 base-pairs long, is now the largest known phage genome.

"While most of the genes in these huge phages code for unknown proteins, the researchers were able to identify genes that code for proteins critical to the machinery, called the ribosome, that translates messenger RNA into protein. Such genes are not typically found in viruses, only in bacteria or archaea.

"The researchers found many genes for transfer RNAs, which carry amino acids to the ribosome to be incorporated into new proteins; genes for proteins that load and regulate tRNAs; genes for proteins that turn on translation and even pieces of the ribosome itself.

"Typically, what separates life from non-life is to have ribosomes and the ability to do translation; that is one of the major defining features that separate viruses and bacteria, non-life and life," Sachdeva said. "Some large phages have a lot of this translational machinery, so they are blurring the line a bit."

"Huge phages likely use these genes to redirect the ribosomes to make more copies of their own proteins at the expense of bacterial proteins. Some huge phages also have alternative genetic codes, the nucleic acid triplets that code for a specific amino acid, which could confuse the bacterial ribosome that decodes RNA.

***

"'The high-level conclusion is that phages with large genomes are , they are quite prominent across Earth's ecosystemsnot a peculiarity of one ecosystem," Banfield said. "And phages which have large genomes are related, which means that these are established lineages with a long history of large genome size. Having large genomes is one successful strategy for existence, and a strategy we know very little about.'"

Comment: Another strange part of the bush of life . It is found in many ecosystems as the bold notes, so it must be assumed they play a required role.

Natures wonders: how bacteria help desert moisture

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2020, 01:36 (1323 days ago) @ David Turell

It seems there are many more ways bacteria show importance:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth-sciences/why-biocrust-is-useful-in-the-desert/?u...

"Miniscule plants and microscopic organisms growing on desert soils reduce water erosion by an average of 68% worldwide, a new study has found.

***

"It found that while they reduce the infiltration of water into the soil, they tend to increase water storage in the uppermost layers.

“'Cyanobacteria in the crusts secrete organic gels and polysaccharides that help to bind small soil particles into stable surfaces,” says UNSW’s Samantha Travers. “Mosses in the crusts also trapped water and sediment on the soil surface, preventing the removal of soil particles.”

***

"Lead author David Eldridge says while it was known biocrusts could fix large amounts of nitrogen and carbon, stabilise surface soils, and provide a home for soil organisms, until now scientists have had “a poor understanding” of how they influence hydrological cycles.

“'This upper layer is where most of the nutrients and microbes are found; it is a critical zone for plant production and stability in dryland soils,” he says. “More water in the upper layers means greater productivity and stability.”

"The findings are significant, he adds, because drylands cover almost half of Earth’s land surface and support nearly 40% of its human population.

***

"The results will be incorporated into global water balance and soil loss models. The work is part of a larger study designed to predict the impacts of climate change on biological crust communities."

Comment: Bacteria were the start of evolution, and are still here contributing to the balance of nature in so many ways we have demonstrated here. No wonder they were kept around as the longest lasting organisms. I'm sure by God's design.

Natures wonders: zombified beetles

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 10, 2017, 23:39 (2473 days ago) @ David Turell

Once again a fungus is in control and appears to use a sexual lure by remotely spreading dead wings:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134134-fungus-creates-zombie-beetles-that-crave-f...

"Goldenrod soldier beetles (Chauliognathus pensylvanicus) feed and mate on flowers – and that’s where some of them meet their end, too. When infected with the fungus Eryniopsis lampyridarum, the beetles clamp their jaws onto a flower and die soon after.

"Hours later and still stuck to the flowers, the dead beetles’ wings snap open as though ready to fly. With their wings raised, these beetles even attract mates – live males were seen having sex with zombie females.

***

"He thinks this greatly increases the chance that the fungal infection will be picked up by healthy beetles. It attaches the infected beetles exactly where other healthy beetles are feeding and looking for mates.

"Steinkraus and his team studied 446 live and dead solider beetles for signs of fungal infection. About 20 per cent of these were found to carry the fungus, with most of these assuming the same dramatic posture. They clung tightly to flowers using only their mandibles and their legs hung free.

"But strangely, the wings opened only 15 to 22 hours after a beetle had died.

***

"The fungus becomes obvious in the post-death wing-opening phase, when its spores and filaments erupt from the beetle’s abdomen. Steinkraus says it is possible that raised wings and a swollen abdomen caused by fungal growth make the beetles look bigger, which may help attract a mate and spread the infection."

Comment: It is amazing that the fungus can stimulate the brain so long after death to get the wings open. It is difficult to imagine how this arrangement evolved.

Natures wonders: plant extremophiles

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 11, 2017, 00:04 (2473 days ago) @ David Turell

In volcanic areas at 72 degrees C:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2134206-extreme-plants-thrive-at-72c-in-new-zealan...

"A survey of plants growing in a highly-active volcanic area in New Zealand, where soil temperatures can reach 98.5°C, has revealed several species of vegetation that can survive the extreme conditions.

"Geothermal fields, areas where the ground is heated up by molten rock below, are known for their hot springs and geysers. But they contain distinct vegetation, too.

***

"They sampled vegetation, measured soil temperatures, and analysed soil samples to determine the pH level and metal content, for example.

"Geothermal soil often has extreme pH levels, and unusually high – and sometimes toxic – levels of metals such as aluminium, which are thought to affect plant growth.

***

"Plants with shallow roots, for example mosses and liverworts, were the only survivors in zones with extremely hot soil, the temperature of which they measured at 10 centimetres below the surface.

"Smale and his colleagues found that a moss, dwarf swan-neck moss (Campylopus pyriformis), which thrives in a range of climates, was the most heat-tolerant plant in the areas they surveyed. It was found in soil where temperatures reached 72°C.

“'It supports only one species,” says Smale. “Apart from perhaps thermophilic algae, no plants can survive temperatures above about 80°C.”

"Since soil temperatures at such sites rise the deeper one goes, even these heat-tolerant species are restricted to the top few centimetres of the hot soil. They’ve adapted by having short roots – or roots that spread out laterally instead of downwards.

"Subjecting a plant’s roots to high temperatures can increase metabolic activity in cells and reduce growth, so some geothermal grasses have adapted by tweaking their root respiration rates.

***

"In areas where the soil was a few degrees cooler, at 68°C, Smale’s team found geothermal kanuka, a shrub endemic to New Zealand, and staghorn clubmoss, Lycopodiella cernua, which is widespread in tropical climates.

"Overall, there were few flowering plants. Soil temperature was found to be the main factor limiting plant growth.

"Todd Rosenstiel from Portland State University, who studied plant communities at geothermal sites in Lassen Volcanic National Park in California, also found that mosses dominated at the highest temperatures. “There seems to be a convergence of plant community structures across geothermal zones,” he says."

Comment: There seem to be few limits to where life cannot go.

Natures wonders: glass eels migrate with magnetism

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, 01:55 (2471 days ago) @ David Turell

The eels migrate from Europe to the Sargasso Sea, spawn, and after growing use the Gulf Stream to head back. They respond to magnetism so presumably use the Earth's field, but that is not fully elucidated:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612135509.htm

"Scientists are closer to unraveling the long-standing mystery of how tiny glass eel larvae, which begin their lives as hatchlings in the Sargasso Sea, know when and where to "hop off" the Gulf Stream toward European coastlines to live out their adult lives in coastal estuaries.

"In a new study by the University of Miami (UM)'s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in collaboration with the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research's Austevoll Research Station found that these glass eels (Anguilla anguilla) can sense Earth's magnetic field and use it like a compass controlled by an internal "biological" clock to orient themselves towards the coast.

"'This study is an important addition to our understanding of the mechanisms of eel migration and also to that of other species, if it turns out that their magnetic orientation is similarly controlled by a biological clock," said UM Rosenstiel School Professor Claire Paris, a senior author of the study.

"The odyssey of the European eel begins when they hatch in the Sargasso Sea. As tiny larvae, they travel thousands of kilometers across the Atlantic Ocean, hopefully making it to the European continental shelf. At some point between the Canary Islands and northern Norway they "hop off" the Gulf Stream and actively migrate towards the coast, heading for estuaries. Some eels remain in the coastal area, while others move inland into lakes, remaining there, slowly growing, for up to 30 years.

"The research team led by UM Rosenstiel School Ph.D. student Alessandro Cresci investigated the orientation behavior of the eels using a unique combination of experiments. First, they observed the eels in a semi-enclosed, circular aquarium, called a Drifting In-Situ Chamber (DISC) pioneered by Paris, deployed in a Norwegian fjord, a natural environments of the glass eel just before it arrives at the coast. The next step was to conduct an orientation behavior analysis in a magnetoreception test facility (the "MagLab"), where they were exposed to artificially manipulated magnetic field such that the N-S and E-W axes were shifted by 90 degrees.

"Although deprived of all other environmental cues, glass eels in the laboratory oriented to the South, the same direction that they swam in situ during the ebb tide.

"'It is incredible that these small transparent glass eels can detect Earth's magnetic field. The use of a magnetic compass could be a key component underlying the amazing migration of these animals," said Cresci, the study's lead author. "It is also the first observation of glass eels keeping a compass as they swim in shelf waters, and that alone is an exciting discovery'."

Comment: This is consistent with other migrating animals that have been shown to be sensitive to the magnetic field, and some have been shown to have iron compounds. As usual I wonder how this developed by Darwin theory evolution. Europe and the Sargasso Sea are several thousand miles apart just like the destinations of all migrations, some of which are 8-10,000 miles long. I feel the process is guided by God.

Natures wonders: vicious venoms

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 24, 2017, 01:19 (2460 days ago) @ David Turell

They appear using genes with other functions, but the scientists guess at the genomic methods by which they arrive, one lucky mutation to change expression:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/moonlighting-genes-evolve-for-a-venomous-job-20170622/?u...

"Venoms are among nature’s fiercest adaptations. The geographer’s cone snail, for example, only injects about a tenth of a milligram of venom when it stings, and yet, this is more than enough to kill a person in under an hour. These chemical cocktails contain some of the most potent compounds known, and their fearsome power has awed people since the dawn of history. It wasn’t until modern advances in genetics, though, that scientists were able to study how the genes encoding for such potent toxins arise, providing glimpses into the workings of evolution at the molecular level. From such studies came the current canonical model of how venom genes evolve through the chance replication and mutation of genes for enzymes, peptides and other proteins.

"But new findings published today in Current Biology challenge this model, finding that the majority of toxin genes for parasitoid wasp species are instead “moonlighting” from other physiological roles. A further exciting implication is that if this discovery is relevant to compounds other than venoms, it might be a pathway that nature uses to develop other evolutionary solutions rapidly.

***

“'The venoms of parasitoids are quite different from those of most of the venomous animals that have been studied because they’ve evolved to manipulate metabolism” rather than to kill outright, Werren explained.

***

"In stark contrast to studies of other venomous animals, they found that nearly half of the 53 most recently recruited venom genes uncovered through their genetic analyses were single-copy, meaning they were not duplicates of other genes with which evolution had tinkered. In fact, less than 10 percent of the toxin genes clearly arose through duplication and mutation.

***

"Instead, Werren likened the functionality of these single-copy genes to “moonlighting” for extra cash, with the genes taking on a “night job” in the venom gland in addition to their “day job” elsewhere in the body. The genes were routinely expressed to some degree in various tissues during stages of larval or adult development. The venom glands simply expressed the genes much more abundantly and steadily. Consequently, the gene’s protein — which had a benign physiological function elsewhere in the wasp body — reached a concentration with toxic properties in the venom. “That’s why a lot of this is expression evolution,” Werren explained. “The protein isn’t changing much. It’s just its expression pattern that’s changing to make it a venom.”

***

"But the findings suggest that the wasps don’t need mutations in the venom toxin genes to switch from one host to another, or to keep pace with their current hosts. They just need to be able to co-opt and drop genes for use in making venoms quickly.

***

"Gene moonlighting can occur merely through changes in expression, which may result from as little as a single mutation; it does not require the meandering process of random alteration and selection implied by the duplication and neofunctionalization model. Co-option is therefore likely to be a much faster mechanism for adaptation. “For species that have a very rapidly changing environment, this process of co-option of single genes may be fairly important."

Comment: Think about it. The wasps have a very complex lifestyle which involves turning prey into zombies for their larvae to feast on. And just the right single mutation changes gene expression to make just the right brain venom to get just the right zombie control. All by chance? Never!

Natures wonders: cockatoo drummers on beat

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 29, 2017, 15:31 (2455 days ago) @ David Turell

They use sticks to drum on wood:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/male-palm-cockatoos-play-drums-to-impress-females

"From rhythm and blues to heavy metal, your typical pet cockatoo needs little encouragement to shake its tail feather and bang its head. Independent tests (namely YouTube videos) demonstrate that pretty much anything with a beat – be it a track from Elvis Presley, Queen, AC/DC, Back Street Boys, Tone Loc or Pharrell Wilson – will do.

"Yet while all cockatoos appear to be music lovers, only one type of cockatoo is a music creator. The male palm cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus) doesn’t just produce percussive music, with a repertoire of different rhythmic beats, but actually fashions its own instruments, striking hollow tree limbs with modified sticks or seedpods to amplify its performance.

"This is the only known non-human example of drumming using manufactured sound tools, report a team of Australian researchers led by Robert Heinsohn of Australian National University in Canberra. “This behavior is remarkable,” they note in their paper, published in Science Advances, “because tool manufacture among nonhuman species is rare and almost always occurs in the context of solving problems related to foraging, but palm cockatoos use their tools only to make sounds.”

"While other species, such as chimpanzees, have been found to drum, none use instruments like the palm cockatoos. “Our study of tool-assisted drumming in palm cockatoos,” the researchers report, “shows that they use abilities seen separately in other nonhuman species in a combination that has, to our knowledge, been recorded only in humans when performing percussive musical rhythms.”

"The researchers, from ANU, the University of Queensland and Deakin University in Victoria, who recorded 131 distinct sequences of drumming (each comprising 5 to 92 percussive taps) made by 18 cockatoos. The birds exhibited another distinguishing characteristic shared with human music, with individuals having their own consistent drumming patterns or “signatures”.

"The cockatoos were recorded on Australia’s Cape York Peninsula. Along with the cape, the palm cockatoo can be also be found on islands off the Australian north coast and in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea.

"Their data suggests the male palm cockatoo has evolved the ability generate its own regular percussive beat when displaying to females, rather than entraining to a beat provided by others, due the spacing of nests being further than the distance travelled by their drumming sounds.

“'Male palm cockatoos thus appear to be more like solo musical artists or the beat setters of musical ensembles (for example, drummers in western rock bands) who have their own internalised notion of a regular pulse, and then generate the motor pattern that creates the beat,” the researchers report."

Comment: Appears to be an instinct. Based on their response to rhythmic beating.

Natures wonders: bumble bee learning

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 01, 2017, 19:19 (2453 days ago) @ David Turell

How to get to the pollen in certain flowers?:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-scrabble-foraging-bees.html

"Gathering sweet nectar from flowers, it turns out, is much more difficult than one might think, and it requires a lengthy learning process. By the time a bee has figured out how to efficiently pry open the lips of a snapdragon flower, for example, most likely it has made dozens, if not hundreds, of floral visits.

"How does a bee in charge of shopping for food needed to raise dozens of hungry larvae back in the hive learn to navigate the multitude of floral architectures it may encounter during an average workday, let alone over the course of its life?

"Mostly by what biologists call associative learning, more widely known as trial and error, researchers have found. But while extensive research—starting with famous bee researcher and Nobel laureate Karl von Frisch a century ago—has focused on uncovering how bees forage for nectar, much less is known about how bees go about collecting pollen, which constitutes the most important protein source for the developing brood in the hive.

***

"Our findings suggest that unlike nectar foraging, which requires complex learning behavior, bumblebees already know how to collect pollen," says Russell, who did the research as a doctoral student in the UA's Graduate Interdisciplinary Program in Entomology and Insect Science, "and they do it by switching between two responses that are seemingly hardwired into their brains." (my bold)

"Once a bumblebee touches down on a flower, it wastes no time. If it senses that the anthers are laden with abundant pollen just waiting to be shaken off like ripened apples from a tree, the bee does the obvious: a behavior that bee researchers call "scrabbling." Using its mandibles and legs, the bee brushes the pollen grains onto its body, then combs them off into collection baskets located on each of its hind legs.

"'If you picture a happy toddler in a play pit filled with plastic balls, you get the idea of scrabbling," Russell says.

"However, some flowers make their pollen grains more difficult to access, or sport intricate anther designs that dispense only a little bit of pollen at a time

"That way, the plant makes sure pollinators don't eat it all, but carry it to other flowers for pollination instead, and also leave some for other visitors as well, so the flowers aren't limited to a single pollinator," he says.

"When visiting some of these trickier flowers, Russell's team found, bumblebees switch to a different behavior called sonication—or, in more familiar terms, buzzing. Not unlike a sonicating toothbrush that vibrates to shake plaque from teeth, a sonicating bee vibrates vigorously to free pollen grains hidden inside the flower.

"The team observed that the bees switched between these two motor regimes depending on chemical and mechanical cues: They scrabbled when pollen was abundant, and sonicated when pollen was scarce, either because the flower already had been depleted or because its pollen is less accessible by design.

***

"Bumblebees tend to sonicate on pollen-concealing anthers right away, but they also buzz accessible anthers when they can't detect pollen by touch," Russell says. "We think they do that in an effort to collect the dregs from a flower after most of its pollen has been harvested."

"Being able to switch between two programmed routines allows bees to effectively collect pollen from flowers in many different shapes and forms, the researchers conclude. This flexibility also may explain a fact that had evolutionary biologists stumped for a long time: Flowers with concealed pollen stores evolved many times independently, suggesting that pollinators must always have had a way to harvest pollen from them, or else the co-evolution between the two would have led to a dead end and not survived.

"'Researchers used to think that floral sonication is a behavior only used to collect pollen from concealed pollen stores," Russell says, "but because we often observe bees buzzing on flowers with accessible pollen, we conclude that it's a behavior that has evolved as a general strategy to collect pollen from any type of flower.'"

Comment: The authors think this is an evolved instinct. Even bee brains have plasticity and can rewire. Fits common descent.

Natures wonders: honeybee color vision controls

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 04, 2017, 15:39 (2450 days ago) @ David Turell

Honeybees have five eyes, two standard compound, and three to modulate color appreciation:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/learning-from-nature-bees-show-way-to-improve-camera...

"Is that dress blue and black or white and gold? How we perceive colour is complex, influenced greatly by lighting conditions. For machines, it’s even harder to replicate the adjustments our brains make for changes in the colour of light. It’s the reason your average digital camera has settings for shooting outdoors in sunny or overcast conditions, or indoors under fluorescent or tungsten lighting.

"In future, though, cameras may achieve more accurate colour sensing thanks to visionary technology inspired by the abilities of honeybees.

"The insects, whose survival depends on visual identification of food sources, manage to achieve with their relatively simple brains what traditional models of human colour perception have concluded requires complex neural structures: achieving colour constancy.

"So how do honeybees perceive the same colours on visited flowers, despite continuous and rapid changes in ambient illumination and background colour? The answer, according to researchers from Australian institutions, involves the three extra eyes (ocelli) the bees have on the top of their head, which look directly at the sky and contain two colour receptors attuned to sense the colour of ambient light.

"While the purpose of the ocelli has been traditionally regarded as serving flight-oriented processes, the researchers report in their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their mapping of the bee’s neural tracings shows information from the ocelli feeds into the key-colour processing areas of the bee brain and is integrated with information from the insect’s two main compound eyes that directly sense flower colours.

"This enables the bee’s visual system “to use a priori knowledge of the general spectral characteristics of the illuminant to achieve colour constancy based on either top-down mechanisms or local processing at hierarchically ‘high’ centres,” the researchers write.
The result of their research is a “biologically validated mathematical solution that we reveal can be readily implemented into artificial systems'”.

Comment: This is a complex vision system that logically must be seen as developing in one saltation, since honeybee survival depends upon color recognition to find the right flowers for survival. Design at work both in vision and in the fact that flowers depend upon honeybees to do the necessary pollination for survival.

Natures wonders: spider silk beats what we can make

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 08, 2017, 19:58 (2445 days ago) @ David Turell

It has an anti-twisting design:

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-strange-silk-rappelling-spiders-dont.html

"researchers from China and the U.K. showed that unlike human hair, metal wires or synthetic fibers, spider silk partially yields when twisted. This property quickly dissipates the energy that would otherwise send an excited spider spinning on the end of its silk.

"'Spider silk is very different from other, more conventional materials," said Dabiao Liu of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. "We find that the dragline from the web hardly twists, so we want to know why

***

"Researchers used a torsion pendulum, the same tool used by Henry Cavendish to weigh the Earth in the 1790s, to investigate dragline silk from two species of golden silk orb weavers. They collected strands of silk from captive spiders and suspended the strands inside a cylinder using two washers at the end to mimic a spider. The cylinder isolated the silk from environmental disturbances and kept the strand at a constant humidity, because water can cause the fibers to contract. A rotating turntable twisted the silk while a high-speed camera recorded the silk's back and forth oscillations over hundreds of cycles.

"Unlike synthetic fibers and metals, spider silk deforms slightly when twisted, which releases more than 75 percent of its potential energy, and the oscillations rapidly slow. After twisting, the silk partially snaps back.

"The team suspects that this unusual behavior is linked to the silk's complex physical structure, consisting of a core of multiple fibrils inside a skin. Each fibril has segments of amino acids in organized sheets and others in unstructured looping chains. They propose that torsion causes the sheets to stretch like elastic, and warp the hydrogen bonds linking the chains, which deform like plastic. The sheets can recover their original shape, but the chains remain partially deformed. The pendulum exhibits this change with reduced magnitude of the silk's oscillations, as well as a shifting of the equilibrium point of the oscillation.

"The group will continue to investigate how spider silk reacts to twisting in this way and is also looking into how it maintains its stiffness during torsion, what effect humidity has and to what degree air helps dissipate the energy. "There is a lot of further work needed," Dunstan said. "This spider silk is displaying a property that we simply don't know how to recreate ourselves, and that is fascinating.'"

Comment: Nature is always smarter than we are. This has to be designed. Too many intricate parts. It could not develop by chance.

Natures wonders: fruit fly hosts a protective bacteria

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 17:44 (2443 days ago) @ David Turell

The wasp can lay eggs in the larvae, but to no effect:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49833/title/How-Bacteria-in-Flies...

"A strain of the symbiotic Spiroplasma bacteria protects its host fly by producing a toxin that attacks the ribosomes of parasitic wasps, researchers reported July 6 in PLOS Pathogens. The study builds on the finding that another Spiroplasma strain defends against parasitic nematodes in the same way.

"Spiroplasma bacteria are thought to live in at least 7 percent of insects, where they are passed down from mother to young, write the researchers in their report. In the lab, Spiroplasma-infected Drosophila have proven more resistant than their uninfected counterparts to pests such as parasitic wasps, which lay eggs in Drosophila larvae.

"Until recently, scientists had few clues as to how the bacterial protection worked. Then, in 2013, a research group led by Steve Perlman of the University of Victoria found that Spiroplasma in one Drosophila species make a ribosome-inactivating protein that is toxic to would-be parasitic nematodes. Other known ribosome-inactivating proteins, fittingly abbreviated as RIPs, include the deadly ricin made famous by Breaking Bad and the Shiga toxin deployed by pathogenic E. coli bacteria.

"Perlman and a colleague now report that in the Spiroplasma strain that affects wasps, similar RIPs are deployed to cleave a specific adenine residue from the parasite’s ribosomal RNA, disabling it. Without working ribosomes, the wasps die soon after hatching. But the toxins leave Drosophila ribosomes untouched.

“'The symbiont has figured out how to target two dissimilar parasites without harming its host,” first author Matt Ballinger of the University of Victoria says in a statement. “We want to know how it does this, and we think an important clue is that Spiroplasma strains are collecting lots of different toxin genes in their tiny genomes.'” (my bold)

Comment: How does this work itself out by chance? Not stepwise. It would kill everything. Back to saltation, which requires mental planning. God at work.

Natures wonders: insect eating plants

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 02:34 (2435 days ago) @ David Turell

A pictorial view of plants that trap and digest insects:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/plants-that-bite-back

"Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)
The most famous of the carnivorous plants, the Venus flytrap waits patiently for its moment to strike. When an insect lands in the plant’s “jaws”, it touches tiny sensitive hairs that trigger the plant to snap shut and trap its prey. It is native to the subtropical wetlands of the east coast of the United States.

"Pitcher plants (many species, mainly members of the Nepenthaceae and Sarraceniaceae families)
With mouths gaping open to attract prey, pitcher plants secrete sweet nectar to lure passing insects. Once an insect lands, a waxy, slippery coating on the plant’s wall can cause the prey to fall into a pool of water that accumulates during wet weather. After falling in, insects have little chance to escape as digestive enzymes go to work. Different varieties of these plants are found around the world.

"Cape sundew (Drosera capensis)
Sticky fingers and the ability to rapidly (by plant standards) change shape allow the Cape sundew to wrap around and trap prey that gets stuck on its mucous-covered tentacles. Once digestion is complete, the tentacles unfurl ready for the plants’ next meal. As the name suggests, Cape sundew comes from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.

"Bladderworts (around 200 species of the genus Utricularia)
Bladderworts use a sophisticated ion transport system to pump material out of their tiny traps, creating a vacuum inside. Once maximum pressure difference is achieved the trap is set, meaning that any prey that disturbs the trap will cause it to snap back into shape, drawing in water, and prey, in the process. Bladderworts grow on all continents except Antarctica.

"Drosera derbyensis
A beautiful assassin of the plant world, and a member of the same genus as the Cape sundew. It feeds on flies and other small insects. Each of its many arms has a sticky trap at the end that closes and traps prey unfortunate enough to land on it. Drosera derbyensis is endemic to Western Australia."

Comment: See the pictures. These plants had to develop self protection at the same time it developed its digestive enzymes, which if unchecked could digest its own plant. The human stomach presents the same issue. Its acid is like battery acid at a pH of near one. All parts must develop simultaneously. Back to saltation by God.

Natures wonders: insect eating plants

by dhw, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 08:44 (2435 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: See the pictures. These plants had to develop self protection at the same time it developed its digestive enzymes, which if unchecked could digest its own plant. The human stomach presents the same issue. Its acid is like battery acid at a pH of near one. All parts must develop simultaneously. Back to saltation by God.

What a pity you have to keep spoiling the impact of these amazing wonders with your final “saltation by God”. Every time you say it, you invite the obvious challenge to your whole evolutionary thesis: that God’s sole purpose was the production of homo sapiens and everything else was related to that. So why the heck did he preprogramme the Venus fly trap, or personally dabble it, if all he wanted to do was produce us? No need to answer, as it will only lead to the usual convolutions and contradictions that we have gone through so many times. But please can we have the wonderful show without the commercial?

Natures wonders: insect eating plants

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 16:17 (2435 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: See the pictures. These plants had to develop self protection at the same time it developed its digestive enzymes, which if unchecked could digest its own plant. The human stomach presents the same issue. Its acid is like battery acid at a pH of near one. All parts must develop simultaneously. Back to saltation by God.

dhw: What a pity you have to keep spoiling the impact of these amazing wonders with your final “saltation by God”. Every time you say it, you invite the obvious challenge to your whole evolutionary thesis: that God’s sole purpose was the production of homo sapiens and everything else was related to that. So why the heck did he preprogramme the Venus fly trap, or personally dabble it, if all he wanted to do was produce us? No need to answer, as it will only lead to the usual convolutions and contradictions that we have gone through so many times. But please can we have the wonderful show without the commercial?

Hey, remember I am an advertiser for God. My entries make a point that they have to be designed. You don't have to challenge them. Just enjoy.

Natures wonders: longest lived organisms

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 19:51 (2434 days ago) @ David Turell

Already known, Sequoias at 3,000 years, Bristlecone pines at 4,000 years and deep-sea worms are now found to be perhaps 1,000 years old:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141387-giant-deep-sea-worms-may-live-to-be-1000-y...

"These tube worms live between 1000 and 3300 metres below sea level in aggregations from five to more than 200 individuals around cold seeps. This environment also provides a habitat for brittlestars, shrimps, crabs, mussels, clams, snails, limpets and a huge variety of smaller species of worms.

“The tube worms look like oversized plastic straws with a delicate pink flower at the end when the animal extends its petal-like plume – a gill-like organ for gas exchange – out of the top of its tube,” says Durkin. They can measure more than 1.5 metres, and feed through a symbiotic relationship they form with bacteria that thrive in these seeps.

"Researchers fed real-life data into the model by looking at how much worms of different sizes grew over a single year. This served to reveal how fast they grow at varying stages of their lives, Durkin explains.

“'Then we can use that data to simulate tube worms growing over time to find out how many years it would take these animals to reach a particular size,” she says.

"According to the model, some of the tube worms have been around for hundreds of years – with some maybe even thousands of years old. It is hard to put an upper limit on their age, because they grow more slowly as they get older.

“There may indeed be large E. laminata over 1000 years old in nature, but given our research we are more confident reporting a lifespan of at least 250 to 300 years,” says Durkin.

"This suggests that the tube worms are the second-longest-living non-colonial species ever found in the depths of the ocean – the deep-sea clam Arctica islandica can live for 500 years or more. Colony-forming animals, including some corals, are estimated to live for over 4000 years.

“'It’s possible that new record-breaking lifespans will be discovered in the deep sea, since we are finding new species and new habitats almost every time we send down a submersible,” says Durkin."

Comment: The bush of life shows that the aging clock in each type of life is wildly different. The control is unknown. If found could humans control their own aging?

Natures wonders: tuna fin hydraulic controls

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 20:50 (2433 days ago) @ David Turell

Tuna can change fin shape by lymphatic fluid pumping:

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-biological-hydraulic-tuna-fins.html

"Just as the fastest planes have carefully positioned wings and tail flaps to ensure precision maneuverability and fuel economy, bluefin tuna need the utmost control over their propulsive and stabilizing structures as they speed through the ocean. The outstanding maneuverability and precision locomotion of these powerful fish are supported by a vascular specialization that is unique among vertebrates, according to new research from Stanford University and the Monterey Bay Aquarium: pressurized hydraulic fin control.

"Through studying the anatomy, physiology, locomotion and fin movements of Pacific bluefin and yellowfin tuna swimming in tanks, researchers have found evidence of a biological hydraulic system in the large sickle-shaped fins centered above and below the tuna's body, called the median fins.

***

"'We've shown that in tunas and their fast-swimming relatives this complex functions to generate hydraulic pressure that provides fine adjustment of the shape of their fins. By expanding or retracting their dorsal and anal fins, they alter the physical forces generated by fins, allowing for maneuverability."

"The tuna's ability to move these median fins quickly and precisely with a hydrodynamic mechanism may be an advantage in turning maneuvers undertaken during prey search, feeding and long-distance swimming, where careful energy expenditure is vital.

***

"The finding was unexpected. Pavlov found this sinus area in the fin and associated structures and invited me to see if it was associated with the lymphatic system," said Benyamin Rosental, a postdoctoral research fellow in stem cell biology and regenerative medicine and a co-lead author of the paper. "I think we realized pretty early that this is a novel finding and a unique system."

"To identify the origin of the vascular input into the hydraulic system and its connection to the lymphatic system, the team took a multidisciplinary approach. The researchers recorded videos of Pacific bluefin and yellowfin tuna swimming in the facilities at the TRCC where close proximity to the fish enabled them to see the subtle changes in angle of attack of the median fins. The footage allowed the researchers to establish how the tuna changed the area and shape of these fins in order to execute different maneuvers. Paired with computer model simulations, the team also showed how fluid flowed across the tuna, impacting the forces generated by the fin at different swimming speeds.

***

"Lymphatic vessels are normally small and difficult to distinguish by the naked eye, but in tuna they are transformed into a specialized system of large vessels and channels in median fins. With lymph acting as hydraulic fluid, increased pressure in these channels affects the fin's position and, probably, the stiffness that together alters hydrodynamic properties of fins. The capacity to rapidly adjust the fin positions affects the lift to drag forces on the fins and prevents the tuna from rolling and yawing during active swimming, limiting energy loss during long migrations.

"Tuna have numerous morphological, physiological and behavioral adaptations to move rapidly through the water column and a sophisticated physiology that includes elevated metabolism, a unique cardiovascular system and a warm body temperature. These features require a well-developed lymphatic system to maintain water balance in tissues and protect organisms from infection. Now, the evolution of tuna physiology can also include this unique hydraulic function."

Comment: These are complex mechanisms that show obvious purpose in design. It is all throughout evolution

Natures wonders: plant uses fungus for energy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 15:51 (2429 days ago) @ David Turell

A parasitic plant lives off energy from fungus roots and does not have a mechanism for photosynthesis:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/new-non-photosynthesising-plant-found-in-japan

"Japanese botanists have discovered a new species of plant that does not use photosynthesis on the subtropical island of Ishigaki in Okinawa.

"The plant was discovered by a team led by Kenji Suetsugu at Kobe University who have been studying a kind of plant known as mycoheterotrophs. Unlike most plants, mycoheterotrophs do not generate energy from sunlight via photosynthesis but are instead parasites that feed on the underground roots of fungi.

"Mycoheterotrophs are hard to find, as they are only visible above ground for brief periods of time when they are fruiting or in flower and are also quite small.

"The new species, named Sciaphila sugimotoi, is related to the already-known mycoheterotrophic plant S. nana, but is distinguished by slightly different flowers. Where the flowers of the male S. nana plant each have three spherical nubs, those of S. sugimotoi have six.

"S. sugimotoi grows to about 5 to 10 cm in height and has violet flowers roughly 2mm in diameter."

Comment: There is a whole group of plants like this. It must be assumed that the plants started out like all others and gradually evolved to lose the photosynthesis process after latching onto the fungus for energy supply.

Natures wonders: headless planaria avoid light

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 30, 2017, 20:08 (2423 days ago) @ David Turell

The flatworm normally avoids light, but still does it when the head is removed, which indicates it senses light elsewhere on its body:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142167-flatworms-can-still-see-even-after-they-ar...

"Off with their heads. Light-averse planarian flatworms, known for their incredible ability to regenerate lost body parts, shy away from light even after they have been decapitated. "This suggests they have evolved a second way to respond to light that doesn’t involve eyes.

"Planarian flatworms, which often live in dark, watery environments shielded from direct light, don’t have complex eyes like we do. But many do have two lensless, primitive “eyespots” on their heads that can detect the intensity of light.

***

"Unexpectedly, it turned out that S. mediterranea actually has colour vision of sorts. Even though its eyespots lack wavelength-specific photoreceptors, Gulyani’s team found that the animal was more likely to move away from blue than red light.

"The researchers think the worms are distinguishing between different colours by comparing the amount of light being absorbed by the two eyespots, rather than seeing the colour of the light itself: for instance, they could override the flatworm’s preference for red over blue light by increasing the intensity of the former.

"But there’s much more to flatworm vision than this. Gulyani and his colleagues next exploited the fact that their planarian flatworms can survive decapitation – and regrow their heads – to explore how they respond to light when headless.

"It turned out that the worms still reacted to light, but in the ultraviolet rather than the visible part of the spectrum. This suggests that the worms have evolved two completely independent ways to respond to light, say the researchers – one mediated through the eyespots and brain, and one a body-wide reflex that doesn’t involve the eyes, the exact mechanism for which still needs to be identified.

"Over the week-long period it took for the flatworms to regenerate their heads, the team monitored how quickly their brains and eyespots regrew, and when they began responding to visible light again.

"After four days, the eyespots had grown back, but the worms continued to react more strongly to UV than to visible light. Only after seven days did they regain their stronger preference to slither away from visible light – suggesting that their eyespots and brains were retaking control. It was not until the 12th day that their sensitivity to such light increased to the point that they reacted more strongly to light at the bluer end of the visible spectrum.

"Gulyani’s team speculates that the “gut instinct” response to UV light may be an ancient mechanism, with the eyespot and brain-controlled response to visible light a later evolutionary acquisition. As such, the researchers wonder whether their experiments might “replay” evolution in fast forward, showing how flatworms went from responding to ultraviolet light as an unthinking reflex to responding to visible light through a brain-controlled pathway.

“'It’s a fascinating coincidence that decapitation-regeneration experiments appear to copy – chronologically, at least – what may have occurred in evolution,” says Gulyani. It’s an idea that might be worth exploring in future experiments."

Comment: The planaria seem to have two light sensing areas. What is fascinating to me is how very simple life forms can regenerate parts. There obviously is a level of complexity beyond which this cannot be done.

Natures wonders: rafting spiders

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 03, 2017, 15:30 (2420 days ago) @ David Turell

It appears Trapdoor spiders have rafted all over the world:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/fantastic-voyage-spiders-might-have-rafted-across-th...

Moggridgea rainbowi trapdoor spiders are homebodies. Found only on Australia’s Kangaroo Island, they quietly live out their lives underground, waiting patiently for lunch or dinner to happen across their doorsteps. Rarely do they travel more than a few metres from their birthplace.

"How, then, could they have found their way across the Indian Ocean from Africa about 2 million years ago?

"The question arises from a genetic analysis that points not only to the spider having African roots but having immigrated much more recently than previously thought, long after potential land bridges disappeared.

"Moggridgea rainbowi shares a genus with 33 other species, almost all of which are native to Africa. This in itself is explicable. Both Australia and Africa were parts of the supercontinent known as Gondwana until about 110 million years ago, when Gondwana split and its component parts drifted apart. Moggridgea rainbowi, ran the theory, was simply on one side of the new continental divide, separated from its sister species.

"To test this idea, a research team led by Sophie Harrison of the University of Adelaide, in South Australia, analysed six genes (five nuclear and one mitochondrial) from Moggridgea rainbowi and five African members of the Moggridgea family. The scientists ran the numbers on the genes to discover when the two groups had last shared a common ancestor.

"The answer, that the lineage diverged 2 million years ago, came as a surprise – it was more than 100 million years too recent for the Gondwana-drift theory of trapdoor spider distribution to be true.

"Human assistance was also ruled out, because the data indicates the spider arrived on Kangaroo Island well before people did.

"Harrison and her colleagues suggest the spiders may well have made the journey by sailing – by inadvertently hitching a lift on drifting logs or vegetation.

“'While it may be difficult to picture, these spiders may be actually better suited to rafting than we’d initially think,” Harrison says. “They construct burrows with secure, well-fitting lids, which creates a secure microclimate and offers them protection during the journey. They have a very low metabolic rate, which means they have low food and resource requirements during the trip. In some ways, they are better suited to dispersal via rafting on land/debris than other that have undergone transoceanic dispersal via rafting.”

"There is circumstantial evidence to back up the idea. While the overwhelming majority of Moggridgea species live in Africa (where many are tree-dwelling, by the way), they are also found in the Comoros – volcanic islands 340 km off the African coast – and Socotra, an island in the Arabian Sea.

"Both locations are plausible destinations for African driftwood."

Comment: It all seems reasonable. Sailing the seas is a way to migrate.

Natures wonders: fan worm tentacle eyes

by David Turell @, Friday, August 04, 2017, 15:19 (2419 days ago) @ David Turell

They sit on the sea floor and have compound eyes like insects on tentacles for protection:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170801094325.htm

"Scientists examining the multiple eyes found on the tentacles of fan worms have discovered they evolved independently from their other visual systems, specifically to support the needs of their lifestyle.

"Fan worms live in tubes on the seafloor. From their heads, the worms extend feather-like tentacles up out of their tubes to sift the water for food particles and aid in respiration.
To protect themselves from predators, fan worms have evolved a variety of unusual compound eyes on their tentacles that act like shadow or motion detectors, alerting the worm to danger and triggering a rapid hiding response to encroaching objects in the water.

"Superficially, some of these eyes resemble those of crustaceans or insects, but their photoreceptor cells are structurally and functionally distinct.

"Researchers from Lund University in Sweden used transcriptomic sequencing to examine the genes expressed in these eyes from a species of fan worm collected on the Great Barrier Reef, Megalomma interrupta.

"This sequencing approach identifies nearly all gene transcripts expressed in a given piece of tissue. They identified a number of genes that produce light-sensitive cellular signalling components such as opsins and g-proteins in the fan worm's eyes, which they compared with others known from across the animal kingdom.

***

"It seems that the eyes on the tentacles of fan worms evolved independently from all other visual systems in order to support the needs of their unusual filter-feeding lifestyle.

"'Many questions remain about the evolution and function of these eyes.

"'Due to their unique evolutionary history and neural circuitry these eyes could offer many clues about the emergence of new sensory systems and how the first eyes may have arisen.'"

Comment: As dhw points out, developing life forms appear to have the capability of adaptation to special needs. God given?

Natures wonders: oilbirds dark adapted

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 09, 2017, 14:59 (2414 days ago) @ David Turell

They live in caves, go out at night, have sharp vision and use echolocation:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-dark-adapted-bird

"The oilbird (Steatornis caripensis) lives in colonies in caves in the north of South America. The birds prefer the darkness – when they leave the caves to find fruit to eat, it is at night.

"To live in this dark environment, oilbirds not only have extremely sensitive vision but also an excellent sense of smell, bristles near the beak for tactile sensation, and – like bats and some marine mammals – the ability to use echolocation to hear the contours of their surroundings.

"Each of these senses is a powerful tool, but they become even more powerful in combination.

"A new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that they adjust their echolocation techniques depending on the amount of light available so that vision and echolocation work together to produce information about the bird’s surroundings."

Abstract of study:

"Oilbirds are active at night, foraging for fruits using keen olfaction and extremely light-sensitive eyes, and echolocate as they leave and return to their cavernous roosts. We recorded the echolocation behaviour of wild oilbirds using a multi-microphone array as they entered and exited their roosts under different natural light conditions. During echolocation, the birds produced click bursts (CBs) lasting less than 10 ms and consisting of a variable number (2–8) of clicks at 2–3 ms intervals. The CBs have a bandwidth of 7–23 kHz at −6 dB from signal peak frequency. We report on two unique characteristics of this avian echolocation system. First, oilbirds reduce both the energy and number of clicks in their CBs under conditions of clear, moonlit skies, compared with dark, moonless nights. Second, we document a frequency mismatch between the reported best frequency of oilbird hearing (approx. 2 kHz) and the bandwidth of their echolocation CBs. This unusual signal-to-sensory system mismatch probably reflects avian constraints on high-frequency hearing but may still allow oilbirds fine-scale, close-range detail resolution at the upper extreme (approx. 10 kHz) of their presumed hearing range. Alternatively, oilbirds, by an as-yet unknown mechanism, are able to hear frequencies higher than currently appreciated."

Comment: an amazing adaptation perhaps created gradually by epigenetics.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 12, 2017, 00:54 (2411 days ago) @ David Turell

It is not glass-like and uses special proteins to focus exactly on the retina:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/squid-eyes-reveal-molecular-secrets-for-smart-lenses

"Squid are among a select few species of animal in the world whose eyes involve perfect lenses, capable of focusing all rays of light to the same convergence point. Until now, however, the molecular structure behind this peculiar feature has largely eluded scientists.

"From previous studies, it has been established that the refractive index of a squid’s optical lens – the degree to which it bends the paths of light that passes through it – is greatest at the centre of the lens and decreases towards the edge in such a way as to focus the light.

"This is unlike a glass lens, for example, which has the same refractive index everywhere but is precisely shaped to focus light. The mystery of the squid’s eye has been how molecular processes achieved this refractive index gradient.
Recommended

"A recent investigation carried out by Jing Cai from the University of Pennsylvania in the US and colleagues suggests that a protein gel of varying thickness is responsible for the superior ability of squid to manipulate light.

"The researchers used small-angle X-ray scattering experiments on lens tissue taken from inshore squid and found that this gel was comprised of a series of globular proteins, primarily from the S-crystallin family.

"In their report, published in Science, Cai and his team claim that the change in refractive index within a squid’s eye can be explained by the assembly of these S-crystallin molecules, which collect in larger structures with higher density at the centre of the optical lens than at the edges."

Comment: The eyes have to work correctly from the beginning, meaning the proper proteins to form the lens, the exact depth of the eye and the retina were formed at once. Obvious design at play. Cell community intelligence cannot do this.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Saturday, August 12, 2017, 10:52 (2411 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: The eyes have to work correctly from the beginning, meaning the proper proteins to form the lens, the exact depth of the eye and the retina were formed at once. Obvious design at play. Cell community intelligence cannot do this.

How do you know that cell community intelligence can’t do it? What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God specially instructed the first living cells to pass on a squid’s eye programme, in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain?

These wonders are truly wondrous, though, so thank you again for this ongoing education.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 12, 2017, 14:44 (2411 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: The eyes have to work correctly from the beginning, meaning the proper proteins to form the lens, the exact depth of the eye and the retina were formed at once. Obvious design at play. Cell community intelligence cannot do this.

dhw: How do you know that cell community intelligence can’t do it? What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God specially instructed the first living cells to pass on a squid’s eye programme, in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain?

Because the focus of a clear image on a retina requires precise engineering of the curve of the lens, once the proper proteins are found. The complexity of the retina itself, the specialized neuron receptors of light waves that send impulses to a brain that can interpret the signals as pictures of reality. Only a designing mind can do this, my constant theory. Communities of cells are first organized by a designing mind. They do not self-organize or invent.

Natures wonders: goldfish survive frozen winters

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 12, 2017, 18:22 (2411 days ago) @ David Turell

The ponds they live in during winter in Europe freeze over, so they have found a way to alter their metabolism, from anaerobic lactic production. which we use, although briefly, to an alcohol end product which can be defused away:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143579-goldfish-go-months-without-oxygen-by-makin...

"Goldfish and their wild crucian carp relatives can survive for five months without breathing oxygen – and now we know how. The fish have evolved a set of enzymes that, when oxygen levels drop, ultimately helps convert carbohydrates into alcohol that can then be released through the gills.

"For most animals – including humans – a lack of oxygen can be fatal within minutes. We can metabolise carbohydrates without oxygen, but the process generates toxic lactic acid that quickly builds up in our bodies.

"On the face of it, this should pose a big problem for crucian carp. They live in ponds and lakes in northern Europe and Asia that freeze over in winter, so the fish have to survive for months without oxygen until the ice melts in spring.

"But the carp – and their close relative the goldfish – have developed a workaround. When they metabolise carbohydrates anaerobically, the end product is not lactic acid but alcohol, which is easier to remove from their bodies.

"Goldfish and their wild crucian carp relatives can survive for five months without breathing oxygen – and now we know how. The fish have evolved a set of enzymes that, when oxygen levels drop, ultimately helps convert carbohydrates into alcohol that can then be released through the gills.

"For most animals – including humans – a lack of oxygen can be fatal within minutes. We can metabolise carbohydrates without oxygen, but the process generates toxic lactic acid that quickly builds up in our bodies.

"On the face of it, this should pose a big problem for crucian carp. They live in ponds and lakes in northern Europe and Asia that freeze over in winter, so the fish have to survive for months without oxygen until the ice melts in spring.

"But the carp – and their close relative the goldfish – have developed a workaround. When they metabolise carbohydrates anaerobically, the end product is not lactic acid but alcohol, which is easier to remove from their bodies.

***

"The study suggests this adaptation evolved 8 million years ago in the common ancestor of carp and goldfish, through a process known as whole-genome duplication. This is when an organism ends up by chance with an extra set of its genes, which can then be repurposed to take on new functions.

"By making alcohol, crucian carp and goldfish can survive where no other fish can, meaning they can avoid predators or competitors. But their adaptation does mean that the fish spend most of the winter with blood alcohol levels of roughly 55 milligrams per 100 millilitres – which Berenbrink points out exceeds the drink-driving limit in some northern European countries."

Comment: It is difficult to understand how this adaptation developed by chance through an evolutionary process. If a pond freezes over completely a fish cannot move water through its gills, and the way water freezes top down is faster than the genome can self invent over generations. it must be an all-at-once saltdation.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Sunday, August 13, 2017, 11:08 (2410 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: The eyes have to work correctly from the beginning, meaning the proper proteins to form the lens, the exact depth of the eye and the retina were formed at once. Obvious design at play. Cell community intelligence cannot do this.

dhw: How do you know that cell community intelligence can’t do it? What is your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God specially instructed the first living cells to pass on a squid’s eye programme, in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain?

DAVID: Because the focus of a clear image on a retina requires precise engineering of the curve of the lens, once the proper proteins are found. The complexity of the retina itself, the specialized neuron receptors of light waves that send impulses to a brain that can interpret the signals as pictures of reality. Only a designing mind can do this, my constant theory. Communities of cells are first organized by a designing mind. They do not self-organize or invent.

I am not disputing the complexity of the squid’s eye. You will not dispute the complexity of an ant city. I am proposing that both are originally invented by communities pooling their intelligence: cells and ants. I accept that it is only a hypothesis, but I do not accept your authoritative statement that the hypothesis is wrong and cells do not self-organize or invent. It certainly fits the history of evolution better than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled them all, in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 13, 2017, 15:24 (2410 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Because the focus of a clear image on a retina requires precise engineering of the curve of the lens, once the proper proteins are found. The complexity of the retina itself, the specialized neuron receptors of light waves that send impulses to a brain that can interpret the signals as pictures of reality. Only a designing mind can do this, my constant theory. Communities of cells are first organized by a designing mind. They do not self-organize or invent.

dhw: I am not disputing the complexity of the squid’s eye. You will not dispute the complexity of an ant city. I am proposing that both are originally invented by communities pooling their intelligence: cells and ants. I accept that it is only a hypothesis, but I do not accept your authoritative statement that the hypothesis is wrong and cells do not self-organize or invent. It certainly fits the history of evolution better than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled them all, in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain.

Your prejudice against an all powerful God is shown in your statement. He fits the history of evolution even better than your intelligence from no-where committee of cells. Why shouldn't an all-powerful God do all the dabbling He wants? After all He made the universe, set up our galaxy with the perfect planet for life, started life and controlled its evolution of the most complex article in existence, the human brain. All you offer as a cause is chance or panpsychism, a second rate theory about a form of universal consciousness. God is the first-rate form. Yes, you say God is possible. Why not probable?

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Monday, August 14, 2017, 13:07 (2409 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am not disputing the complexity of the squid’s eye. You will not dispute the complexity of an ant city. I am proposing that both are originally invented by communities pooling their intelligence: cells and ants. I accept that it is only a hypothesis, but I do not accept your authoritative statement that the hypothesis is wrong and cells do not self-organize or invent. It certainly fits the history of evolution better than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled them all, in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain.

DAVID: Your prejudice against an all powerful God is shown in your statement. He fits the history of evolution even better than your intelligence from no-where committee of cells. Why shouldn't an all-powerful God do all the dabbling He wants? After all He made the universe, set up our galaxy with the perfect planet for life, started life and controlled its evolution of the most complex article in existence, the human brain. All you offer as a cause is chance or panpsychism, a second rate theory about a form of universal consciousness. God is the first-rate form. Yes, you say God is possible. Why not probable?

Where on earth do you find prejudice against an all-powerful God? Your theory is that an all-powerful God pre-programmed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of producing the human brain. I don't see why an all-powerful God would have needed the great higgledy-piggledy bush if all he wanted was to produce the human brain. Therefore an all-powerful God may have had a different purpose. An all-powerful God may have deliberately created a mechanism which would of its own accord produce the great higgledy-piggledy bush, because what he wanted was a great higgledy-piggledy bush. But he could have dabbled at any time, and maybe the human brain was the result of a dabble. In this part of the discussion I am challenging your interpretation of your all-powerful God’s purpose and method.

The question of God’s existence is a different topic. I find all the hypotheses (chance, God and panpsychist evolution) equally difficult to believe. That does not disqualify me from challenging the logic of your anthropocentric interpretation of a possible God’s evolutionary motives and methods.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Monday, August 14, 2017, 15:29 (2409 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Where on earth do you find prejudice against an all-powerful God? Your theory is that an all-powerful God pre-programmed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of producing the human brain. I don't see why an all-powerful God would have needed the great higgledy-piggledy bush if all he wanted was to produce the human brain. Therefore an all-powerful God may have had a different purpose. An all-powerful God may have deliberately created a mechanism which would of its own accord produce the great higgledy-piggledy bush, because what he wanted was a great higgledy-piggledy bush. But he could have dabbled at any time, and maybe the human brain was the result of a dabble. In this part of the discussion I am challenging your interpretation of your all-powerful God’s purpose and method.

The bush provides the balance of nature which provides the food for life to continue. Everyone has to eat, because the complex life forms must have a continuous supply of energy. We've covered this before, although you always try to discount this obvious truth.


dhw:The question of God’s existence is a different topic. I find all the hypotheses (chance, God and panpsychist evolution) equally difficult to believe. That does not disqualify me from challenging the logic of your anthropocentric interpretation of a possible God’s evolutionary motives and methods.

And the reply is look for purpose in the biology of life:

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/the-universe-has-no-purpose-but-we-can-pretend/

"Teleology and Aristotelian metaphysics came roaring back in the early 20th century with quantum mechanics and relativity. And quantum mechanics is not the most striking example of teleology in science. Biological science is simply not possible without constant invocation of teleology. Biologists cannot even begin to understand DNA or mitochondria or hearts or brains or enzymes without inference to the goal or natural end of the thing. Biological science is not merely aided by inference to teleology. It cannot be done without profound and deliberate investigation of the telos of biological molecules and organs. “What is it for” is the fundamental and inescapable question in all biological research.
No explanation of nature — not in biology or physics or in any natural science — makes sense without recourse to final causes. Final cause – teleology — is the cause of causes."

Natures wonders: jumping spiders eat vertebrates

by David Turell @, Monday, August 14, 2017, 19:00 (2409 days ago) @ David Turell

They attack frogs and lizards larger then they are:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-tiny-spiders-preying-frogs-lizards.html

"In this new effort, the researchers report on evidence they have uncovered of the tiny, one-inch-long regal jumping spider killing and eating frogs and lizards that are much larger than they are. Notably, despite its tiny size, the regal is actually one of the largest of the jumping spiders.

"The study began as the researchers exchanged anecdotal evidence of tiny spiders feasting on various vertebrate.

"These searches resulted in the discovery of six reports (and pictures) of tiny regal jumping spiders killing and consuming frogs and lizards. The pictures showed the one-inch spiders dining on Cuban frogs that were one to 1.5 times their own size, and lizards such as the Carolina anole that were 1.5 to 2.5 times their own size. The tiny spiders do not have to engage in battles with their prey; instead, they simply inject them with venom and then wait for them to die. The paper offers the first documented case of jumping spiders killing and eating vertebrates.

"The researchers note that regal jumping spiders, which live in Florida, belong to a group known as generalist predators. They do not have a primary food source. Instead, they are opportunists, killing whatever happens to cross their path. Prior research has already shown that the spiders have excellent eyesight, allowing them to spot prey and assess the chances of being able to kill and eat it before they take action.

Comment: These spiders do not use webs. They had to have excellent eyesight from the beginning to have this predatory lifestyle, and therefore had to be developed in their body form all at once. Saltation.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Tuesday, August 15, 2017, 11:38 (2408 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: An all-powerful God may have deliberately created a mechanism which would of its own accord produce the great higgledy-piggledy bush, because what he wanted was a great higgledy-piggledy bush. But he could have dabbled at any time, and maybe the human brain was the result of a dabble. In this part of the discussion I am challenging your interpretation of your all-powerful God’s purpose and method.

DAVID: The bush provides the balance of nature which provides the food for life to continue. Everyone has to eat, because the complex life forms must have a continuous supply of energy. We've covered this before, although you always try to discount this obvious truth.

Of course it’s an obvious truth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain! It simply means that all life needs energy! Life went on without the human brain, and it can continue without the human brain.

dhw:The question of God’s existence is a different topic. I find all the hypotheses (chance, God and panpsychist evolution) equally difficult to believe. That does not disqualify me from challenging the logic of your anthropocentric interpretation of a possible God’s evolutionary motives and methods.

dhw: And the reply is look for purpose in the biology of life:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/the-universe-has-no-purpose-but-we-can-pretend/

QUOTE: "Teleology and Aristotelian metaphysics came roaring back in the early 20th century with quantum mechanics and relativity. And quantum mechanics is not the most striking example of teleology in science. Biological science is simply not possible without constant invocation of teleology.

And I keep agreeing that there is purpose in the biology of life, but you refuse to accept any purpose other than the production of the human brain. As above, life goes on, and staying alive is a purpose in itself, and improving one’s chances of staying alive is a purpose in itself, and every living cell serves the same purpose.

QUOTE: No explanation of nature — not in biology or physics or in any natural science — makes sense without recourse to final causes. Final cause – teleology — is the cause of causes."

And there’s the crunch. “Teleology” is a loaded word, because rightly or wrongly it has come to be associated with a final or first cause, which for some people is a supernatural, sourceless, all-knowing, all-powerful being they call God. But if I agree that my legs serve the purpose of holding me up and enabling me to walk or run, I’m afraid that does not mean there must be a God. Lots and lots and lots of things serve a very clearly definable purpose, and yes there has to be a first cause, which may or may not be a conscious being or unconscious energy and matter. That’s as far as we can go, unless we shut our minds and jump to faith in one explanation or the other.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 15, 2017, 19:18 (2408 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Of course it’s an obvious truth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain! It simply means that all life needs energy! Life went on without the human brain, and it can continue without the human brain.

But you have not explained the appearance of the human brain. It is obvious the apes did not need it for survival, so that argument is out. But evolution comes with a drive to complexity, which the bacteria shows us is not needed, so that argument must lead us to the conclusion that evolution is driven by forces that do not relate to survival but do lead to improvement and/or complexity to explain the human brain. Only an outside influence/guidance can explain those unnecessary drives.

dhw: And I keep agreeing that there is purpose in the biology of life, but you refuse to accept any purpose other than the production of the human brain. As above, life goes on, and staying alive is a purpose in itself, and improving one’s chances of staying alive is a purpose in itself, and every living cell serves the same purpose.

Bacteria have shown us survival is easy. Your comment does not explain advancing beyond bacteria.


QUOTE: No explanation of nature — not in biology or physics or in any natural science — makes sense without recourse to final causes. Final cause – teleology — is the cause of causes."

dhw: And there’s the crunch. “Teleology” is a loaded word, because rightly or wrongly it has come to be associated with a final or first cause, which for some people is a supernatural, sourceless, all-knowing, all-powerful being they call God. But if I agree that my legs serve the purpose of holding me up and enabling me to walk or run, I’m afraid that does not mean there must be a God. Lots and lots and lots of things serve a very clearly definable purpose, and yes there has to be a first cause, which may or may not be a conscious being or unconscious energy and matter. That’s as far as we can go, unless we shut our minds and jump to faith in one explanation or the other.

Nothing wrong with faith, when it is arrived at with logical thought.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 08:57 (2407 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course it’s an obvious truth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s sole purpose being the production of the human brain! It simply means that all life needs energy! Life went on without the human brain, and it can continue without the human brain.
DAVID: But you have not explained the appearance of the human brain.

I challenged your claim that God’s sole purpose was the production of the human brain, which does not fit in with the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. You replied that the bush “provides the balance of nature for life to continue”. That is a complete non sequitur, as I have pointed out. And so you change the subject! Your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s purpose does not fit in with the history of life.

DAVID: It is obvious the apes did not need it for survival, so that argument is out. But evolution comes with a drive to complexity, which the bacteria shows us is not needed, so that argument must lead us to the conclusion that evolution is driven by forces that do not relate to survival but do lead to improvement and/or complexity to explain the human brain. Only an outside influence/guidance can explain those unnecessary drives.

Since bacteria survived, it’s not just the human brain that requires explanation. Bacteria as you keep reminding me don’t have brains, so we have to explain EVERY brain and every other innovation that led to humans, dinosaurs, whales and the duck-billed platypus. We agree that there has to be a drive for improvement (me), complexity (you). The drive may have been initiated by your God, if he exists, but in terms of the history of evolution, I suggest that it is built into and implemented by organisms themselves, whereas you believe that every innovation was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally dabbled by your God. I think we’ve been here before.

dhw: ...yes there has to be a first cause, which may or may not be a conscious being or unconscious energy and matter. That’s as far as we can go, unless we shut our minds and jump to faith in one explanation or the other.
DAVID: Nothing wrong with faith, when it is arrived at with logical thought.

I agree. Dawkins would also agree, if only he would recognize that his logical trust in materialism is faith.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 15:35 (2407 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I challenged your claim that God’s sole purpose was the production of the human brain, which does not fit in with the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. You replied that the bush “provides the balance of nature for life to continue”. That is a complete non sequitur, as I have pointed out. And so you change the subject! Your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s purpose does not fit in with the history of life.

Of course it does. See below. The human brain is the pinnacle of your 'improvement' and my 'complexity' theories.


DAVID: It is obvious the apes did not need it for survival, so that argument is out. But evolution comes with a drive to complexity, which the bacteria shows us is not needed, so that argument must lead us to the conclusion that evolution is driven by forces that do not relate to survival but do lead to improvement and/or complexity to explain the human brain. Only an outside influence/guidance can explain those unnecessary drives.

Since bacteria survived, it’s not just the human brain that requires explanation. Bacteria as you keep reminding me don’t have brains, so we have to explain EVERY brain and every other innovation that led to humans, dinosaurs, whales and the duck-billed platypus. We agree that there has to be a drive for improvement (me), complexity (you). The drive may have been initiated by your God, if he exists, but in terms of the history of evolution, I suggest that it is built into and implemented by organisms themselves, whereas you believe that every innovation was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally dabbled by your God. I think we’ve been here before.

Of course everything requires explanation. Mine is simple, God.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Thursday, August 17, 2017, 13:35 (2406 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I challenged your claim that God’s sole purpose was the production of the human brain, which does not fit in with the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. You replied that the bush “provides the balance of nature for life to continue”. That is a complete non sequitur, as I have pointed out. And so you change the subject! Your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s purpose does not fit in with the history of life.

DAVID: Of course it does. See below. The human brain is the pinnacle of your 'improvement' and my 'complexity' theories.

Whether the human brain is the “pinnacle” or not is open to debate, as it depends on your criteria for such a judgement, but that is not the issue. I am happy to agree that in terms of intelligence and technology, we are the tops (so far). But you could have had that with a divine dabble. It still doesn’t explain why God designed eight stages of whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest in order to produce us. And your “balance of nature” does not provide a link or a reason, since it applies to ALL forms of life. As for “see below”, this is what is below:

dhw: ….Since bacteria survived, it’s not just the human brain that requires explanation. Bacteria as you keep reminding me don’t have brains, so we have to explain EVERY brain and every other innovation that led to humans, dinosaurs, whales and the duck-billed platypus. We agree that there has to be a drive for improvement (me), complexity (you). The drive may have been initiated by your God, if he exists, but in terms of the history of evolution, I suggest that it is built into and implemented by organisms themselves, whereas you believe that every innovation was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or personally dabbled by your God. I think we’ve been here before.

David: Of course everything requires explanation. Mine is simple, God.

You have not explained how God's need to design eight stages of whale etc.etc. in order to produce the human brain fits in with the history of life. Keeping life going does not make the human brain the sole purpose, since life kept going and will no doubt continue to keep going with or without the human brain.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2017, 15:05 (2406 days ago) @ dhw


David: Of course everything requires explanation. Mine is simple, God.

dhw: You have not explained how God's need to design eight stages of whale etc.etc. in order to produce the human brain fits in with the history of life. Keeping life going does not make the human brain the sole purpose, since life kept going and will no doubt continue to keep going with or without the human brain.

You have just made my point. Our brain is obviously not here as a necessity for survival. Struggle for survival as a tenet of Darwinism goes out the window. An innate part of life having a mechanism to improve ( your idea) or to complexify (mine) is much more to the point, but these ideas are only ways to compensate for the reality hat bacteria didn't need to get more complex other than to learn to live in extreme environments. Why improvement or complexity can only be explained by a driving force, God, not chance.

As for the bush of life, I simply accept it as God's method of evolution providing food energy for life to have the energy to survive for all the time evolution needed to advance to us.

Natures wonders: another bird migrates magnetically

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2017, 18:40 (2406 days ago) @ David Turell

Reed warblers use the Earth's magnetic field to migrate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-reed-warblers-magnetic-declination.html

"Researchers recently showed that migratory reed warblers depend on an internal geomagnetic map to guide them on their long-distance journeys. But it wasn't clear how the birds were solving the relatively difficult "longitude problem," determining where they were along the east-west axis and which way to go. Now, the team's latest report published in Current Biology on August 17 has an answer. The birds rely on changes from east to west in magnetic declination, the angular difference between geographic north and magnetic north.

"'We've shown for the first time that magnetic declination may be a component of the magnetic navigational map, at least in some long-distance migratory birds," says Nikita Chernetsov at the Biological Station Rybachy in Russia.

"Earlier studies had shown that animals including birds and sea turtles could rely on other aspects of the earth's magnetic field as well as celestial cues to navigate. But those features aren't very informative when it comes to measuring longitude in many parts of the world, including North America and Western Europe. The researchers knew that magnetic declination could help, but it wasn't clear whether reed warblers had a way to measure it.

"To find out in the new study, the researchers captured 15 experienced adult Eurasian reed warblers during their autumn migration in Rybachy. They housed the birds in outdoor cages equipped with a special contraption that allowed researchers to precisely adjust the magnetic field.

"When the researchers tested the reed warblers under starry skies in the natural magnetic field of Rybachy, the birds oriented as expected in a seasonally appropriate direction. But, when the researchers rotated the magnetic field 8.5° counter-clockwise to adjust the magnetic declination while keeping all else constant, something remarkable happened. Although still in Rybachy, the birds behaved as though they'd been magically transported to Southern Scotland, about 1,450 kilometers away.

"After constant exposure to the 8.5° shifted declination, the reed warblers responded with a dramatic 151° change in their mean orientation from WSW to ESE. The findings show that "a small change in magnetic declination is sufficient to elicit a dramatic re-orientation response," the researchers write.

"The findings confirm that Eurasian reed warblers use magnetic declination to determine their approximate east-west position within Europe. Importantly, naive birds under the same conditions didn't re-orient themselves correctly. They instead became confused, evidence that the reed warblers learn to follow the magnetic gradients from experience.

"'Reed warblers seem to learn the large-scale spatial pattern of the declination gradient during their annual movements, just like they learn other gradients, inclination, and total intensity," Chernetsov says. "As magnetic declination mainly varies along the east-west axis, it provides the possibility to measure longitude."

"Many questions remain about how the reed warblers' learning process takes place and how the birds extrapolate beyond gradients they've experienced directly. The researchers say it will also be important to find out if other migratory bird species have the same ability."

Comment: As research advances, it appears that all migratory species use the magnetic field. The field is also very important to protect us from nasty ionizing radiation from outer space. The field is a very special attribute of this special life-supporting Earth, formed by convection movements of our iron-nickel liquid core.

Natures wonders: ant pheromone communication

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2017, 19:35 (2406 days ago) @ David Turell

Ant colonies are organized by the use of instructive pheromones which organize the colonies into the types of ants by activity:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-olfactory-receptors-enable-ants-workers.html

"Queen ants spend most of their time having babies. To reign supreme in a colony, they exude a special scent, or pheromone, on the waxy surface of their body that suppresses ovary development in their sisters, rendering the latter reproductively inactive workers that find food, nurse the young and protect the colony.

"Now, researchers at the University of California, Riverside have begun to unravel the molecular mechanisms behind how ants sense these pheromones and how they control reproduction regulation and other social activities in ant communities. The research, published today in the journal Nature Communications, highlights how ants use olfactory receptors to distinguish between colony members so they can work together in a complex, hierarchical society. The findings could help in the development of new pest management strategies.

***

"The effort to unravel the molecular mechanism behind ant olfaction took several years and a consortium of collaborators from several universities. In 2015, Ray's group developed a powerful electrophysiology technique in the Camponotus ant species and showed that sensory neurons within tiny hair-like structures on the ant antennae respond with high specificity to a variety of different ant pheromones. With Ray's help this method was set up and tested at Arizona State University in another ant species, Harpegnathos saltator. However, until now, the olfactory receptors responsible for detecting these hydrocarbon pheromones had not been identified in any species.

"In the current paper, Ray's group identified and characterized 22 odorant receptors that interact specifically with hydrocarbon pheromones produced by other ants, including one—called HsOr263—that responds to the queen pheromone. These receptors belong to a subfamily of the odorant receptor gene family called the 9-exon subfamily.

"We explored the 9-exon subfamily of olfactory receptor genes first because it is greatly expanded in ants and other eusocial insects, making it a good place to start looking for receptors that respond to the hydrocarbon pheromones," Ray said.

"Accelerating this research, and paving the way for other ant receptors to be identified, was a technique developed in 2014 by Ray and Gregory Pask, a former postdoctoral associate in Ray's lab, to express ant olfactory receptors in a genetically modified Drosophila melanogaster fly. Pask inserted the DNA of ant receptors into the fly genome and used genetics to express the ant receptor in fly antennae.

"'Once we expressed an ant receptor in the fly antenna I could directly measure the response to individual hydrocarbons on that receptor one by one," said Pask, lead author of the Nature Communications paper and currently an assistant professor at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa. "Using this method, we then identified odorant receptors for several important hydrocarbons, including ones found on workers, males, or queens."

"'Ants and other social insects use a mix of hydrocarbons on their bodies as 'biological barcodes' that communicate key social information within the colony. Our research sheds light on how these 'barcode readers' work at a molecular level," Pask said.

"Ray said the identification of ant olfactory receptors provides new insight into the chemical communications systems used by eusocial insects, and future research would explore how these receptors trigger physiological changes, such as the suppression of reproduction."

Comment: At the origin the ant colonies had to set up this chemical arrangement all at once or the colony would not work as a unit. To me it was designed, not evolved.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2017, 23:51 (2405 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, August 18, 2017, 00:15

Bacteria can defeat amoebas who try to engulf them:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-bacteria-stab-amoebae-micro-daggers.html

"Bacteria have to watch out for amoeba. Hungry amoebae hunt them: they catch them with their pseudopodia and then absorb and digest them.

"However, some bacteria know how to defend themselves. One of these is Amoebophilus, which was discovered by researchers at the University of Vienna a few years ago. This bacterium cannot only survive inside amoebae, but also thrive: the amoeba has become its favourite habitat.

"The shooting mechanism consists of a sheath attached to the bacterium's inner membrane by a baseplate and an anchoring platform. João Medeiros, a doctoral student in Professor Martin Pilhofer's group at ETH, explains the mechanism: "The sheath is spring-loaded and the micro-dagger lies inside it. When the sheath contracts, the dagger is shot outwards extremely quickly through the bacterial membrane."

"Bacteria absorbed by the amoeba end up in a special digestive compartment surrounded by a membrane. "Our results suggest that the bacteria are able to shoot the dagger into the membrane of the amoeba's digestive compartment," says Désirée Böck, also a doctoral student in Pilhofer's group and lead author of the study published in the journal Science. This results in disintegration of the compartment, which is an inhospitable environment for the bacteria, and release of the bacteria. Once outside the digestive compartment but still inside the amoeba, the bacteria can survive and even multiply.

"The process by which the digestive compartment is destroyed is not yet known. "It may be that rupture of the membrane is due solely to mechanical reasons," says Pilhofer. However, it is conceivable that the daggers of the Amoebophilus bacteria are impregnated with a kind of arrow poison - with membrane-degrading enzymes. The blueprints for such enzymes are contained in the bacteria's genome, as Matthias Horn, professor at the University of Vienna, and his colleagues were able to show.

***

"Systems related to the micro-daggers are also found elsewhere in biology: viruses that specialise in the infection of bacteria (bacteriophages) use such systems to inject their genome into microorganisms. Some bacteria can even release similar micro-devices into their surroundings to fight off competing microorganisms.

"The scientists present for the first time the complete spatial structure of a shooting mechanism inside a cell in its natural context. They also show for the first time details of the baseplate and membrane anchor

***

"Micro-daggers had previously been found only as individual devices. In Amoebophilus, however, the scientists from Zurich and Vienna have now found apparatuses that occur in clusters of up to 30. "You could call them multi-barrel guns," says Pilhofer.

"The researchers also used genomic comparisons to investigate how Amoebophilus evolved its daggers. "The relevant genes are very similar to those of the bacteriophage injection systems," says Pilhofer. "We assume that the genes from ancestors of today's bacteriophages established themselves in the bacteria's genome a long time ago."

"Genomic comparisons suggest that the micro-daggers occur not only in Amoebophilus, but also in numerous other bacterial species from at least nine of the most important bacterial groups."

Comment: This seems to be a complex molecular machine structure, which may be so complex it can only be developed by design. It seems that these bacteria are brighter than H. habilis who couldn't invent a spear!

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Friday, August 18, 2017, 13:38 (2405 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Bacteria can defeat amoebas who try to engulf them:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-bacteria-stab-amoebae-micro-daggers.html

DAVID’s comment: This seems to be a complex molecular machine structure, which may be so complex it can only be developed by design. It seems that these bacteria are brighter than H. habilis who couldn't invent a spear!

It seems you’re beginning to cotton on. The alternative to bright bacteria, of course, is that your God could not possibly have produced the human brain without first preprogramming bacteria to invent spears with which to stab amoebas.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Friday, August 18, 2017, 15:24 (2405 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Bacteria can defeat amoebas who try to engulf them:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-bacteria-stab-amoebae-micro-daggers.html

DAVID’s comment: This seems to be a complex molecular machine structure, which may be so complex it can only be developed by design. It seems that these bacteria are brighter than H. habilis who couldn't invent a spear!

dhw: It seems you’re beginning to cotton on. The alternative to bright bacteria, of course, is that your God could not possibly have produced the human brain without first preprogramming bacteria to invent spears with which to stab amoebas.

He took his time having fun with each design

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Saturday, August 19, 2017, 09:00 (2404 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Bacteria can defeat amoebas who try to engulf them:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-bacteria-stab-amoebae-micro-daggers.html

DAVID’s comment: This seems to be a complex molecular machine structure, which may be so complex it can only be developed by design. It seems that these bacteria are brighter than H. habilis who couldn't invent a spear!

dhw: It seems you’re beginning to cotton on. The alternative to bright bacteria, of course, is that your God could not possibly have produced the human brain without first preprogramming bacteria to invent spears with which to stab amoebas.

DAVID: He took his time having fun with each design.

Yep, you really are cottoning on at last. Maybe, if God exists, the whole history of evolution and the whole purpose of life itself is him having fun. You dismiss that idea as anthropomorphizing your God when I suggest that he created a free-for-all for his entertainment, but it’s OK so long as you have him doing all the designing. Having fun with whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests explains the whole higgledy-piggledy bush. None of this stuff about keeping life going till he can produce the human brain (which he could obviously have done without bacterial spears and pre-whales and weaverbirds’ nests). It’s fun all the way. This is a red letter day in the history of the Agnosticweb!:-P

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 19, 2017, 15:12 (2404 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: He took his time having fun with each design.

dhw: Yep, you really are cottoning on at last. Maybe, if God exists, the whole history of evolution and the whole purpose of life itself is him having fun. You dismiss that idea as anthropomorphizing your God when I suggest that he created a free-for-all for his entertainment, but it’s OK so long as you have him doing all the designing. Having fun with whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests explains the whole higgledy-piggledy bush. None of this stuff about keeping life going till he can produce the human brain (which he could obviously have done without bacterial spears and pre-whales and weaverbirds’ nests). It’s fun all the way. This is a red letter day in the history of the Agnosticweb!:-P

It is fun to try to anthropomorphize God, as long as we recognize we have no idea of how to imagine His personality. He might well have a non-serious side and actually enjoy taking time to make specially designed forms of life on the way to the 'brain', which. by the way, can recognize His existence..

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Sunday, August 20, 2017, 10:17 (2403 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He took his time having fun with each design.

dhw: Yep, you really are cottoning on at last. Maybe, if God exists, the whole history of evolution and the whole purpose of life itself is him having fun. You dismiss that idea as anthropomorphizing your God when I suggest that he created a free-for-all for his entertainment, but it’s OK so long as you have him doing all the designing. Having fun with whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests explains the whole higgledy-piggledy bush. None of this stuff about keeping life going till he can produce the human brain (which he could obviously have done without bacterial spears and pre-whales and weaverbirds’ nests). It’s fun all the way. This is a red letter day in the history of the Agnosticweb! :-P

DAVID: It is fun to try to anthropomorphize God, as long as we recognize we have no idea of how to imagine His personality. He might well have a non-serious side and actually enjoy taking time to make specially designed forms of life on the way to the 'brain', which, by the way, can recognize His existence.

Well, at least the idea of enjoyment does away with the impossible task of finding some connection between all these wonderful designs and your all-powerful God’s alleged one and only purpose of producing the human brain (perhaps the most entertaining wonder of them all).

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 20, 2017, 15:39 (2403 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: He took his time having fun with each design.

dhw: Yep, you really are cottoning on at last. Maybe, if God exists, the whole history of evolution and the whole purpose of life itself is him having fun. You dismiss that idea as anthropomorphizing your God when I suggest that he created a free-for-all for his entertainment, but it’s OK so long as you have him doing all the designing. Having fun with whales and monarchs and weaverbirds’ nests explains the whole higgledy-piggledy bush. None of this stuff about keeping life going till he can produce the human brain (which he could obviously have done without bacterial spears and pre-whales and weaverbirds’ nests). It’s fun all the way. This is a red letter day in the history of the Agnosticweb! :-P

DAVID: It is fun to try to anthropomorphize God, as long as we recognize we have no idea of how to imagine His personality. He might well have a non-serious side and actually enjoy taking time to make specially designed forms of life on the way to the 'brain', which, by the way, can recognize His existence.

dhw: Well, at least the idea of enjoyment does away with the impossible task of finding some connection between all these wonderful designs and your all-powerful God’s alleged one and only purpose of producing the human brain (perhaps the most entertaining wonder of them all).

That comment always brings me back to 'everyone has got to eat' along the way to the brain. We have no answer to the question as to why God took so long to get there. But that is what happened.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 08:47 (2401 days ago) @ David Turell

I’M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY. I HAD A VISITOR, BUT I THOUGHT I’D ALREADY POSTED ALL MY RESPONSES BEFORE SHE CAME. IT SEEMS I ONLY DRAFTED THEM AND THEN FORGOT TO SUBMIT THEM! MANY APOLOGIES.

DAVID: It is fun to try to anthropomorphize God, as long as we recognize we have no idea of how to imagine His personality. He might well have a non-serious side and actually enjoy taking time to make specially designed forms of life on the way to the 'brain', which, by the way, can recognize His existence.

dhw: Well, at least the idea of enjoyment does away with the impossible task of finding some connection between all these wonderful designs and your all-powerful God’s alleged one and only purpose of producing the human brain (perhaps the most entertaining wonder of them all).

DAVID: That comment always brings me back to 'everyone has got to eat' along the way to the brain. We have no answer to the question as to why God took so long to get there. But that is what happened.

What happened certainly happened. But of course that does not mean it happened in the way or for the purpose you have conjured up in your imagination. I have offered you several theistic answers (afterthought, experimentation, not knowing how to do it), but they don’t fit in with your subjective interpretation of your God’s mind: an all-powerful God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain, and although you can’t make head or tail of why he would personally design the eight-stage whale and the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, or take so long to fulfil his one and only purpose, it has to be true because that is what you believe.
There was once the nicest of thinkers
Who insisted on wearing his blinkers.
When it came to design
His vision was fine,
But the rest of his theories were stinkers.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 16:28 (2401 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: That comment always brings me back to 'everyone has got to eat' along the way to the brain. We have no answer to the question as to why God took so long to get there. But that is what happened.

dhw: What happened certainly happened. But of course that does not mean it happened in the way or for the purpose you have conjured up in your imagination. I have offered you several theistic answers (afterthought, experimentation, not knowing how to do it), but they don’t fit in with your subjective interpretation of your God’s mind: an all-powerful God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain, and although you can’t make head or tail of why he would personally design the eight-stage whale and the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, or take so long to fulfil his one and only purpose, it has to be true because that is what you believe.
There was once the nicest of thinkers
Who insisted on wearing his blinkers.
When it came to design
His vision was fine,
But the rest of his theories were stinkers.

Great limerick, but not to the point. Your one suggestion of liking to experiment may apply to God. all we know is He took His time. Endpoint always the same, the most complex result in the universe: the human brain.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 10:54 (2400 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: That comment always brings me back to 'everyone has got to eat' along the way to the brain. We have no answer to the question as to why God took so long to get there. But that is what happened.

dhw: What happened certainly happened. But of course that does not mean it happened in the way or for the purpose you have conjured up in your imagination. I have offered you several theistic answers (afterthought, experimentation, not knowing how to do it), but they don’t fit in with your subjective interpretation of your God’s mind: an all-powerful God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain, and although you can’t make head or tail of why he would personally design the eight-stage whale and the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, or take so long to fulfil his one and only purpose, it has to be true because that is what you believe.
There was once the nicest of thinkers
Who insisted on wearing his blinkers.
When it came to design
His vision was fine,
But the rest of his theories were stinkers.

DAVID: Great limerick, but not to the point. Your one suggestion of liking to experiment may apply to God. all we know is He took His time. Endpoint always the same, the most complex result in the universe: the human brain.

“All we know”? We don’t even “know” if God exists. If he does exist, we don’t even “know” what he’s like or what he thinks, so how can you “know” that the human brain was his one and only purpose and constitutes the “endpoint” of evolution, and therefore he “took his time”, though you don’t know why! Too many basic premises taken for granted. But the design argument remains your strong point. I stand by the limerick.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 17:53 (2400 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That comment always brings me back to 'everyone has got to eat' along the way to the brain. We have no answer to the question as to why God took so long to get there. But that is what happened.

dhw: What happened certainly happened. But of course that does not mean it happened in the way or for the purpose you have conjured up in your imagination. I have offered you several theistic answers (afterthought, experimentation, not knowing how to do it), but they don’t fit in with your subjective interpretation of your God’s mind: an all-powerful God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain, and although you can’t make head or tail of why he would personally design the eight-stage whale and the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, or take so long to fulfil his one and only purpose, it has to be true because that is what you believe.
There was once the nicest of thinkers
Who insisted on wearing his blinkers.
When it came to design
His vision was fine,
But the rest of his theories were stinkers.

DAVID: Great limerick, but not to the point. Your one suggestion of liking to experiment may apply to God. all we know is He took His time. Endpoint always the same, the most complex result in the universe: the human brain.

dhw: “All we know”? We don’t even “know” if God exists. If he does exist, we don’t even “know” what he’s like or what he thinks, so how can you “know” that the human brain was his one and only purpose and constitutes the “endpoint” of evolution, and therefore he “took his time”, though you don’t know why! Too many basic premises taken for granted. But the design argument remains your strong point. I stand by the limerick.

We do know the brain took a very long time to appear, and for no good reason based on competitive survival or environmental pressures. And it appears designed. I've picked a cause, you haven't.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Thursday, August 24, 2017, 10:45 (2399 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your one suggestion of liking to experiment may apply to God. all we know is He took His time. Endpoint always the same, the most complex result in the universe: the human brain.

dhw: “All we know”? We don’t even “know” if God exists. If he does exist, we don’t even “know” what he’s like or what he thinks, so how can you “know” that the human brain was his one and only purpose and constitutes the “endpoint” of evolution, and therefore he “took his time”, though you don’t know why! Too many basic premises taken for granted. But the design argument remains your strong point. I stand by the limerick.

DAVID: We do know the brain took a very long time to appear, and for no good reason based on competitive survival or environmental pressures. And it appears designed. I've picked a cause, you haven't.

As usual you ignore the fact that if competitive survival and/or environmental pressures were the ONLY factors, there would have been no need for ANY evolution beyond bacteria. ALL living things “appear designed”, and you keep telling us that your God did ALL the designing, even though there was only one thing he really wanted to design! What “cause” have you picked? That your God wanted to produce the human brain and therefore he designed a few billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders until he was able to do it, though being all-powerful he could do anything. Non sequiturs ad absurdum. Here’s a different possible cause: organisms strive to improve as well as to survive, though the two purposes may coincide, since an innovation may improve an organism’s chances of survival. The sapiens brain is the result of a natural progression from earlier brains as hominins sought improvement, though we cannot know whether the brain’s expansion was caused by or was the cause of enhanced awareness (because nobody knows the source of consciousness). If you are talking about a first cause, three equally problematical options: chance, your God, matter and energy with evolving consciousnesses.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 24, 2017, 18:38 (2399 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your one suggestion of liking to experiment may apply to God. all we know is He took His time. Endpoint always the same, the most complex result in the universe: the human brain.


DAVID: We do know the brain took a very long time to appear, and for no good reason based on competitive survival or environmental pressures. And it appears designed. I've picked a cause, you haven't.

dhw: As usual you ignore the fact that if competitive survival and/or environmental pressures were the ONLY factors, there would have been no need for ANY evolution beyond bacteria.

You haven't explained why evolution went beyond bacteria. Someone had to be pushing it.

dhw: ALL living things “appear designed”, and you keep telling us that your God did ALL the designing, even though there was only one thing he really wanted to design! What “cause” have you picked? That your God wanted to produce the human brain and therefore he designed a few billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders until he was able to do it, though being all-powerful he could do anything. Non sequiturs ad absurdum.

We don't know that the only thing God wanted was our brain. I point that out as His goal, but you seize it as the only thing on His mind. We have to work from the history we see. He created a huge bush of life. Yes, He might be all-powerful, but He made His own choices as to the time to take to achieve it all. We see the history, why question it? You create your own absurdities by questioning His decisions apparent in the history.

dhw: Here’s a different possible cause: organisms strive to improve as well as to survive, though the two purposes may coincide, since an innovation may improve an organism’s chances of survival. The sapiens brain is the result of a natural progression from earlier brains as hominins sought improvement, though we cannot know whether the brain’s expansion was caused by or was the cause of enhanced awareness (because nobody knows the source of consciousness). If you are talking about a first cause, three equally problematical options: chance, your God, matter and energy with evolving consciousnesses.

We know of changes that did not enhance survival but complicated it, the whales. And as for consciousness, an inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. That is a pipe dream.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Friday, August 25, 2017, 12:55 (2398 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We do know the brain took a very long time to appear, and for no good reason based on competitive survival or environmental pressures. And it appears designed. I've picked a cause, you haven't.
dhw: As usual you ignore the fact that if competitive survival and/or environmental pressures were the ONLY factors, there would have been no need for ANY evolution beyond bacteria.
DAVID: You haven't explained why evolution went beyond bacteria. Someone had to be pushing it.

Yes I have, many times, and you have even quoted it below in my comment beginning: “Here’s a different possible cause…” An in-built (possibly God-given) drive for improvement.

dhw: ALL living things “appear designed”, and you keep telling us that your God did ALL the designing, even though there was only one thing he really wanted to design! What “cause” have you picked? That your God wanted to produce the human brain and therefore he designed a few billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders until he was able to do it, though being all-powerful he could do anything. Non sequiturs ad absurdum.
DAVID: We don't know that the only thing God wanted was our brain. I point that out as His goal, but you seize it as the only thing on His mind.

At long, long last you are conceding that the human brain was NOT God’s one and only purpose and everything else was related to that. (See my post under “a beetle fools ants”.)

dhw: Here’s a different possible cause: organisms strive to improve as well as to survive, though the two purposes may coincide, since an innovation may improve an organism’s chances of survival. The sapiens brain is the result of a natural progression from earlier brains as hominins sought improvement, though we cannot know whether the brain’s expansion was caused by or was the cause of enhanced awareness (because nobody knows the source of consciousness). If you are talking about a first cause, three equally problematical options: chance, your God, matter and energy with evolving consciousnesses.
DAVID: We know of changes that did not enhance survival but complicated it, the whales.

You are assuming that there was no reason for pre-whales to enter the water. I have suggested that maybe they did so because there was more food for them in the water. Why do you think your God fiddled with them and then made them enter the water?

DAVID: And as for consciousness, an inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. That is a pipe dream.

It is one of “three equally problematical options”. A conscious being that is simply “there” and has always been there, knows everything, had no origin, can create a universe and living organisms...Some folk would say that is a pipe dream.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Friday, August 25, 2017, 19:12 (2398 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: ALL living things “appear designed”, and you keep telling us that your God did ALL the designing, even though there was only one thing he really wanted to design! What “cause” have you picked? That your God wanted to produce the human brain and therefore he designed a few billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders until he was able to do it, though being all-powerful he could do anything. Non sequiturs ad absurdum.

DAVID: We don't know that the only thing God wanted was our brain. I point that out as His goal, but you seize it as the only thing on His mind.

dhw: At long, long last you are conceding that the human brain was NOT God’s one and only purpose and everything else was related to that. (See my post under “a beetle fools ants”.)

I still look at our brain as a primary goal, and lots of what happened supports that. He obviously wanted to create an amazing bush of life along the way. I've really not conceded the major point. Read again whaat I have written.

DAVID: We know of changes that did not enhance survival but complicated it, the whales.

dhw: You are assuming that there was no reason for pre-whales to enter the water. I have suggested that maybe they did so because there was more food for them in the water. Why do you think your God fiddled with them and then made them enter the water?

God may have allowed them to enter the water by modifying their bodies. Polar bears live in the water and eat there, but they have not been modified. We see two different examples of following the food. I still don't understand whales.


DAVID: And as for consciousness, an inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. That is a pipe dream.

dhw: It is one of “three equally problematical options”. A conscious being that is simply “there” and has always been there, knows everything, had no origin, can create a universe and living organisms...Some folk would say that is a pipe dream.

I know but that is the only logical answer.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Saturday, August 26, 2017, 12:01 (2397 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We know of changes that did not enhance survival but complicated it, the whales.
dhw: You are assuming that there was no reason for pre-whales to enter the water. I have suggested that maybe they did so because there was more food for them in the water. Why do you think your God fiddled with them and then made them enter the water?
DAVID: God may have allowed them to enter the water by modifying their bodies.

You have not said why, but I like the tentativeness of your “may have”. I suggest they “may have” entered the water for a good reason, and their bodies underwent modifications as a result of them entering the water and finding that life there was an improvement compared to life on the land (e.g. perhaps there was plenty of food there, whereas food was short on the land).

DAVID: Polar bears live in the water and eat there, but they have not been modified. We see two different examples of following the food. I still don't understand whales.

I would suggest that lots of modifications, lifestyles and natural wonders are examples of “following the food”, and I’m glad you now see the reasonableness of whales doing the same. Polar bears don’t live in the water. They hunt in the water and then go back to the land/ice, and that works perfectly well for them, as they can obviously find enough food that way. But they have been modified to the extent that both their bodies and their way of life are adapted to the cold. Do you think your God meddled with their fur and feet and fat before “allowing” them to live in such an environment? None of this means that the whale’s modifications were NOT geared to improvements. Nor does it mean that your God made all the modifications BEFORE the organisms could follow the food.

DAVID: And as for consciousness, an inorganic universe cannot invent consciousness. That is a pipe dream.
dhw: It is one of “three equally problematical options”. A conscious being that is simply “there” and has always been there, knows everything, had no origin, can create a universe and living organisms...Some folk would say that is a pipe dream.
DAVID: I know but that is the only logical answer.

It is no more “logical” than the other two hypotheses.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 26, 2017, 15:32 (2397 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God may have allowed them to enter the water by modifying their bodies.

dhw: You have not said why, but I like the tentativeness of your “may have”. I suggest they “may have” entered the water for a good reason, and their bodies underwent modifications as a result of them entering the water and finding that life there was an improvement compared to life on the land (e.g. perhaps there was plenty of food there, whereas food was short on the land).

It is easier to migrate on land to find food than change body form to totally live in water. There is no way to avoid that fact. The whales are a major reason why I state that evolution pursued complexity for complexity's sake.


DAVID: Polar bears live in the water and eat there, but they have not been modified. We see two different examples of following the food. I still don't understand whales.

dhw: I would suggest that lots of modifications, lifestyles and natural wonders are examples of “following the food”, and I’m glad you now see the reasonableness of whales doing the same. Polar bears don’t live in the water. They hunt in the water and then go back to the land/ice, and that works perfectly well for them, as they can obviously find enough food that way. But they have been modified to the extent that both their bodies and their way of life are adapted to the cold. Do you think your God meddled with their fur and feet and fat before “allowing” them to live in such an environment? None of this means that the whale’s modifications were NOT geared to improvements. Nor does it mean that your God made all the modifications BEFORE the organisms could follow the food.

It seems reasonable to assume that polar bears epigenetically adapted to their environment. They can and do breed with brown bears, as many hybrids have been seen, so they are not genetically much different. Whales exhibit enormous physiologic an phenotypic changes that are much more than epigenetic adaptation.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Sunday, August 27, 2017, 10:48 (2396 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God may have allowed them to enter the water by modifying their bodies.

dhw: You have not said why, but I like the tentativeness of your “may have”. I suggest they “may have” entered the water for a good reason, and their bodies underwent modifications as a result of them entering the water and finding that life there was an improvement compared to life on the land (e.g. perhaps there was plenty of food there, whereas food was short on the land).

DAVID: It is easier to migrate on land to find food than change body form to totally live in water. There is no way to avoid that fact. The whales are a major reason why I state that evolution pursued complexity for complexity's sake.

But according to you it is not “evolution” that pursues anything. It is God, because according to you it is God who engineers all the changes. So now you have God pursuing complexity for complexity’s sake. At least that makes a change from God designing every organism for the sake of keeping life going until he can design the human brain. You admit that you don’t understand the history of the whale. The fact that it would have been “easier” to migrate on land doesn’t mean pre-whales should have migrated on land. Clearly their migration to water was successful. And so they stayed in the water, and step by step they changed their body form to make the migration even more successful. Why is that so difficult to believe?

DAVID: Polar bears live in the water and eat there, but they have not been modified. We see two different examples of following the food. I still don't understand whales.

dhw: I would suggest that lots of modifications, lifestyles and natural wonders are examples of “following the food”, and I’m glad you now see the reasonableness of whales doing the same. Polar bears don’t live in the water. They hunt in the water and then go back to the land/ice, and that works perfectly well for them, as they can obviously find enough food that way. But they have been modified to the extent that both their bodies and their way of life are adapted to the cold. Do you think your God meddled with their fur and feet and fat before “allowing” them to live in such an environment? None of this means that the whale’s modifications were NOT geared to improvements. Nor does it mean that your God made all the modifications BEFORE the organisms could follow the food.

DAVID: It seems reasonable to assume that polar bears epigenetically adapted to their environment. They can and do breed with brown bears, as many hybrids have been seen, so they are not genetically much different. Whales exhibit enormous physiologic an phenotypic changes that are much more than epigenetic adaptation.

I am not saying bear modifications were as great as whale modifications. I am simply pointing out that both species underwent modifications in accordance with the demands of their new environment. Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation. Nor do we understand the mechanism that enables organisms to adapt/innovate. Your belief is that God preprogrammes or dabbles everything. My hypothesis is that the mechanism (possibly God-given) is autonomous, for whales as for bears, for major as for minor "modifications". And we agree to disagree.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 27, 2017, 19:48 (2396 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is easier to migrate on land to find food than change body form to totally live in water. There is no way to avoid that fact. The whales are a major reason why I state that evolution pursued complexity for complexity's sake.

dhw: But according to you it is not “evolution” that pursues anything. It is God, because according to you it is God who engineers all the changes. So now you have God pursuing complexity for complexity’s sake. At least that makes a change from God designing every organism for the sake of keeping life going until he can design the human brain. You admit that you don’t understand the history of the whale. The fact that it would have been “easier” to migrate on land doesn’t mean pre-whales should have migrated on land. Clearly their migration to water was successful. And so they stayed in the water, and step by step they changed their body form to make the migration even more successful. Why is that so difficult to believe?

I think both concepts of complexity and brain fit what we see. There is no question the process of evolution (driven by God) produces complexity. Your approval of the concept improvement runs into a problem. How do you define improvement and prove the point? The bacteria didn't need improvement yet here we are. From the survivability standpoint are we an improvement? Probably not. As for the brain, it is the most complex object in the universe. As for the whales, the biologic complexities and challenges clearly deny your 'lala land' approach that they simple wandered into the water and changed.


DAVID: Polar bears live in the water and eat there, but they have not been modified. We see two different examples of following the food. I still don't understand whales.
DAVID: It seems reasonable to assume that polar bears epigenetically adapted to their environment. They can and do breed with brown bears, as many hybrids have been seen, so they are not genetically much different. Whales exhibit enormous physiologic an phenotypic changes that are much more than epigenetic adaptation.

dhw: I am not saying bear modifications were as great as whale modifications. I am simply pointing out that both species underwent modifications in accordance with the demands of their new environment. Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.

Innovation brings new species. Adaptation is finches beaks. Genetic studies show they are all one species.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Monday, August 28, 2017, 13:13 (2395 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no question the process of evolution (driven by God) produces complexity.

Obviously multicellular is more complex than single cell, and the more organs there are, the more complex the organism becomes. My point is that complexity for the sake of complexity seems pointless unless each complexity serves some kind of purpose, e.g. improving the chances of evading prey, access to food, degree of comfort.

DAVID: Your approval of the concept improvement runs into a problem. How do you define improvement and prove the point? The bacteria didn't need improvement yet here we are.

I’d tackle the question in two stages. The move from single cell to multicell is the first. We have agreed ad nauseam that bacteria didn’t need to improve, but once cells began to combine (whether God was involved or not), the second stage allowed for an almost unlimited number of ongoing combinations. I would say that, for instance, the subsequent ability to see, hear, walk, swim, fly, talk, build, think complex thoughts, invent machines etc. represented improved means of coping with the environment, communicating, enriching experience of life, but you may not agree.

DAVID: From the survivability standpoint are we an improvement? Probably not.

Not over bacteria. But since we are killing off species after species and have filled the planet, I would say our survivability is greater than that of most other forms of life.

DAVID: As for the brain, it is the most complex object in the universe.

And in terms of communicating, inventing, creating, destroying, killing, healing, recording, exploring etc. etc., I’d say our methods are an improvement over those of any other species, But again you may disagree.

DAVID: As for the whales, the biologic complexities and challenges clearly deny your 'lala land' approach that they simply wandered into the water and changed.

I never said it was simple. But I find it more logical than the belief that a god changed them and then sent them into the water for no particular purpose, except to make them more complex, and then changed them again, and again, and again x 8, although his primary purpose was to create the human brain.

dhw: Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Innovation brings new species. Adaptation is finches beaks. Genetic studies show they are all one species.

Agreed. But when fins change to legs to allow a marine organism to walk on land, or legs change to fins to allow a land animal to live more easily in the water, the end product may be a different species, and then it’s difficult to draw the line between adaptation and innovation.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Monday, August 28, 2017, 19:13 (2395 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My point is that complexity for the sake of complexity seems pointless unless each complexity serves some kind of purpose, e.g. improving the chances of evading prey, access to food, degree of comfort.

The purpose may be to eventually evolve our brain. Improvement led to 99% of all species disappearing! All other recent primates survived without having human 'improvements'.


DAVID: Your approval of the concept improvement runs into a problem. How do you define improvement and prove the point? The bacteria didn't need improvement yet here we are.

dhw:I would say that, for instance, the subsequent ability to see, hear, walk, swim, fly, talk, build, think complex thoughts, invent machines etc. represented improved means of coping with the environment, communicating, enriching experience of life, but you may not agree.

Again, for survivability, not needed, but yes our life is nicer.

DAVID: As for the brain, it is the most complex object in the universe.

dhw: And in terms of communicating, inventing, creating, destroying, killing, healing, recording, exploring etc. etc., I’d say our methods are an improvement over those of any other species, But again you may disagree.

No, I agree, but not necessary if evolution is driven by survivability. per Darwin. tahat is what I question.


DAVID: As for the whales, the biologic complexities and challenges clearly deny your 'lala land' approach that they simply wandered into the water and changed.

I never said it was simple. But I find it more logical than the belief that a god changed them and then sent them into the water for no particular purpose, except to make them more complex, and then changed them again, and again, and again x 8, although his primary purpose was to create the human brain.

More and more complexity led to the brain, the most complex object of all.


dhw: Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Innovation brings new species. Adaptation is finches beaks. Genetic studies show they are all one species.

dhw: Agreed. But when fins change to legs to allow a marine organism to walk on land, or legs change to fins to allow a land animal to live more easily in the water, the end product may be a different species, and then it’s difficult to draw the line between adaptation and innovation.

Major phenotypic changes, as you describe, produces new species. that is the dividing line.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Tuesday, August 29, 2017, 13:21 (2394 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My point is that complexity for the sake of complexity seems pointless unless each complexity serves some kind of purpose, e.g. improving the chances of evading prey, access to food, degree of comfort.
DAVID: The purpose may be to eventually evolve our brain.

Do you really want me to ask you yet again how the complexities of the 8-stage whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest have contributed to the evolution of the human brain?

DAVID: Improvement led to 99% of all species disappearing! All other recent primates survived without having human 'improvements'.

The disappearance of 99% of all species must in some way relate to changes in the environment (in the broadest possible sense). This means that when a new organ/organism first appears and survives, it has improved its chances of evading prey, gaining access to food, making life more comfortable. Then comes a change in the environment, and the improvements no longer serve those purposes. Hence the extinction of some (but not all) species. And then the changes in the environment may lead to different innovations and improvements among the surviving species (including primates) though that doesn't mean the old species have to disappear. So it has gone on throughout the history of life, with constant comings and goings, in a process known as evolution.

DAVID: Your approval of the concept improvement runs into a problem. How do you define improvement and prove the point? The bacteria didn't need improvement yet here we are.
dhw:I would say that, for instance, the subsequent ability to see, hear, walk, swim, fly, talk, build, think complex thoughts, invent machines etc. represented improved means of coping with the environment, communicating, enriching experience of life, but you may not agree.
DAVID: Again, for survivability, not needed, but yes our life is nicer.

See above. Once multicellularity had occurred, and more and more new organisms came on the scene, survivability would have been a crucial factor, though not the only factor.

DAVID: As for the brain, it is the most complex object in the universe.
dhw: And in terms of communicating, inventing, creating, destroying, killing, healing, recording, exploring etc. etc., I’d say our methods are an improvement over those of any other species, But again you may disagree.
DAVID: No, I agree, but not necessary if evolution is driven by survivability. per Darwin. that is what I question.

You are not discussing this with Darwin, you are discussing it with me. Once and for all: bacteria have survived, so NO further evolution was necessary for survivability. Multicellularity happened, and then there were new ways of exploiting the environment, new threats to survival, new means of surviving those threats…etc.

DAVID: As for the whales, the biologic complexities and challenges clearly deny your 'lala land' approach that they simply wandered into the water and changed.
dhw: I never said it was simple. But I find it more logical than the belief that a god changed them and then sent them into the water for no particular purpose, except to make them more complex, and then changed them again, and again, and again x 8, although his primary purpose was to create the human brain.
DAVID: More and more complexity led to the brain, the most complex object of all.

So how does that make it logical for your God to have designed and redesigned and re-redesigned pre-whales, although his primary aim was to produce the human brain?

dhw: Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Innovation brings new species. Adaptation is finches beaks. Genetic studies show they are all one species.
dhw: Agreed. But when fins change to legs to allow a marine organism to walk on land, or legs change to fins to allow a land animal to live more easily in the water, the end product may be a different species, and then it’s difficult to draw the line between adaptation and innovation.
DAVID: Major phenotypic changes, as you describe, produces new species. that is the dividing line.

Phenotype simply means characteristics determined by genes or modified by the environment. Of course major changes produce new species. So if an organism moves from land to water, and its legs change into fins, enabling it to adapt and improve its lifestyle in the water, what is the dividing line between adaptation and innovation?

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 29, 2017, 23:19 (2393 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Do you really want me to ask you yet again how the complexities of the 8-stage whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest have contributed to the evolution of the human brain?

Again, to provide food sources for evolution to take time to do it.

See above. Once multicellularity had occurred, and more and more new organisms came on the scene, survivability would have been a crucial factor, though not the only factor.

We have no proof that survivability is a major issue due to population density, as you imply. Density is only an issue since WWII when we are displacing animal habitats.

dhw:Once and for all: bacteria have survived, so NO further evolution was necessary for survivability. Multicellularity happened, and then there were new ways of exploiting the environment, new threats to survival, new means of surviving those threats…etc.

See my comment re' population density. Survival of the fittest is an unproven conjecture.

DAVID: More and more complexity led to the brain, the most complex object of all.

dhw: So how does that make it logical for your God to have designed and redesigned and re-redesigned pre-whales, although his primary aim was to produce the human brain?

I will stick with a balance of nature in the oceans.


dhw: Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.> DAVID: Major phenotypic changes, as you describe, produces new species. that is the dividing line.

Phenotype simply means characteristics determined by genes or modified by the environment. Of course major changes produce new species. So if an organism moves from land to water, and its legs change into fins, enabling it to adapt and improve its lifestyle in the water, what is the dividing line between adaptation and innovation?

I agree that major adaptations of the kind you describe are innovations. I use 'adaptation' as minor alterations of existing species, and major 'innovations' as speciation. Just semantics.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 12:13 (2393 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Do you really want me to ask you yet again how the complexities of the 8-stage whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest have contributed to the evolution of the human brain?
DAVID: Again, to provide food sources for evolution to take time to do it.

According to you it isn’t evolution that does it but your God, via preprogramming or dabbling. So back we go: your all-powerful God’s primary purpose was to produce the human brain, and that’s why he preprogrammed or dabbled the higgledy-piggledy bush, so that he would be able to take his time over producing the one thing he really wanted to produce. And you find that logical.

dhw: Once multicellularity had occurred, and more and more new organisms came on the scene, survivability would have been a crucial factor, though not the only factor.
DAVID: We have no proof that survivability is a major issue due to population density, as you imply. Density is only an issue since WWII when we are displacing animal habitats.

I do not imply population density at all! Where did you get that from? The obvious example, as you keep reminding us, is that all organisms must eat. Carnivorousness alone would have spawned innovations for catching prey or avoiding being preyed on. Or the environment changed, and organisms had to find new means of acquiring food, which = new means of survival, e.g. by leaving the land and entering the water. Nothing to do with population density, but everything to do with survival and improvement (which frequently go hand in hand).

dhw:Once and for all: bacteria have survived, so NO further evolution was necessary for survivability. Multicellularity happened, and then there were new ways of exploiting the environment, new threats to survival, new means of surviving those threats…etc.
DAVID: See my comment re population density. Survival of the fittest is an unproven conjecture.

So how do you explain extinction, if not through the “conjecture” that extinct organisms were unable to cope with conditions at the time, whereas the survivors did cope?

DAVID: More and more complexity led to the brain, the most complex object of all.
dhw: So how does that make it logical for your God to have designed and redesigned and re-redesigned pre-whales, although his primary aim was to produce the human brain?
DAVID: I will stick with a balance of nature in the oceans.

You have admitted that you don’t understand why your God had to design and redesign the pre-whale, and you have admitted that balance of nature simply means life continues, regardless of the human brain.

dhw: Neither you nor I know where the borderline exists between adaptation and innovation.>
DAVID: Major phenotypic changes, as you describe, produces new species. that is the dividing line.
dhw: Phenotype simply means characteristics determined by genes or modified by the environment. Of course major changes produce new species. So if an organism moves from land to water, and its legs change into fins, enabling it to adapt and improve its lifestyle in the water, what is the dividing line between adaptation and innovation?
DAVID: I agree that major adaptations of the kind you describe are innovations. I use 'adaptation' as minor alterations of existing species, and major 'innovations' as speciation. Just semantics.

It’s not just semantics. You are confirming the point I keep trying to make: if major adaptations are innovations that lead to speciation, the SAME mechanism may be responsible for minor adaptations AND for innovations. You seem to accept minor adaptations as autonomous (i.e. without your God’s intervention), but you think your God must preprogramme or dabble major adaptations. That is why the dividing line is important. To put it in concrete terms, if finches can autonomously change the size and shape of their beaks, why shouldn’t pre-whales autonomously change the structure of their legs, or monarchs autonomously organize their migration, or weaverbirds autonomously design their own nests? The (perhaps God-given) mechanism I am referring to is, of course, cellular intelligence.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 17:20 (2393 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: your all-powerful God’s primary purpose was to produce the human brain, and that’s why he preprogrammed or dabbled the higgledy-piggledy bush, so that he would be able to take his time over producing the one thing he really wanted to produce. And you find that logical.

Perfectly logical to me, if He wanted to take time for the evolution to evolve. It fits he history.

DAVID: We have no proof that survivability is a major issue due to population density, as you imply. Density is only an issue since WWII when we are displacing animal habitats.

I do not imply population density at all! Where did you get that from?

From your statement: " more and more new organisms came on the scene"


dhw:Once and for all: bacteria have survived, so NO further evolution was necessary for survivability. Multicellularity happened, and then there were new ways of exploiting the environment, new threats to survival, new means of surviving those threats…etc.

DAVID: See my comment re population density. Survival of the fittest is an unproven conjecture.

dhw: So how do you explain extinction, if not through the “conjecture” that extinct organisms were unable to cope with conditions at the time, whereas the survivors did cope?

Raup stated extinctions were almost always due to bad luck, not adapting quickly enough.

DAVID: I agree that major adaptations of the kind you describe are innovations. I use 'adaptation' as minor alterations of existing species, and major 'innovations' as speciation. Just semantics.

dhw: It’s not just semantics. You are confirming the point I keep trying to make: if major adaptations are innovations that lead to speciation, the SAME mechanism may be responsible for minor adaptations AND for innovations. You seem to accept minor adaptations as autonomous (i.e. without your God’s intervention), but you think your God must preprogramme or dabble major adaptations. That is why the dividing line is important. To put it in concrete terms, if finches can autonomously change the size and shape of their beaks, why shouldn’t pre-whales autonomously change the structure of their legs, or monarchs autonomously organize their migration, or weaverbirds autonomously design their own nests? The (perhaps God-given) mechanism I am referring to is, of course, cellular intelligence.

The beaks are within a species variation according to recent genetic research and simple epigenetics. Changing a hoofed leg to a flipper is a major reorganization of the anatomy with many muscle and bony changes, well beyond what we know about speciation. All the fossil evidence is of gaps and sudden appearance of major alterations. We do not understand this. You want cells to visualize the outcome and do it all at once. I say the only logical way is by a designing mind arranging for it by careful planning.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Thursday, August 31, 2017, 08:21 (2392 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...your all-powerful God’s primary purpose was to produce the human brain, and that’s why he preprogrammed or dabbled the higgledy-piggledy bush, so that he would be able to take his time over producing the one thing he really wanted to produce. And you find that logical.
David: Perfectly logical to me, if He wanted to take time for the evolution to evolve. It fits he history.

We all know that evolution has evolved over time. But according to you, your God has always been in total control of evolution, and he had only one prime purpose. So it’s perfectly logical to you that he deliberately designed billions of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to take time over fulfilling his one prime purpose. Well, let’s just agree to differ on what counts as logic.

DAVID: We have no proof that survivability is a major issue due to population density, as you imply. Density is only an issue since WWII when we are displacing animal habitats.
Dhw: I do not imply population density at all! Where did you get that from?
DAVID: From your statement: " more and more new organisms came on the scene".

"New organisms" refers to variety, not to population density. It’s a fact of evolution that more and more new organisms came on the scene once multicellularity had occurred, and I am suggesting that the variety entailed more and more new ways of surviving.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is an unproven conjecture.
dhw: So how do you explain extinction, if not through the “conjecture” that extinct organisms were unable to cope with conditions at the time, whereas the survivors did cope?
DAVID: Raup stated extinctions were almost always due to bad luck, not adapting quickly enough.

So it was bad luck that some organisms were not able to adapt quickly enough (= unable to cope with conditions at the time) and were therefore not fit to survive. And those that did adapt quickly enough (i.e. did cope with conditions at the time) were fit to survive. So how does that make fitness to survive an “unproven conjecture”?

DAVID: I agree that major adaptations of the kind you describe are innovations. I use 'adaptation' as minor alterations of existing species, and major 'innovations' as speciation.[…]

dhw: You are confirming the point I keep trying to make: if major adaptations are innovations that lead to speciation, the SAME mechanism may be responsible for minor adaptations AND for innovations. You seem to accept minor adaptations as autonomous (i.e. without your God’s intervention), but you think your God must preprogramme or dabble major adaptations. That is why the dividing line is important. To put it in concrete terms, if finches can autonomously change the size and shape of their beaks, why shouldn’t pre-whales autonomously change the structure of their legs, or monarchs autonomously organize their migration, or weaverbirds autonomously design their own nests? The (perhaps God-given) mechanism I am referring to is, of course, cellular intelligence.

DAVID: The beaks are within a species variation according to recent genetic research and simple epigenetics. Changing a hoofed leg to a flipper is a major reorganization of the anatomy with many muscle and bony changes, well beyond what we know about speciation. All the fossil evidence is of gaps and sudden appearance of major alterations. We do not understand this. You want cells to visualize the outcome and do it all at once. I say the only logical way is by a designing mind arranging for it by careful planning.

You have agreed that major adaptations are innovations, and now you are repeating my examples of minor and major adaptations. The fact that we don’t understand the major alterations is the reason why we look for explanations and offer unproven hypotheses. I have suggested that since both minor adaptations and major adaptations are adaptations, the same mechanism might be responsible for both. You accept autonomy for the one but not for the other. Epigenetics are not “simple”. What do you think is the autonomous mechanism that enables finches to change the form of their beaks in order to cope with their respective environments?

Natures wonders: ant jaw snap speed

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 31, 2017, 15:31 (2392 days ago) @ dhw

One type of ant snaps its jaws shut at amazing speed with a special triggering mechanism:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ant-jaws-snap-shut-700-times-quicker-than-a-blink-of...

"Researchers led by Fredrick Larabee from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History set out to determine just how fast one genus of trap-jaw ants can slam shut their jaws. The answer: 80 km/h.

"This means that if you happen to be the ant’s natural prey – tiny arthropods known as springtails – you have virtually no chance of getting out of the way in time.

"The trap-jaw genus, known as Myrmoteras, is found primarily in Southeast Asia. To achieve the high-speed jaw snap, the ants’ mandibles latch into place at a 280-degree angle – tensed, possessing considerable stored elastic energy.

"Slipping the latch releases that energy, causing the jaws to snap shut in half a millisecond – about 700 times faster than it takes a human eye to blink.

"The speed of the mandible action is far faster than could be achieved if the ants relied solely on their musculature. The scientists detected notches on the jaws that allowed them to wedge open. A lobe on the back of the ant’s head acting as a trigger; its compression releases the latch.

***

"Trap-jaw ants of the Odontomachus genus have jaws that, using a similar mechanism, snap shut at twice the speed. This ability is used for hunting and also to propel the ants backwards as a maneouvre to avoid predators.

"The Myrmoteras ants do not seem to use their jaws for similar evasive purposes. "They just need to be faster than the critters they're trying to eat,” Larabee says, “and their jaws are plenty fast for capturing springtails."

"Another Smithsonian team discovered in 2016 that a family of South American and New Zealand spiders known as the Mecysmaucheniidae also hunt using a latch-based trap-jaw system to hunt.
Similar systems have been found for other functions in the arthropod world – propelling grasshopper and flea jumps, for instance. Though there are differences in biomechanics – Myrmoteras represents “a completely unique evolution,” Larabee says – the latch-and-release system represents an interesting example of convergent evolution."

Comment: The inventiveness in the bush of life is always amazing, especially as shown by this example of convergence.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 31, 2017, 15:52 (2392 days ago) @ dhw

David: Perfectly logical to me, if He wanted to take time for the evolution to evolve. It fits he history.

dhw: We all know that evolution has evolved over time. But according to you, your God has always been in total control of evolution, and he had only one prime purpose. So it’s perfectly logical to you that he deliberately designed billions of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to take time over fulfilling his one prime purpose. Well, let’s just agree to differ on what counts as logic.

We see things differently trying to fit God's actions into interpretations.

dhw: So how do you explain extinction, if not through the “conjecture” that extinct organisms were unable to cope with conditions at the time, whereas the survivors did cope?
DAVID: Raup stated extinctions were almost always due to bad luck, not adapting quickly enough.

dhw: So it was bad luck that some organisms were not able to adapt quickly enough (= unable to cope with conditions at the time) and were therefore not fit to survive. And those that did adapt quickly enough (i.e. did cope with conditions at the time) were fit to survive. So how does that make fitness to survive an “unproven conjecture”?

Because it was Raup's concept that the existing species were surviving just fine until the unusual extinction catastrophe occurred. They were fully adapted to the existing conditions. Over the 3.6 billion years of life there have been just six major extinctions, so he felt they did not play a role in day to day evolution. Obviously they had a major effect.


DAVID: The beaks are within a species variation according to recent genetic research and simple epigenetics. Changing a hoofed leg to a flipper is a major reorganization of the anatomy with many muscle and bony changes, well beyond what we know about speciation. All the fossil evidence is of gaps and sudden appearance of major alterations. We do not understand this. You want cells to visualize the outcome and do it all at once. I say the only logical way is by a designing mind arranging for it by careful planning.

dhw: You have agreed that major adaptations are innovations, and now you are repeating my examples of minor and major adaptations. The fact that we don’t understand the major alterations is the reason why we look for explanations and offer unproven hypotheses. I have suggested that since both minor adaptations and major adaptations are adaptations, the same mechanism might be responsible for both. You accept autonomy for the one but not for the other. Epigenetics are not “simple”. What do you think is the autonomous mechanism that enables finches to change the form of their beaks in order to cope with their respective environments?

Epigenetic changes are editing of the DNA by methylation, etc., and fit Shapiro's gene editing in bacteria. The finches are not that changed, just beak size and shape alterations. It is the magnitude of adaptation that makes me differ with you. Leg to flipper, nostrils to blow hole are major changes that require visualization of the outcome of the change to set up the proper planning for the change. When we find that mechanism ability present in living organisms, I will only then agree with your theory. The fact that speciation is still so mysterious, with no hints in current research, supports me.

Natures wonders: bacterial adaptation:

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 31, 2017, 18:37 (2392 days ago) @ David Turell

In relation to Shapiro's work a new study shows how bacteria can appear to control adaptation to a change in nutrients:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-evolution-microbes-have-to-...

"To survive hostile environments, an organism often has to acquire new traits. But the rules of evolution appear to restrict how many such characteristics it can optimize at once. In a new study, researchers say they found that some bacteria make a genetic trade-off: the microbes involved were able to develop only one of two new traits and selected the one that best helped them thrive in a given setting.

***

"David Fraebel, a graduate student in Kuehn’s laboratory, grew Escherichia coli in either a nutrient-rich or nutrient-poor growth medium and measured how quickly the microbes spread. A mathematical model predicted that the fastest-spreading microbes would be those that combined two traits: swimming speed and growth rate. But instead the microbes chose just one trait: in the nutrient-rich environment, those that migrated farthest had opted for speedy swimming. In contrast, in the nutrient-poor medium, the fastest reproducers won out.

"By comparing the DNA sequences of the more evolved microbes with those of their ancestors, Fraebel found that the fastest movers had acquired one mutation, whereas the quickest reproducers had acquired a different one. None of the surviving organisms had both.
The finding, reported in eLife, suggests the fittest bacteria selected one “evolutionary path or the other,” Kuehn says. Such compromises may be one of the many genetic tools organisms use to survive when confronting a challenge in their environment."

Comment: this confirms Shapiro's work showing bacterial capability. But interestingly they only make one choice out of other possibilities. We know what they can do, not how.

Natures wonders: bacterial adaptation:

by dhw, Friday, September 01, 2017, 13:22 (2391 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In relation to Shapiro's work a new study shows how bacteria can appear to control adaptation to a change in nutrients:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-evolution-microbes-have-to-...

QUOTE: "To survive hostile environments, an organism often has to acquire new traits.”

And yet you keep trying to tell us that survivability plays no role in evolution. Bacteria remain bacteria, but maybe other organisms acquire major new traits for the same reason, and duly become new species.

DAVID’s comment: this confirms Shapiro's work showing bacterial capability. But interestingly they only make one choice out of other possibilities. We know what they can do, not how.

Since Shapiro is a firm believer in the concept of bacterial intelligence, I would suggest that one very feasible explanation of this bacterial capability which confirms his research is…bacterial intelligence.

Natures wonders: bacterial adaptation:

by David Turell @, Friday, September 01, 2017, 15:13 (2391 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In relation to Shapiro's work a new study shows how bacteria can appear to control adaptation to a change in nutrients:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-evolution-microbes-have-to-...

QUOTE: "To survive hostile environments, an organism often has to acquire new traits.”

dhw: And yet you keep trying to tell us that survivability plays no role in evolution. Bacteria remain bacteria, but maybe other organisms acquire major new traits for the same reason, and duly become new species.

Not that survivability 'plays no role' but a much smaller role than implied by 'survival of the fitest.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by dhw, Friday, September 01, 2017, 13:17 (2391 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Raup stated extinctions were almost always due to bad luck, not adapting quickly enough.
dhw: So it was bad luck that some organisms were not able to adapt quickly enough (= unable to cope with conditions at the time) and were therefore not fit to survive. And those that did adapt quickly enough (i.e. did cope with conditions at the time) were fit to survive. So how does that make fitness to survive an “unproven conjecture”?
DAVID: Because it was Raup's concept that the existing species were surviving just fine until the unusual extinction catastrophe occurred. They were fully adapted to the existing conditions. Over the 3.6 billion years of life there have been just six major extinctions, so he felt they did not play a role in day to day evolution. Obviously they had a major effect.

Every species that has gone extinct was fine until it went extinct! So may I tentatively suggest to you (or Raup) that major catastrophes or environmental changes (e.g. an increase in oxygen levels) would have had “a major effect” on which organisms perished and which organisms survived and gave rise to new organisms that could also cope with or exploit the new conditions, while minor catastrophes or environmental changes would have had ”a minor effect” (though minor effects may have led to major effects, since evolution is an ongoing process). And may I even suggest that survivability is therefore not an “unproven conjecture”, but so obviously plays a major role in the success or failure of all adaptations and innovations that it is hardly worth arguing about.

DAVID: The beaks are within a species variation according to recent genetic research and simple epigenetics […]

dhw: You have agreed that major adaptations are innovations, and now you are repeating my examples of minor and major adaptations. The fact that we don’t understand the major alterations is the reason why we look for explanations and offer unproven hypotheses. I have suggested that since both minor adaptations and major adaptations are adaptations, the same mechanism might be responsible for both. You accept autonomy for the one but not for the other. Epigenetics are not “simple”. What do you think is the autonomous mechanism that enables finches to change the form of their beaks in order to cope with their respective environments?

DAVID: Epigenetic changes are editing of the DNA by methylation, etc., and fit Shapiro's gene editing in bacteria. The finches are not that changed, just beak size and shape alterations. It is the magnitude of adaptation that makes me differ with you. Leg to flipper, nostrils to blow hole are major changes that require visualization of the outcome of the change to set up the proper planning for the change. When we find that mechanism ability present in living organisms, I will only then agree with your theory. The fact that speciation is still so mysterious, with no hints in current research, supports me.

You keep repeating the point that I keep answering. Yes, finch beaks are minor and flippers and blow holes are major, but you have agreed that they are all adaptations, and so the same mechanism may be at work. Now do please tell me whether you think your God dabbled with finch beaks (or preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago), or their cell communities autonomously used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to work how to “edit their DNA by methylation etc.” In the meantime, I do not ask you to agree with my hypothesis – I also have reservations. I only ask you to consider it as a possibility. The mystery does not in any way support your theory that there is a supernatural power which designed flippers before pre-whales entered the water.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Friday, September 01, 2017, 17:03 (2391 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: You keep repeating the point that I keep answering. Yes, finch beaks are minor and flippers and blow holes are major, but you have agreed that they are all adaptations, and so the same mechanism may be at work. Now do please tell me whether you think your God dabbled with finch beaks (or preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago), or their cell communities autonomously used their (possibly God-given) intelligence to work how to “edit their DNA by methylation etc.” In the meantime, I do not ask you to agree with my hypothesis – I also have reservations. I only ask you to consider it as a possibility. The mystery does not in any way support your theory that there is a supernatural power which designed flippers before pre-whales entered the water.

If major and minor adaptations ae part of the mechanism for change, we have no evidence so far, only small epigenetic DNA changes which can be passed on to descendants. What supports my theory of a supernatural power is the obvious need for visualizing the future form and the design planning that must go into it in order for the change to be accomplished. The DNA of a completely new species may show reference to the past species, but will have very major differences in order to create the new form and function. Only design fits this.

Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 00:46 (2366 days ago) @ David Turell

Further study of the structure and action of the spear. It looks irreducibly complex:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170925132856.htm

"the speargun drills a hole into the neighboring cells in only a few thousandths of a second and injects a cocktail of toxins.

"Millions of tiny microbes on leaves, stones or our skin jostle for space. And almost everywhere they have to compete for resources and nutrients. In the course of evolution, some bacteria have therefore developed a weapon to inject a toxic cocktail into competitors and rivals in their neighborhood, thus eliminating them. Among experts, this weapon resembling a speargun is also known as the type VI secretion system (T6SS).

"The speargun is composed of various components, including a sheath and a spear with a sharp tip. The sheath consists of over 200 connected cogwheel-like protein rings that are assembled around the inner rigid spear. When T6SS fires, the sheath rapidly contracts and pushes the toxic spear out of the cell, which can then penetrate into neighboring cells where it releases deadly toxins. "So far, there have only been assumptions as to how the structure of the T6SS sheath changes during contraction," says Basler. "Using cryo-electron microscopy available at C-CINA, we have now obtained an image of the spear and the extended sheath in atomic resolution."

"By comparing the structures of the extended and contracted states, the researchers were able to model how the T6SS works in detail. "During the sheath contraction, ring after ring turns and gets closer to the previous ring, while the ring diameter expands and thus releases the spear," explains Basler. "This combination of sheath shrinking and turning results in drilling a hole into the target cells. Within less than two milliseconds, the T6SS sheath contracts to half of its length and at the same time the toxic spear spirals out like a screw. Therefore, the bacteria have an extremely powerful drill."

"Furthermore, the researchers also addressed another question. After firing T6SS, bacteria re-use the individual components of the sheath to assemble a new speargun. "For a long time, it was not clear why only the contracted, but not the extended sheath is disassembled," says Basler. "Now, we could see that a certain protein domain is exposed on the surface of the sheath during contraction and can be recognized by a specific protein responsible for dismantling the sheath. In the extended sheath state, this domain is hidden and the T6SS sheath is therefore protected from disassembly."

"The bacterial speargun will continue to be the subject of future research. "One of our projects is dedicated to the question of how the T6SS is embedded in the bacterial cell envelope. As the speargun is fired with such a high force, it must be firmly anchored, otherwise firing would not work properly or could be also fatal for the weapon-carrying bacteria themselves.'"

Comment: Like the flagellum, this is a highly complex structure, which must be constructed all at once as a new organ. It would not work as a defense mechanism unless complete to begin with. A strong piece of evidence for intelligent design.

Natures wonders: bacteria have grappling hooks

by David Turell @, Monday, June 10, 2019, 17:08 (1744 days ago) @ David Turell

Holds them on hard surfaces in oceans:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-cholera-bacterium-in-toolkit-life.html

"The cholera bacterium Vibrio cholerae infects the small intestine, causing diarrhea and severe dehydration. It lives in salty water, such as seas, oceans and estuaries, attaching itself to the shells of crustaceans. These exoskeletons are composed of a sugary polymer called chitin, and provide a rich source of food for the cholera bacterium—allowing it to grow and survive in the environment.

"To do all this, V. cholerae uses an appendage that's "a bit like a grappling hook,"' says lead researcher David Adams. "The idea is that bacteria can throw out these long ropes, hook onto something, and reel it back in."

"These lines are actually the product of highly versatile nano-machines known as type IV pili, which are used by many bacterial species for motility, sensing surfaces and sticking to them, and even taking up DNA from neighboring bacteria. Consequently, type IV pili are considered critical for the environmental survival and pathogenesis of not just V. cholerae, but a wide range of bacteria.

***

"The biggest insight came, however, when researchers disrupted the motor that powers pilus retraction, revealing that these ropes could also self-interact with each other, and in doing so, allow cells to stick together. Curiously, different strains of V. cholerae produce slightly different variants of the PilA subunit, which forms the major building block of the pilus. Remarkably, this creates a set of highly specific interactions that can be used as an identifier between strains ensuring that like only pairs with like.

"Finally, when researchers visualized V. cholerae growing under more realistic conditions upon chitin surfaces, they revealed that these DNA-uptake pili naturally form dense networks of self-interacting pili. These pili bind tightly to the chitin surface and are required for the bacterium to stay attached during water flow. Thus, the DNA-uptake pilus is a multifunctional toolkit for chitin surface colonization and kin recognition and the results of this work will help to advance our understanding of how the cholera bacterium survives in the natural environment."

Comment: These external pili are like the spears bacteria use against amoeba. These complex mechanisms are very difficult to imagine as occurring by chance. How did V. cholera survive in oceans before their development since their use is in attaching to a needed food supply? Design is necessary.

Natures wonders: bacteria defense uses protein particles

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 16, 2020, 22:27 (1432 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudomonas releases a lethal protein particle which mechanical attacks enemies:

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-bactericidal-nanomachine-reveal-mechanisms-natural.html

"The particle in the study, an R-type pyocin, is a protein complex released by the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a way of sabotaging microbes that compete with it for resources. When a pyocin identifies a rival bacterium, it kills the bacterium by punching a hole in the cell's membrane. P. aeruginosa, frequently a cause of hospital-acquired illness, is found in soil, in water and on fresh produce.

***

"Earlier research by the leaders of the new study described the pyocin's overall structure, albeit in less detail. The largest part of a pyocin is a cylindrical trunk comprising an outer sheath that surrounds an inner tube—the part that punctures. At the bottom of the trunk is a baseplate with six protruding tendrils. When the nanomachine encounters a bacterial cell, it lands on the cell and the tendrils bind to specific structures on the cell's surface.

"In the new paper, the scientists described for the first time a six-stranded collar at the top of the pyocin's trunk, which connects the sheath and inner tube and is important for transmitting energy in the process of triggering the pyocin.

"The latest study also provided previously unknown information about the mechanical action that takes place when a pyocin is triggered: When at least three of the six tendrils bind to the surface of a bacterial cell, the pyocin recognizes that the cell is the specific type of bacterium it is meant to attack. At that point, the tendrils anchor the pyocin to the cell and cause the baseplate to splay out. This, in turn, causes the outer sheath to collapse, driving the inner tube down and across the surface of the target cell.

"Beyond the puncture damage itself, the inner tube leaches energy from the bacterial cell, which causes the cell to die—a detail previously revealed by the researchers.

"'This is a mechanical system that's exquisitely tuned to couple specific recognition of a target cell with deployment of its lethal blow," said co-corresponding author Jeff F. Miller, UCLA's Fred Kavli Professor of NanoSystems Sciences and the director of CNSI. "Understanding how the system is constructed and how its activity is controlled could be used for building new kinds of nanomachines.'"

Comment: Nature can always teach us new tricks. This is so complex it had to be designed.

Natures wonders: ant pheromone communication

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 13, 2023, 16:43 (250 days ago) @ David Turell

Latest research:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/spying-on-transgenic-ants-reveals-how-their-...


"Ants rely heavily on their acute senses of smell to orchestrate social behaviors, including seeking food or defending their colonies. While the ant olfactory system is more complex than that of other insects, the understanding of how it works is still limited. By using transgenic ants where olfactory neurons light up when activated, researchers discovered a sensory center that receives the input from the alarm pheromones produced by other colony members when sensing danger.

“'Ants have evolved all these different pheromones that they use to pass different kinds of information to one another, and we see signatures of this” in their brains, said Taylor Hart, a neurobiologist at the Rockefeller University and coauthor of the study. To detect these scent markers, ants use their antennae, from which sensory neurons connect to large brain structures known as the antennal lobes. These lobes are “subdivided anatomically into many ball-shaped structures that are called glomeruli,” explained Hart. There are approximately 500 glomeruli in each ant antennal lobe, but up until now, it was not clear how they activate in response to different odors.

“'This is all very interesting to us because we want to know” how these brain structures work at a functional level and how the different pheromones that maintain ant societies are perceived and encoded within the ant brain, Hart said.

***

"The alarm pheromones activated one to six glomeruli, a handful of the approximately 500 found in the antennal lobe. The scientists also noticed a significant overlap among the glomeruli activated by each of the pheromones tested. For instance, three of these scents, specifically those inducing panic that results in nest evacuation, often activated the same glomerulus. When Hart and her colleagues mapped two other relevant glomeruli for this response, they found that all three were spatially clustered.

"These observations suggest that these danger-signaling pheromones feed into a sensory hub rather than triggering a more spatially distributed activation of glomeruli. “We don’t know for sure that the sparse representation is true for all odors,” said Hart, but based on the brain response to some other scents they tested, “it could also be a general trend in this animal.”

"Investigating these neurobiological questions in ants “opens up a lot of possibilities for understanding how these organisms use these chemical and social cues for manifesting all [of their] fascinating behaviors,” said Duke University insect neurobiologist Pelin Volkan, who was not involved in this study. She added that the transgenic ants developed by this research team will significantly contribute to that goal.

'Figuring out the neuroscience fundamentals underlying these animals’ social interactions and how those behaviors emerge is going to be “super powerful,” Volkan concluded."

Comment: this study fits exactly with previous observations that individual ants respond in an automatically required way to a pheromone stimulus.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Friday, August 18, 2017, 13:33 (2405 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course everything requires explanation. Mine is simple, God.
dhw: You have not explained how God's need to design eight stages of whale etc.etc. in order to produce the human brain fits in with the history of life. Keeping life going does not make the human brain the sole purpose, since life kept going and will no doubt continue to keep going with or without the human brain.

DAVID: You have just made my point. Our brain is obviously not here as a necessity for survival. Struggle for survival as a tenet of Darwinism goes out the window. An innate part of life having a mechanism to improve ( your idea) or to complexify (mine) is much more to the point…

So how does this make your point that the whole of life’s history, including the eight stages of whale and the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, was geared to the production of the human brain. EVERY innovation was unnecessary if your starting point is bacteria. However, once the process of improvement had begun, and life diversified, it is perfectly possible that many innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders improved organisms’ chances of survival, though that may not be the only motive for improvement.

DAVID: ….but these ideas are only ways to compensate for the reality that bacteria didn't need to get more complex other than to learn to live in extreme environments. Why improvement or complexity can only be explained by a driving force, God, not chance.

In the context of evolutionary history, the theistic choice is between your God directing every innovation etc. and the organisms doing their own directing in response to prevailing conditions. Chance doesn’t come into it, except for environmental changes, which are a major problem for your theory.

DAVID: As for the bush of life, I simply accept it as God's method of evolution providing food energy for life to have the energy to survive for all the time evolution needed to advance to us.

Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Friday, August 18, 2017, 15:35 (2405 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: ….but these ideas are only ways to compensate for the reality that bacteria didn't need to get more complex other than to learn to live in extreme environments. Why improvement or complexity can only be explained by a driving force, God, not chance.

dhw: In the context of evolutionary history, the theistic choice is between your God directing every innovation etc. and the organisms doing their own directing in response to prevailing conditions. Chance doesn’t come into it, except for environmental changes, which are a major problem for your theory.

No problem. Get rid of the dinosaurs and we arrive.


DAVID: As for the bush of life, I simply accept it as God's method of evolution providing food energy for life to have the energy to survive for all the time evolution needed to advance to us.

dhw: Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

Same reply. Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Saturday, August 19, 2017, 09:07 (2404 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In the context of evolutionary history, the theistic choice is between your God directing every innovation etc. and the organisms doing their own directing in response to prevailing conditions. Chance doesn’t come into it, except for environmental changes, which are a major problem for your theory.

DAVID: No problem. Get rid of the dinosaurs and we arrive.

The problem is the extent to which your God controls the environment. But perhaps your latest theory is that he controls every environmental change, global and local, that results in organismal change.

DAVID: As for the bush of life, I simply accept it as God's method of evolution providing food energy for life to have the energy to survive for all the time evolution needed to advance to us.

dhw: Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

DAVID: Same reply. Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 19, 2017, 15:23 (2404 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

DAVID: Same reply. Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

dhw: Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

You can't avoid the logic of no food, no brain, the endpoint of the process.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Sunday, August 20, 2017, 10:29 (2403 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

DAVID: Same reply. Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

dhw: Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

DAVID: You can't avoid the logic of no food, no brain, the endpoint of the process.

No food, no nuttin’, including bacteria, dead dinosaurs, live butterflies, weaverbirds and duckbilled platypuses. “Endpoint” is just another way of saying that in your eyes the process of evolution is finished and the brain was your God’s only purpose. The fact that ALL life requires food does not lend any support whatsoever to this subjective conclusion. It is a total non sequitur.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 20, 2017, 15:57 (2403 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Why “all the time evolution needed…” if God directed everything? Surely you mean all the time your all-powerful God needed to fulfil his sole purpose of advancing evolution to us. And that still doesn’t explain why he had to design eight stages of whale, the monarch’s migration and the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going until he himself could produce the human brain. Would life have ended without them?

DAVID: Same reply. Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

dhw: Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

DAVID: You can't avoid the logic of no food, no brain, the endpoint of the process.

dhw: No food, no nuttin’, including bacteria, dead dinosaurs, live butterflies, weaverbirds and duckbilled platypuses. “Endpoint” is just another way of saying that in your eyes the process of evolution is finished and the brain was your God’s only purpose. The fact that ALL life requires food does not lend any support whatsoever to this subjective conclusion. It is a total non sequitur.

Evolution of the brain took time. Did you forget that?

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Monday, August 21, 2017, 15:34 (2402 days ago) @ David Turell

By exuding a chemical the ant is fooled by the beetle. Other animals do the same thing. Ants communicate by odorous chemicals, which others imitate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dangerous-game-highwayman-beetle.html

"This is the dangerous game played by the nitidulid beetle. It disguises itself as an ant, lurks along their foraging trails and tricks them into giving it food. The beetle is so good at deception that it gets more food from ants than ants get from their fellows.
But if the ants find out, reprisal can be brutal.

***

"Insects disguise themselves as ants or mimic ant behavior to successfully live hidden in plain sight amongst ants

***

"Creatures that live with ants are called myrmecophiles. Christina Kwapich, a postdoctoral researcher who co-authored the paper with Holldobler, studies them. She explained how nitidulid beetles buffalo the ants.

"We refer to them as highwaymen beetles, because they're robbing the traffic lines of the ants," Kwapich said.

"Ants go out on massive foraging trails to collect honeydew from little insects like aphids. They fill a social stomach, which is an enlargement of their esophagus, with their crop. In that crop they have this sugary liquid that they can share with their own nestmates through mouth-to-mouth regurgitation (a process called trophallaxis).

"It's that behavior that this parasitic beetle has sort of capitalized on," Kwapich said. "It's broken the code of communication between the ants in order to steal that sugary liquid that's meant for other nestmates. What the beetle does, what Bert discovered, is it sits along the sides of these foraging trails and populates the nest entrance area and waits for returning foragers with their crops laden with sugary liquid."

"The beetle is able to steal quite a bit of liquid. They actually get more of the food than the other ants do: 1.8 times as much food. They're true parasites.

"We like to think of what the sensory world of the ant is, and it's mostly tactile and chemical," Kwapich said. "It's those features that the beetle has used to break the code of feeding."

"The food transfer is a one-way street. The ants are feeding the beetles, but the beetles are not giving it back.

"Also, the beetles aren't giving it to each other," she added.

"All the beetle had to do to evolve is to break a simple communication code the ants use to solicit food from nestmates, Holldobler said.

"Employing radioactively labeled honey water, we were able to measure how successful the beetle is soliciting food from the ants," he said. "It turned out that his food-begging behavior is good enough to receive food from workers that carry honeydew in a full 'social crop,' but not good enough to receive food from workers inside the nest."

"The beetles also have a kind of Mata Hari seduction trick scientists have observed but not yet cracked. They have glands in their head and around their mouths which secrete some sort of appeasement compound.

"'At the beginning of the interaction, where the food stealing is happening, the ant is transfixed by the secretion the beetle makes," Kwapich said. "We don't know what that substance is."

"The beetles aren't always successful, but, if discovered, they have some adaptations they can deploy to save themselves. The ants will try to flip the beetle over. If they can accomplish this, they will tear off the beetle's antennae and legs.

***

"Most myrmecophiles mimic the smell of the nest they live in. Ants are covered in a waxy hydrocarbon substance, which is how they identify each other and their nest. Crickets and other myrmecophiles don't have this substance. They will comb ants with special tools like brushy mouth parts or leg bristles and anoint themselves with it. Crickets will walk under ants, rise up and rub themselves against the ants.

"'This is all to maintain the chemical mimicry that's allowing the ants to be blind to them in the nest," Kwapich said.

"Myrmecophile spiders can live undetected amongst the ants they prey on.

"'If you switch them to another nest they will actually molt their cuticle," she said. "They'll get rid of that old smell as rapidly as possible."

"Other beetles live inside ant nests. They have adoption glands that encourage ants to pick them up and bring them inside."

Comment: I cannot imagine how this beetle evolved. It had to have mutations to create the chemicals it uses to confuse ants. Ant scent is chemically specific. It is much easier to understand insects which simply cover themselves with ant scent.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 09:02 (2401 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: By exuding a chemical the ant is fooled by the beetle. Other animals do the same thing. Ants communicate by odorous chemicals, which others imitate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dangerous-game-highwayman-beetle.html

DAVID’s comment: I cannot imagine how this beetle evolved. It had to have mutations to create the chemicals it uses to confuse ants. Ant scent is chemically specific. It is much easier to understand insects which simply cover themselves with ant scent.

Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 22:10 (2400 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: By exuding a chemical the ant is fooled by the beetle. Other animals do the same thing. Ants communicate by odorous chemicals, which others imitate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dangerous-game-highwayman-beetle.html

DAVID’s comment: I cannot imagine how this beetle evolved. It had to have mutations to create the chemicals it uses to confuse ants. Ant scent is chemically specific. It is much easier to understand insects which simply cover themselves with ant scent.

dhw: Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

Thank you. Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 11:01 (2400 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

DAVID: Thank you. Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!

Of course it’s not by chance. These little critters know exactly what they’re doing.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 17:54 (2400 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

DAVID: Thank you. Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!

dhw: Of course it’s not by chance. These little critters know exactly what they’re doing.

No, they are told what to do.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Thursday, August 24, 2017, 10:48 (2399 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

DAVID: Thank you. Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!

dhw: Of course it’s not by chance. These little critters know exactly what they’re doing.

DAVID: No, they are told what to do.

Ah yes, your God set out with the sole purpose of producing the human brain, and on the way he created beetles and ants and taught beetles how to con ants, because otherwise life would not have gone on to give him time to fulfil his one and only purpose, although you don’t know why he needed time because you believe he is all-powerful.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 24, 2017, 18:45 (2399 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Another stunning example of how organisms work out different ways of feeding and protecting themselves. Regardless of our different interpretations of their behaviour, these posts are a constant source of delight, and I can only say once again how grateful I am to you for the ongoing education.

DAVID: Thank you. Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!

dhw: Of course it’s not by chance. These little critters know exactly what they’re doing.

DAVID: No, they are told what to do.

dhw: Ah yes, your God set out with the sole purpose of producing the human brain, and on the way he created beetles and ants and taught beetles how to con ants, because otherwise life would not have gone on to give him time to fulfil his one and only purpose, although you don’t know why he needed time because you believe he is all-powerful.

Stretching things again. I don't need to know why He took time. That is your problem. I simply accept the history of what He did. And as I've noted elsewhere, the brain is a goal, not the sole purpose you have proposed. The whole bush of life is another goal.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Friday, August 25, 2017, 13:12 (2398 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Note the stunning example of precise mutations appearing to produce exact scents. Not by chance!
dhw: Of course it’s not by chance. These little critters know exactly what they’re doing.
DAVID: No, they are told what to do.
dhw: Ah yes, your God set out with the sole purpose of producing the human brain, and on the way he created beetles and ants and taught beetles how to con ants, because otherwise life would not have gone on to give him time to fulfil his one and only purpose, although you don’t know why he needed time because you believe he is all-powerful.
DAVID: Stretching things again. I don't need to know why He took time. That is your problem. I simply accept the history of what He did. And as I've noted elsewhere, the brain is a goal, not the sole purpose you have proposed. The whole bush of life is another goal.

It is YOU who keep proposing that the human brain was his sole purpose, and everything else was related to that! You have done so over and over again, and over and over again I have pointed out that this does not fit in with the history of life. Occasionally when cornered you have changed “the” goal to “a” goal, but then you have gone back to “the” goal again. Here is an exchange under “God and evolution” 27 and 28 March 2017, which I have referred to continuously post after post ever since, and which you have continued to defend ever since (my bold):

dhw: The only supposition we have been confronted with is your insistence that your God’s evolutionary purpose was to produce humans.
DAVID: Exactly!
dhw: However, there are interesting changes taking place in your vocabulary. Earlier it became “a” goal instead of “the” goal, and in this post you refer to your God’s “primary” purpose. Perhaps you would elaborate on what you think may have been his other goals/purposes.
DAVID: Humans were His main purpose. Everything else relates to that goal. Do you have any purposes for Him He might want to achieve?
******
dhw: If you say his “main” purpose for creating life was humans, he must have had other purposes. Please let us know what you think they are.
DAVID: I don't have any others. "He must have" is a requirement you have invented for Him.

I am delighted that you now believe the human brain was not your God’s sole purpose, and the bush of life was a purpose in itself. Perhaps, then, we can jettison YOUR theory that the whole of evolution was related to producing the human brain. That does not mean our brain is not special, but it does mean that there is no longer any need to ask why your God took so long to achieve his one purpose, and why he bothered to design the pre-whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest (if he did design them), and we are rid of the great non sequitur that he did so in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain. Another red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Friday, August 25, 2017, 19:26 (2398 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: It is YOU who keep proposing that the human brain was his sole purpose, and everything else was related to that! You have done so over and over again, and over and over again I have pointed out that this does not fit in with the history of life. Occasionally when cornered you have changed “the” goal to “a” goal, but then you have gone back to “the” goal again. Here is an exchange under “God and evolution” 27 and 28 March 2017, which I have referred to continuously post after post ever since, and which you have continued to defend ever since (my bold):

dhw: The only supposition we have been confronted with is your insistence that your God’s evolutionary purpose was to produce humans.
DAVID: Exactly!
dhw: However, there are interesting changes taking place in your vocabulary. Earlier it became “a” goal instead of “the” goal, and in this post you refer to your God’s “primary” purpose. Perhaps you would elaborate on what you think may have been his other goals/purposes.
DAVID: Humans were His main purpose. Everything else relates to that goal. Do you have any purposes for Him He might want to achieve?

******
dhw: If you say his “main” purpose for creating life was humans, he must have had other purposes. Please let us know what you think they are.
DAVID: I don't have any others. "He must have" is a requirement you have invented for Him.

dhw: I am delighted that you now believe the human brain was not your God’s sole purpose, and the bush of life was a purpose in itself. Perhaps, then, we can jettison YOUR theory that the whole of evolution was related to producing the human brain. That does not mean our brain is not special, but it does mean that there is no longer any need to ask why your God took so long to achieve his one purpose, and why he bothered to design the pre-whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest (if he did design them), and we are rid of the great non sequitur that he did so in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain. Another red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.

'Sole purpose and main purpose' still mean humans were the primary purpose. I've not backed off that. The bush of life is a purpose in the way He prepared evolution for our production. He purposely took time. You cannot answer the point that we are here without any demonstrated need for us, based on evolutionary theory. And only we have consciousness. we'll go round and round covering the same old points.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Saturday, August 26, 2017, 12:09 (2397 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under “bacteria can spear amoebas”): We don't know that the only thing God wanted was our brain. […] I still look at our brain as a primary goal, and lots of what happened supports that. He obviously wanted to create an amazing bush of life along the way.

DAVID […] the brain is a goal, not the sole purpose you have proposed. The whole bush of life is another goal.

dhw: I am delighted that you now believe the human brain was not your God’s sole purpose, and the bush of life was a purpose in itself. Perhaps, then, we can jettison YOUR theory that the whole of evolution was related to producing the human brain. That does not mean our brain is not special, but it does mean that there is no longer any need to ask why your God took so long to achieve his one purpose, and why he bothered to design the pre-whale, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest (if he did design them), and we are rid of the great non sequitur that he did so in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain. Another red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.

DAVID: 'Sole purpose and main purpose' still mean humans were the primary purpose.

In the first quote above, the brain is “a” primary purpose. Now it is “the” primary purpose.

DAVID: The bush of life is a purpose in the way He prepared evolution for our production. He purposely took time.

In the first and second quotes, he wanted to create a bush, and the bush was a goal. Now the bush is not a goal but HAS a goal, i.e. as preparation "for our production". Please would you be so kind as to confirm once and for all:

1. You stand by your statement that the human brain was not the sole purpose.
2. You reject your earlier statement that “everything else relates” to the purpose of producing the human brain.
3. You stand by your statement that “the whole bush of life is another goal”.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 26, 2017, 15:45 (2397 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In the first and second quotes, he wanted to create a bush, and the bush was a goal. Now the bush is not a goal but HAS a goal, i.e. as preparation "for our production". Please would you be so kind as to confirm once and for all:

1. You stand by your statement that the human brain was not the sole purpose.
2. You reject your earlier statement that “everything else relates” to the purpose of producing the human brain.
3. You stand by your statement that “the whole bush of life is another goal”.

I will stick to this: humans and their brain was a primary purpose, and as such is the pinnacle of complexity production by evolution. The bush of life was a necessary side purpose. As for 'sole' purpose, the appearance of humans for no apparent reason, makes it appear to be God's sole purpose. We are back to trying to read God's mind.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Sunday, August 27, 2017, 10:52 (2396 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In the first and second quotes, he wanted to create a bush, and the bush was a goal. Now the bush is not a goal but HAS a goal, i.e. as preparation "for our production". Please would you be so kind as to confirm once and for all:
1. You stand by your statement that the human brain was not the sole purpose.
2. You reject your earlier statement that “everything else relates” to the purpose of producing the human brain.
3. You stand by your statement that “the whole bush of life is another goal”
.

DAVID: I will stick to this: humans and their brain was a primary purpose, and as such is the pinnacle of complexity production by evolution. The bush of life was a necessary side purpose. As for 'sole' purpose, the appearance of humans for no apparent reason, makes it appear to be God's sole purpose. We are back to trying to read God's mind.

1) “A” primary purpose means there are other primary purposes. Please tell us what they are.
2) What is a “necessary side purpose”? The whale, the monarch butterfly, and the weaverbird’s nest were necessary for what?
3) If appearance for no apparent reason is the criterion for something appearing to be God’s sole purpose, then the appearance of the duckbilled platypus for no apparent reason makes it appear to be God’s sole purpose.
4) Your theory has always been an attempt to read God’s mind. A reading of God’s mind that comes up with all the anomalies and illogicalities that I keep pointing out and which you keep acknowledging might just possibly be wrong.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 27, 2017, 19:56 (2395 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In the first and second quotes, he wanted to create a bush, and the bush was a goal. Now the bush is not a goal but HAS a goal, i.e. as preparation "for our production". Please would you be so kind as to confirm once and for all:
1. You stand by your statement that the human brain was not the sole purpose.
2. You reject your earlier statement that “everything else relates” to the purpose of producing the human brain.
3. You stand by your statement that “the whole bush of life is another goal”
.

DAVID: I will stick to this: humans and their brain was a primary purpose, and as such is the pinnacle of complexity production by evolution. The bush of life was a necessary side purpose. As for 'sole' purpose, the appearance of humans for no apparent reason, makes it appear to be God's sole purpose. We are back to trying to read God's mind.

dhw: 1) “A” primary purpose means there are other primary purposes. Please tell us what they are.
2) What is a “necessary side purpose”? The whale, the monarch butterfly, and the weaverbird’s nest were necessary for what?
3) If appearance for no apparent reason is the criterion for something appearing to be God’s sole purpose, then the appearance of the duckbilled platypus for no apparent reason makes it appear to be God’s sole purpose.
4) Your theory has always been an attempt to read God’s mind. A reading of God’s mind that comes up with all the anomalies and illogicalities that I keep pointing out and which you keep acknowledging might just possibly be wrong.

I try to fathom God's purposes from what has been produced. You can interpret 'primary' purpose as meaning others are present, but I look at primary, secondary and tertiary purposes in that order. Humans with their brains are primary. Bush of life supports evolutionary time period and is secondary. Of course I could be wrong. but using a teleological approach, I feel I'm closer to the truth than you are.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by dhw, Monday, August 28, 2017, 13:15 (2395 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1) “A” primary purpose means there are other primary purposes. Please tell us what they are.
2) What is a “necessary side purpose”? The whale, the monarch butterfly, and the weaverbird’s nest were necessary for what?
3) If appearance for no apparent reason is the criterion for something appearing to be God’s sole purpose, then the appearance of the duckbilled platypus for no apparent reason makes it appear to be God’s sole purpose.
4) Your theory has always been an attempt to read God’s mind. A reading of God’s mind that comes up with all the anomalies and illogicalities that I keep pointing out and which you keep acknowledging might just possibly be wrong.

DAVID: I try to fathom God's purposes from what has been produced. You can interpret 'primary' purpose as meaning others are present, but I look at primary, secondary and tertiary purposes in that order. Humans with their brains are primary. Bush of life supports evolutionary time period and is secondary. Of course I could be wrong. but using a teleological approach, I feel I'm closer to the truth than you are.

When I put on my theist’s hat, I also use a teleological approach based on what has been produced. I try to match possible purpose to observable history. But I realize that you feel you are closer to the truth than I am. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

Natures wonders: a beetle fools ants to give it food

by David Turell @, Monday, August 28, 2017, 19:14 (2395 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 1) “A” primary purpose means there are other primary purposes. Please tell us what they are.
2) What is a “necessary side purpose”? The whale, the monarch butterfly, and the weaverbird’s nest were necessary for what?
3) If appearance for no apparent reason is the criterion for something appearing to be God’s sole purpose, then the appearance of the duckbilled platypus for no apparent reason makes it appear to be God’s sole purpose.
4) Your theory has always been an attempt to read God’s mind. A reading of God’s mind that comes up with all the anomalies and illogicalities that I keep pointing out and which you keep acknowledging might just possibly be wrong.

DAVID: I try to fathom God's purposes from what has been produced. You can interpret 'primary' purpose as meaning others are present, but I look at primary, secondary and tertiary purposes in that order. Humans with their brains are primary. Bush of life supports evolutionary time period and is secondary. Of course I could be wrong. but using a teleological approach, I feel I'm closer to the truth than you are.

dhw: When I put on my theist’s hat, I also use a teleological approach based on what has been produced. I try to match possible purpose to observable history. But I realize that you feel you are closer to the truth than I am. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

Agreed.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 08:59 (2401 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ...Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

dhw: Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

DAVID: You can't avoid the logic of no food, no brain, the endpoint of the process.

dhw: No food, no nuttin’, including bacteria, dead dinosaurs, live butterflies, weaverbirds and duckbilled platypuses. “Endpoint” is just another way of saying that in your eyes the process of evolution is finished and the brain was your God’s only purpose. The fact that ALL life requires food does not lend any support whatsoever to this subjective conclusion. It is a total non sequitur.

DAVID: Evolution of the brain took time. Did you forget that?

Evolution of EVERYTHING took time! The weaverbird’s nest didn’t emerge together with the first living cells, did it? As you wrote earlier: ”Everyone has got to eat”. How does that support the argument that God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain and everything else was related to that? The nonpareil of non sequiturs.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 22:08 (2400 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: ...Without nature's balance, not enough food to continue.

dhw: Yes, life goes on so long as there is enough food for any old organism to survive on. Nothing to do with your God’s sole purpose of producing the human brain.

DAVID: You can't avoid the logic of no food, no brain, the endpoint of the process.

dhw: No food, no nuttin’, including bacteria, dead dinosaurs, live butterflies, weaverbirds and duckbilled platypuses. “Endpoint” is just another way of saying that in your eyes the process of evolution is finished and the brain was your God’s only purpose. The fact that ALL life requires food does not lend any support whatsoever to this subjective conclusion. It is a total non sequitur.

DAVID: Evolution of the brain took time. Did you forget that?

dhw: Evolution of EVERYTHING took time! The weaverbird’s nest didn’t emerge together with the first living cells, did it? As you wrote earlier: ”Everyone has got to eat”. How does that support the argument that God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain and everything else was related to that? The nonpareil of non sequiturs.

Please look at the history of the time involved. Eating did not make the brain but covered the time it took to appear. The eating has nothing directly to do with the purpose of the brain except survival of the evolutionary process until the most complex thing in the universe appeared. Your conflations are not an argument, but confused thinking.

Natures wonders: squid eye lens focuses exactly

by dhw, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 11:00 (2400 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution of the brain took time. Did you forget that?

dhw: Evolution of EVERYTHING took time! The weaverbird’s nest didn’t emerge together with the first living cells, did it? As you wrote earlier: ”Everyone has got to eat”. How does that support the argument that God’s only purpose was to produce the human brain and everything else was related to that? The nonpareil of non sequiturs.

DAVID: Please look at the history of the time involved. Eating did not make the brain but covered the time it took to appear. The eating has nothing directly to do with the purpose of the brain except survival of the evolutionary process until the most complex thing in the universe appeared. Your conflations are not an argument, but confused thinking.

I have looked at the history of the time involved, and I fail to see why your all-powerful God, who can by definition do whatever he wants, needed to specially design billions of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders just to pass the time until he could produce the only thing he wanted to produce, which was the human brain and which, according to you, didn’t “appear” but was specially created. Under “bacteria can spear amoebas” you wrote: “We have no answer to the question of why God took so long to get there.” If you have no answer, maybe that is because "your conflations are not an argument, but confused thinking".

Natures wonders:Mother's milk kills bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 14:53 (2400 days ago) @ dhw

Antibiotic activity can appear in any setting it seems. This mother's milk did in B. strep colony:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50150/title/Sugars-in-Breast-Milk...

"The infection-fighting antibodies passed from mother to baby through breast milk get a fair amount of press, but it turns out they have a lesser-known partner in the fight against bacteria: sugars. Specialized oligosaccharides in some women’s breast milk can both kill cultured group B strep bacteria directly and disrupt the biofilms they use to protect themselves, researchers at Vanderbilt University reported Sunday (August 20) at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, and in a June 1 paper in ACS Infectious Diseases. (my bold)

“'For most of the last century, biochemists have argued that proteins are most important and sugars are an afterthought,” says senior author Steven Townsend in a statement. “Far less is known about the function of sugars and, as a trained glycoprotein chemist, I wanted to explore their role.”

"For their pilot study, Townsend and his coauthors applied sugars from five breast milk samples to cultures of group B strep, which commonly infects pregnant women and is dangerous to newborns. Oligosaccharides from one of the samples killed a strep colony, while the other four samples had moderate or low bacteria-fighting activity, according to the university’s statement. Sugars in the milk also proved effective against some other types of infectious bacteria, and the team is now working on identifying which oligosaccharides are responsible.

“'Our results show that these sugars have a one-two punch,” Townsend says. “First, they sensitize the target bacteria and then they kill them. Biologists sometimes call this ‘synthetic lethality’ and there is a major push to develop new antimicrobial drugs with this capability.'”

Comment: The war between all organisms has resulted in many different types of defenses to appear. Skin carries B. strep most of the time. If a mother didn't clean her breast before nursing the baby could be exposed. This defense might have developed back millions of years ago in the early hominin forms, when the problem was not appreciated. Specialized sugars added by God?

Natures wonders: pollination arrangements

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 07, 2017, 15:13 (2385 days ago) @ David Turell

Bees leave some pollen on their bodies where plants can easily pick it up for pollination:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/follow-the-pollen

"When a honeybee or bumblebee visits a flower, it drinks nectar and gets covered in pollen.
The bee then grooms itself, cleaning off the pollen and storing it away in special cavities known as pollen baskets to take back to the hive, where it will be mixed with honey or nectar to form “bee bread” that is fed to larvae.

"But the bees can’t keep all the pollen for themselves. The plants rely on them to carry pollen off to other flowers. Without this pollination, there will be no future generations of plants for future generations of bees to feed on.

"Apiarists have noticed in the past that some bees leave some pollen behind on their bodies when grooming. This pollen most commonly remains in certain areas, known as “safe sites”, around the waist, thorax and abdomen.

"To test whether these safe sites enabled pollen transfer, scientists from Heinrich-Heine-University, Germany, looked at the points of contact foraging bees have with anthers – which produce pollen – and stigma – which receive it for fertilisation.

"By letting bees feed from flowers whose anthers and stigma had been coated with fluorescent dyes, the researchers could see where these parts of the flower touched the bees. They found that anthers and stigma both touched the safe sites most commonly, thus enabling the transfer of pollen."

Comment: Plants need bees for pollination. Do bees know to leave some pollen on their bodies for the plant fertilization or was this arrangement designed?

Natures wonders: plant memories

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 10, 2017, 23:04 (2381 days ago) @ David Turell

New research into plant memories:

DAVID: He knows they appear intelligent. I agree. With provided instructions the outward appearance is the same!

"In the study of the plant kingdom, a slow revolution is underway. Scientists are beginning to understand that plants have abilities, previously unnoticed and unimagined, that we’ve only ever associated with animals. In their own ways, plants can see, smell, feel, hear, and know where they are in the world. One recent study found that clusters of cells in plant embryos act a lot like brain cells and help the embryo to decide when to start growing.

***

" biologists have shown that certain plants in certain situations can store information about their experiences and use that information to guide how they grow, develop, or behave. Functionally, at least, they appear to be creating memories. How, when, and why they form these memories might help scientists train plants to face the challenges—poor soil, drought, extreme heat—that are happening with increasing frequency and intensity. But first they have to understand: What does a plant remember? What is better to forget?

***

"One of the most well-understood forms of plant memory, for example, is vernalization, in which plants retain an impression of a long period of cold, which helps them determine the right time to produce flowers. These plants grow tall through the fall, brace themselves during winter, and bloom in the longer days of spring—but only if they have a memory of having gone through that winter.

***

"Scientists first started talking about “plant memory” explicitly in the 1980s. A team in France, for example, happened upon a type of memory in which a plant recalled a history of damage to a leaf on one side of its stem and therefore dedicated its energy to growing in the other direction. Since then, scientists have found that certain plants can remember experiences of drought and dehydration, cold and heat, excess light, acidic soil, exposure to short-wave radiation, and a simulation of insects eating their leaves. Faced with the same stress again, the plants modify their responses. They might retain more water, become more sensitive to light, or improve their tolerance to salt or cold. In some cases, these memories are even passed down to the next generation,.....We now know that plants are capable of much more than they’re given credit for. They can “hear” vibrations, which might help them recognize insect attacks. They share information by broadcasting chemicals through the air or from their roots. In the study of the memories they form, the next step has been to understand how they do it.

***

"In recent years, scientists have realized that the genome alone doesn’t determine an organism’s fate. There’s a whole world of epigenetic activity around DNA that impacts which stretches of code get expressed, or translated into action. Florigen turned out to be a tiny protein, too small for the techniques of Lang’s generation to identify. Even if they had found it, they would have been missing a key to the mystery of what makes biennials flower. Amasino’s generation, on the other hand, finally found the right level of activity—the epigenetic level—to see this process in action.

"For example, the mechanism that controls vernalization and flowering in Arabidopsis thaliana, or thale cress, a plant often used as a model in laboratories, is like a Rube Goldberg device of proteins and gene expression. The plant has a set of genes that create the proteins that cause flowers to form. Before vernalization, the cells are full of a second protein, named FLC, that represses those key, flower-promoting genes. But when the plant is exposed to cold, its cells slow the production of FLC until it stops, and the balance of protein power then changes. The cells start producing more and more flower-promoting proteins, until the plant is ready to burst into bloom.

***

"Plants, he points out, have incredible abilities to rebound from stressful conditions. In a paper published this summer, for instance, Crisp and his colleagues found that plants subjected to light stress rebounded rapidly—just think how, with the right care, a neglected houseplant can bounce back from a wilted, brown mess. Scientists have now reported plenty of examples of plant memory formation, but naturally they are less likely to publish results of experiments where plants could potentially form memories but don’t. One of the biggest challenges of the field of study is even identifying whether a plant has formed a memory or not.

***

"Even when memories do form, they can fade. Another research group has shown, for example, that a plant might form an epigenetic memory of salt stress and pass it along across generations, but that if the stress fades, so does the memory. A plant that remembers too much might sacrifice healthy growth to be constantly on guard against drought, flood, salt, insects.

***

"Everything that lives is a bundle of chemicals and electrical signals in dialogue with the environment in which it exists. A memory, such as of the heat of summer on last year’s beach vacation, is a biochemical marker registered from a set of external inputs. A plant’s epigenetic memory, of the cold of winter months, on a fundamental level, is not so different."

Comment: Research is still early but epigenetic DNA effects must make the memories that are found.

Natures wonders: spider society; eaten mothers!

by David Turell @, Monday, September 18, 2017, 15:10 (2374 days ago) @ David Turell

There are spider societies that live in a special different kind of web structure that develop cooperative behaviors:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/some-female-spiders-sacrifice-themselves-for-the-chi...

"according to a new study published in Animal Behaviour, virgin females of the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola care for spiderlings much like their actual mother would, from tending the egg sac to the point of becoming lunch for the little ones.

"This spider is just one of about 20 known species of social spiders in the world. They live in dry and warm areas of southern Africa, building large and dense nests on trees and shrubs. Unlike your usual orb spider web, this species builds webs lacking glue droplets, using instead a very fine capture wool that is just as efficient at capturing prey yet does not dry out, says Anja Junghanns, an evolutionary biologist at Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany, who led the new study.

"This means that their web does not need to get renewed, and it can grow quite large in relation to the size of a single spider, Junghanns explains. “Spiders will not only cooperate in building the web, but also in capturing prey in it, that can be as large as 10 times the size of a single spider,” she adds.

"When spiderlings hatch, their mother provides them with some nutritious fluids. When that runs out, mum is the next item on the menu. After eating their mother, the spiderlings remain in their web and live socially. Over time and after multiple generations the colony grows, sometimes forming groups composed of more than a thousand individuals, all closely related, like a huge family.

"In such large colonies of social and highly related animals, cooperation is taken to new levels. This includes the development of adult helpers that care for the offspring of other individuals. While such behaviour has been reported in social spiders before, it was not clear if only females that already had their own offspring could become helpers.

***

"Their observations revealed that in more than 97% of their experiments, both virgin and mated females tended the eggs and spiderlings.

“The most interesting finding here, perhaps, is not that there is a degree of task differentiation, but rather such a high degree of task overlap between virgins and mothers,” says Nick Keiser, a junior fellow at Rice University who specialises in behavioural ecology and has studied task participation in social spiders.

"The extreme maternal care of these spiders provides spiderlings with the best possible conditions to increase their chances of survival. “To enable virgins to provide this form of brood care, an evolutionary adaptation had to take place and our next goal is to investigate the nature of this adaptation,” Junghanns says.

"Now Junghanns plans to address the question of how the virgins are actually able to provide this extreme care, which is comparable to a human woman starting to lactate without giving birth, she says. "

Comment: This appears to be adaptive behavior that would come about with epigenetic changes.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Monday, September 18, 2017, 22:54 (2373 days ago) @ David Turell

Tropical trees provide habitats for ants that protect the trees from other insects:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170918123539.htm

"Examing the relationship between the Amazon rainforest plant Cordia nodosa in Peru and the Amazonian ant Allomerus octoarticulatus, they found the degree to which the ants express two genes significantly impacts the amount of protection they provide to their hosts.

The ant-plant relationship is an example of a phenomenon in nature known as mutualism, in which two seemingly disparate species interact in a manner that is mutually beneficial for both. Two common examples of mutualisms are pollination and seed dispersal, both of which involve plants attracting animals that perform an important service by offering them a food reward. The features of mutualisms, however, vary across animals and species.

"'Around 400 species of tropical plants have evolved specialized structures called domatia to house ant colonies that defend them, mainly against herbivorous insects," said Megan Frederickson, associate professor in the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at U of T and senior author of a new study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. "Because there are many, many arboreal ants in rainforests, tropical trees are often completely covered in ants."

"Frederickson suggests that these domatia that give ants a home probably evolved because they attract the ants that keep herbivores off plants.

***

"The researchers zeroed in on two genes of Allomerus octoarticulatus that regulate foraging behaviour, knowing that how an animal forages for food often determines how much benefit its plant partner receives. Working in the field in the Peruvian Amazon, they fed some colonies a chemical that increases the activity of the genes' products, and observed how it changed ant behavior. They then collected the ants and brought them back to Toronto for molecular analysis.

"'We found that when we activated the products of these two ant genes, more workers were recruited to attack herbivores, resulting in less damage to the trees," Frederickson said. "Gene expression in ant workers was also correlated with whether an ant colony discovered a grasshopper and how much damage was inflicted on leaves."

"The results suggest a molecular basis for ant protection of plants in this mutualism. Previously, little was known about the genes or molecular mechanisms that make some ants better bodyguards than others."

Comment: The mutualism in this case must have caused epigenetic changes in the ants' DNA to develop the foraging genes.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 11:59 (2373 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: The mutualism in this case must have caused epigenetic changes in the ants' DNA to develop the foraging genes.

I don't know why we have to have new names for old concepts, or can you tell us the difference between mutualism and symbiosis?

As for your favourite “epigenetic” changes, you use the word as if it was an explanation. Unless you believe these changes were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or specifically dabbled by your God, they are clear evidence that the cell communities of the organisms concerned make changes to themselves, even if only minor. What other explanation can you think of besides cellular intelligence?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 15:07 (2373 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: The mutualism in this case must have caused epigenetic changes in the ants' DNA to develop the foraging genes.

dhw: I don't know why we have to have new names for old concepts, or can you tell us the difference between mutualism and symbiosis?

As for your favourite “epigenetic” changes, you use the word as if it was an explanation. Unless you believe these changes were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or specifically dabbled by your God, they are clear evidence that the cell communities of the organisms concerned make changes to themselves, even if only minor. What other explanation can you think of besides cellular intelligence?

Mutualism was a word used in the article. Symbiosis usually implies a more metabolic association. Like Reznick's guppies the ants adapted to the tree's welcome arrangement. God arranged for epigenetic changes. The ants did the rest. Obvious.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Wednesday, September 20, 2017, 13:46 (2372 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: The mutualism in this case must have caused epigenetic changes in the ants' DNA to develop the foraging genes.

dhw: I don't know why we have to have new names for old concepts, or can you tell us the difference between mutualism and symbiosis?
As for your favourite “epigenetic” changes, you use the word as if it was an explanation. Unless you believe these changes were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or specifically dabbled by your God, they are clear evidence that the cell communities of the organisms concerned make changes to themselves, even if only minor. What other explanation can you think of besides cellular intelligence?

DAVID: Mutualism was a word used in the article. Symbiosis usually implies a more metabolic association.

In the meantime, I have found out that there are three kinds of symbiosis: commensalism, mutualism and parasitism. The difference, in very general terms, is in the nature of the benefit: commensalism means one organism benefits but it makes no difference to the other; mutualism means both organisms benefit; parasitism means one organ benefits and the other loses out. I apologize to the author and withdraw my complaint.

DAVID: Like Reznick's guppies the ants adapted to the tree's welcome arrangement. God arranged for epigenetic changes. The ants did the rest. Obvious.

What do you mean by “arranged for”? Did he preprogramme/dabble each individual change, or did he give ants and other organisms the means (cellular intelligence) of making the changes themselves?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 20, 2017, 15:08 (2372 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: The mutualism in this case must have caused epigenetic changes in the ants' DNA to develop the foraging genes.

dhw: I don't know why we have to have new names for old concepts, or can you tell us the difference between mutualism and symbiosis?
As for your favourite “epigenetic” changes, you use the word as if it was an explanation. Unless you believe these changes were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or specifically dabbled by your God, they are clear evidence that the cell communities of the organisms concerned make changes to themselves, even if only minor. What other explanation can you think of besides cellular intelligence?

DAVID: Mutualism was a word used in the article. Symbiosis usually implies a more metabolic association.

In the meantime, I have found out that there are three kinds of symbiosis: commensalism, mutualism and parasitism. The difference, in very general terms, is in the nature of the benefit: commensalism means one organism benefits but it makes no difference to the other; mutualism means both organisms benefit; parasitism means one organ benefits and the other loses out. I apologize to the author and withdraw my complaint.

DAVID: Like Reznick's guppies the ants adapted to the tree's welcome arrangement. God arranged for epigenetic changes. The ants did the rest. Obvious.

dhw: What do you mean by “arranged for”? Did he preprogramme/dabble each individual change, or did he give ants and other organisms the means (cellular intelligence) of making the changes themselves?

We all know organisms can use epigenetic mechanisms (from God) to adapt. Obvious.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Thursday, September 21, 2017, 13:12 (2371 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Like Reznick's guppies the ants adapted to the tree's welcome arrangement. God arranged for epigenetic changes. The ants did the rest. Obvious.

dhw: What do you mean by “arranged for”? Did he preprogramme/dabble each individual change, or did he give ants and other organisms the means (cellular intelligence) of making the changes themselves?

DAVID: We all know organisms can use epigenetic mechanisms (from God) to adapt. Obvious.

If epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt, then yes indeed, it is obvious that epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt. Now perhaps you will answer the question: do organisms use these epigenetic mechanisms autonomously, i.e. in this case did the ants work out how to use the tree’s “welcome arrangement” all by themselves, without divine instructions, without divine preprogramming, but purely and simply through their own (possibly God-given) intelligence?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 21, 2017, 15:16 (2371 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Like Reznick's guppies the ants adapted to the tree's welcome arrangement. God arranged for epigenetic changes. The ants did the rest. Obvious.

dhw: What do you mean by “arranged for”? Did he preprogramme/dabble each individual change, or did he give ants and other organisms the means (cellular intelligence) of making the changes themselves?

DAVID: We all know organisms can use epigenetic mechanisms (from God) to adapt. Obvious.

dhw: If epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt, then yes indeed, it is obvious that epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt. Now perhaps you will answer the question: do organisms use these epigenetic mechanisms autonomously, i.e. in this case did the ants work out how to use the tree’s “welcome arrangement” all by themselves, without divine instructions, without divine preprogramming, but purely and simply through their own (possibly God-given) intelligence?

It is just like Reznick's guppies. They changed sizes by themselves using genetic mechanisms God gave them. I view the ants as doing the same.

Natures wonders: speedy carnivorous bladderworts

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 21, 2017, 18:01 (2371 days ago) @ David Turell

They use speed and suction to trap their prey:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170921101733.htm

"The experiments described in the first article were conducted in close collaboration with colleagues from the Department of Animal Ecology, Evolution, and Biodiversity at the Ruhr University of Bochum, led by Prof. Dr. Ralph Tollrian. With the help of a high-speed camera, the researchers analyzed the "capture behavior" of the suction trap of Utricularia australis and possible escape attempts of one of its natural prey species, the water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia. They discovered that the fleas are sucked into the traps with 2800 times the acceleration of gravity and are decelerated inside the trap nearly as quickly. All of the trapping processes are too fast to allow the flea to make an attempt at escape.

***

"Comparative functional-morphological and biomechanical analyses on 19 bladderwort species conducted by the scientists revealed different trap entrance and trapdoor structures as well as several types of movement during suction that may be interpreted as adaptations to the different habitats the species occupy. One species, Utricularia multifida, has a trapdoor that does not move and likely traps prey according to a passive trapping principle instead of sucking it in."

From the study:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01954-3

"The aquatic bladderwort suction trap is a functionally resilient structure for reliably capturing zooplankton prey. It can be assumed that the only countermeasures of C. dubia to avoid capture by U. australis suction traps are encounter avoidance, a structural barrier making them unfit to pass the trap entrance, and/or an effective flight response. Encounter avoidance could, for example, be realized by an altered behavior in terms of swimming speed and/or an altered aggregation behavior, i.e. swimming in distance to plants. Such reactions are already described in the Daphniidae as inducible defenses against animal predators provoked by chemical cues. Also, inducible defense reactions like an alteration of the shape/dimensions of their bodies could support to impede suction, e.g. by increasing the body dimensions above the trap door diameter. Apparently, the mechanical contact to the trigger hairs and the process of trapdoor snap-buckling (which is accompanied by only small water displacements) do not induce flight responses of the prey. Probably, the timescales of both processes are too short to be processed fast enough by the animal’s nervous system. Also, we did not observe attempts of the animals to swim against the suction streams, which again would presuppose a processing and orientation of the body opposite to the torrent Utricularia produces. Evolving a fast enough sensory and reaction system triggered upon certain mechanical stimuli (trigger hair contact, sensing of a water flow field induced by snapping trapdoor) would probably allow for such a flight response. However, C. dubia is regarded as a slow swimmer and, especially, the reaction speed of the arthropod nervous system cannot be reduced unlimitedly (e.g. due to the absence of Schwann cells in arthropods)."

Comment: This cannot develop stepwise by chance evolution. The digestive enzymes must be developed and controlled so as not to self-digest the bladderwort itself.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Friday, September 22, 2017, 13:23 (2370 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We all know organisms can use epigenetic mechanisms (from God) to adapt. Obvious.

dhw: If epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt, then yes indeed, it is obvious that epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt. Now perhaps you will answer the question: do organisms use these epigenetic mechanisms autonomously, i.e. in this case did the ants work out how to use the tree’s “welcome arrangement” all by themselves, without divine instructions, without divine preprogramming, but purely and simply through their own (possibly God-given) intelligence?

DAVID: It is just like Reznick's guppies. They changed sizes by themselves using genetic mechanisms God gave them. I view the ants as doing the same.

The “genetic mechanisms” are what I would call cellular intelligence, i.e. the autonomous ability of cell communities to process information from the environment and take decisions on the best way to use that information by changing themselves. Thank you for confirming the autonomy of the mechanism ("by themselves"), which is the basis of my hypothesis, although I freely admit that we have no proof that this autonomous mechanism is capable of producing the major adaptations and innovations that result in speciation.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Friday, September 22, 2017, 15:14 (2370 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We all know organisms can use epigenetic mechanisms (from God) to adapt. Obvious.

dhw: If epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt, then yes indeed, it is obvious that epigenetic mechanisms are used to adapt. Now perhaps you will answer the question: do organisms use these epigenetic mechanisms autonomously, i.e. in this case did the ants work out how to use the tree’s “welcome arrangement” all by themselves, without divine instructions, without divine preprogramming, but purely and simply through their own (possibly God-given) intelligence?

DAVID: It is just like Reznick's guppies. They changed sizes by themselves using genetic mechanisms God gave them. I view the ants as doing the same.

dhw: The “genetic mechanisms” are what I would call cellular intelligence, i.e. the autonomous ability of cell communities to process information from the environment and take decisions on the best way to use that information by changing themselves. Thank you for confirming the autonomy of the mechanism ("by themselves"), which is the basis of my hypothesis, although I freely admit that we have no proof that this autonomous mechanism is capable of producing the major adaptations and innovations that result in speciation.

It is obvious epigenetic modifications work.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Saturday, September 23, 2017, 12:57 (2369 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is just like Reznick's guppies. They changed sizes by themselves using genetic mechanisms God gave them. I view the ants as doing the same.

dhw: The “genetic mechanisms” are what I would call cellular intelligence, i.e. the autonomous ability of cell communities to process information from the environment and take decisions on the best way to use that information by changing themselves. Thank you for confirming the autonomy of the mechanism ("by themselves"), which is the basis of my hypothesis, although I freely admit that we have no proof that this autonomous mechanism is capable of producing the major adaptations and innovations that result in speciation.

DAVID: It is obvious epigenetic modifications work.

In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 23, 2017, 14:47 (2369 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is just like Reznick's guppies. They changed sizes by themselves using genetic mechanisms God gave them. I view the ants as doing the same.

dhw: The “genetic mechanisms” are what I would call cellular intelligence, i.e. the autonomous ability of cell communities to process information from the environment and take decisions on the best way to use that information by changing themselves. Thank you for confirming the autonomy of the mechanism ("by themselves"), which is the basis of my hypothesis, although I freely admit that we have no proof that this autonomous mechanism is capable of producing the major adaptations and innovations that result in speciation.

DAVID: It is obvious epigenetic modifications work.

dhw: In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

We know they adapt but remain the same species. We do not know if this can lead to speciation. It appears not.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Sunday, September 24, 2017, 13:29 (2368 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: We know they adapt but remain the same species. We do not know if this can lead to speciation. It appears not.

When I say we do not know the extent to which this autonomous mechanism can produce its own adaptations and innovations, I mean we do not know if it can lead to speciation. That is the leading question. And that is why this explanation of speciation is a hypothesis. “It appears not” is totally gratuitous. Nobody knows how speciation (broad sense, as opposed to different species of finch, dog etc.) has occurred.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 24, 2017, 14:53 (2368 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: We know they adapt but remain the same species. We do not know if this can lead to speciation. It appears not.

dhw: When I say we do not know the extent to which this autonomous mechanism can produce its own adaptations and innovations, I mean we do not know if it can lead to speciation. That is the leading question. And that is why this explanation of speciation is a hypothesis. “It appears not” is totally gratuitous. Nobody knows how speciation (broad sense, as opposed to different species of finch, dog etc.) has occurred.

We see species, therefore, speciation occurred. Some of us believe God did it.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by dhw, Monday, September 25, 2017, 13:27 (2367 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: We know they adapt but remain the same species. We do not know if this can lead to speciation. It appears not.

dhw: When I say we do not know the extent to which this autonomous mechanism can produce its own adaptations and innovations, I mean we do not know if it can lead to speciation. That is the leading question. And that is why this explanation of speciation is a hypothesis. “It appears not” is totally gratuitous. Nobody knows how speciation (broad sense, as opposed to different species of finch, dog etc.) has occurred.

DAVID: We see species, therefore, speciation occurred. Some of us believe God did it.

Another agreement. Today is a red letter day! Now we agree that bacteria are conscious, and that organisms have an autonomous, possibly God-given mechanism through which they can make changes to themselves without any input from your God. Therefore “God did it” could mean that he did it by providing cells/cell communities with the intelligence to create ALL the adaptations and innovations that have taken place throughout evolution.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Monday, September 25, 2017, 14:34 (2367 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In other words, it is obvious that organisms have the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves, without any instructions or interventions from your God (though he may have given them that ability in the first place). Thank you. The only remaining – but also leading – question, then, is the extent to which this autonomous ability can produce its own adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: We know they adapt but remain the same species. We do not know if this can lead to speciation. It appears not.

dhw: When I say we do not know the extent to which this autonomous mechanism can produce its own adaptations and innovations, I mean we do not know if it can lead to speciation. That is the leading question. And that is why this explanation of speciation is a hypothesis. “It appears not” is totally gratuitous. Nobody knows how speciation (broad sense, as opposed to different species of finch, dog etc.) has occurred.

DAVID: We see species, therefore, speciation occurred. Some of us believe God did it.

dhw: Another agreement. Today is a red letter day! Now we agree that bacteria are conscious, and that organisms have an autonomous, possibly God-given mechanism through which they can make changes to themselves without any input from your God. Therefore “God did it” could mean that he did it by providing cells/cell communities with the intelligence to create ALL the adaptations and innovations that have taken place throughout evolution.

That is a jump in possibilities that I cannot accept. The gaps in evolution require foresight and planning that only a planning mind can proide.

Natures wonders: caterpillars scare with noise

by David Turell @, Monday, September 25, 2017, 16:06 (2367 days ago) @ David Turell

They squeeze their bodies to expel air and it makes a shrill alarm noise:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50442/title/The-Caterpillar-that-...


"North American walnut sphinx moth caterpillars (Amorpha juglandis) look like easy meals for birds, but they have a trick up their sleeves—they produce whistles that sound like bird alarm calls, scaring potential predators away.

"At first, scientists suspected birds were simply startled by the loud noise. But a new study presented at the International Symposium on Acoustic Communication by Animals in Omaha in July suggests a more sophisticated mechanism: the caterpillar’s whistle appears to mimic a bird alarm call, sending avian predators scrambling for cover.

“'This is the first instance of deceptive alarm calling between an insect and a bird, and it’s a novel defense form for an insect,” says Jessica Lindsay, the study’s first author and a graduate student in the lab of Kristin Laidre at the University of Washington. “I think that’s pretty wild.”

"When pecked by a bird, the caterpillars whistle by compressing their bodies like an accordion and forcing air out through specialized holes in their sides. The whistles are impressively loud, considering they are made by a two-inch long insect. They have been measured at over 80 dB from 5 cm away from the caterpillar, similar to the loudness of a garbage disposal.

***

"But to Lindsay, those whistles looked acoustically similar to alarm calls made by birds called “seet” calls. Many bird species produce and recognize seet calls, which are short, high-pitched tweets made when a flying predator is spotted. Upon hearing a seet call, birds will scatter and drop to low bushes for cover or freeze in place.

***

"The birds ignored the finch song, but responded to the caterpillar whistles and seet calls in the same way: diving for cover, freezing, and making their own alarm calls. The behavior was the same regardless of species.

“'For both the genuine alarm call and the caterpillar whistle, birds responded by fleeing the bird feeder and taking a long time to return or freezing in place,” says Lindsay. “If nuthatches were present, we would see them flicking their wings, which is a sign of distress.”

***

"Those behavioral responses suggest these whistles may protect caterpillars by mimicking the alarm calls of their bird predators.

“'Deceptive alarm calling is not particularly common, but it’s a strategy that has evolved in some species,” says Tom Flower, a behavioral ecologist at Simon Fraser University. An example is the brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla), a tiny bird that mimics the alarm calls of other birds to scare away larger, predatory birds when they attack the thornbill’s nestlings.

“'The key difference here is the caterpillars are mimicking the alarm calls of the predator itself,” says Flower. “Other vulnerable animals that use sound to deceive predators make the alarm calls of other species or mimic the predator’s general calls, not the predator’s alarm calls. In this case, the predators—songbirds—have their own alarm calls, and that’s what the caterpillars are mimicking to suggest the presence of an even higher predator.”

"Robert Magrath, who studies acoustic communication in birds at Australian National University, finds the result a striking natural phenomenon.

“'We’ve found that initial responses to alarm calls can depend on a simple acoustic feature like peak frequency, so it seems plausible that a caterpillar sound could mimic a key feature of seet calls,” says Magrath."

Comment: It appears to be learned response, by using their breathing mechanism which is through holes in their sides. However a fright response is possible, tensing muscles out of fear with a beneficial result.

Natures wonders: praying mantis carnivore

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 16:41 (2366 days ago) @ David Turell

These large insects attack birds, eat brains:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/science/praying-mantis-eating-birds.html?emc=edit_th...

"...a cadre of researchers who place mantises in a class of their own among the swarming Class Insecta, and who are discovering a range of skills and predilections that make mantises act like aspiring vertebrates.

"Praying mantises are the only insects able to swivel their heads and stare at you. Those piercing eyes are much like yours, equipped with 3-D vision and a fovea — a centralized concentration of light receptors — the better to focus and track.

"A mantis can jump as unerringly as a cat, controlling its trajectory through an intricate series of twists and turns distributed across its legs and body, all to ensure a flawless landing on a ridiculously iffy target nearly every time.

"The mantis appetite likewise turns out to leap and bound, and with scant regard for food-chain decorum.

"By the standard alimentary sequence, insects feed on plants or one another, and then birds hunt down insects. But just as there are carnivorous plants like the Venus flytrap, mantises prey on hummingbirds and other small-to-middling birds more often than most people realize.

***

"Hummingbirds were the most common target, but mantises also went after warblers, sunbirds, honeyeaters, flycatchers, vireos and European robins. Large species like the Chinese mantis, which grows to four inches in length, were the most avid avivores, and females were responsible for virtually all the bird-killing observed worldwide.

"In two reported cases, females feasted on birds while copulating with males. Sometimes the mantises would tuck in through the bird’s breastbone, but more often they went for the head, Dr. Remsen said.

“'They bite in and eat the brains,” he said, “which might imply this is something they’re professionals at.”

"Some mantises in North America now seem to view hummingbird feeders as happy hunting grounds. Kris Okamoto, a retired nurse in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., recently came running when the young son of her house painter cried out that a praying mantis had snatched a hummingbird from her feeder.

***

"Hummingbirds were the most common target, but mantises also went after warblers, sunbirds, honeyeaters, flycatchers, vireos and European robins. Large species like the Chinese mantis, which grows to four inches in length, were the most avid avivores, and females were responsible for virtually all the bird-killing observed worldwide.
In two reported cases, females feasted on birds while copulating with males. Sometimes the mantises would tuck in through the bird’s breastbone, but more often they went for the head, Dr. Remsen said.

“'They bite in and eat the brains,” he said, “which might imply this is something they’re professionals at.”

"Some mantises in North America now seem to view hummingbird feeders as happy hunting grounds. Kris Okamoto, a retired nurse in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., recently came running when the young son of her house painter cried out that a praying mantis had snatched a hummingbird from her feeder.

***

"The orchid mantises of Asia, for example, generally avoid lingering around the flowers they imitate, and instead seek out patches of green vegetation. “They themselves become the flower,” Dr. Svenson said. “They’re a conspicuous beacon for pollinating insects.”

"The bigger the floral pollinators, the bulkier grew their predatory mantises, the better to catch, control and consume even well-armed bumblebees and wasps."

Comment: All part of the balance of nuture. Everyone has to eat. Here immitation and powerful jaws help.

Natures wonders: moth chemical defenses

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 27, 2017, 21:03 (2364 days ago) @ David Turell

Tiger moths produce two repellent chemicals to protect themselves against birds and ants:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170927095639.htm

"Wood tiger moths protect themselves from multiple predators using different chemical defences. Choosing the right defence can be tricky as predators come in many forms, and from many directions.

"Now the researchers from the Department of Biological and Environmental Science at University of Jyväskylä have shown that one moth species, the Wood Tiger Moth, has found a clever way around this. The moth, which is brightly coloured to signal to predators that it is not to be messed with, has not one but two defensive fluids. One of them is targeted towards bird predators, who may try to catch the moth on the wing. A chemical compound in it, pyrazine, has one of the most repulsive odours known and can make the bird refrain from consuming the moth before even tasting it.

"The second type of fluid works against invertebrate predators, such as ants, on the ground. This defence is particularly handy in situations where the moth cannot flee due to low temperatures, or when it is coming out of its pupa and its wings are not yet fully extended. The research, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences on September 27th, 2017, used a series of assays with live predators to reveal the first evidence of a single species producing separate chemical defences targeted to different predator types."

The abstract:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1863/20171424#sec-14

"Animals have evolved different defensive strategies to survive predation, among which chemical defences are particularly widespread and diverse. Here we investigate the function of chemical defence diversity, hypothesizing that such diversity has evolved as a response to multiple enemies. The aposematic wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis) displays conspicuous hindwing coloration and secretes distinct defensive fluids from its thoracic glands and abdomen. We presented the two defensive fluids from laboratory-reared moths to two biologically relevant predators, birds and ants, and measured their reaction in controlled bioassays (no information on colour was provided). We found that defensive fluids are target-specific: thoracic fluids, and particularly 2-sec-butyl-3-methoxypyrazine, which they contain, deterred birds, but caused no aversive response in ants. By contrast, abdominal fluids were particularly deterrent to ants, while birds did not find them repellent. Our study, to our knowledge, is the first to show evidence of a single species producing separate chemical defences targeted to different predator types, highlighting the importance of taking into account complex predator communities in studies on the evolution of prey defence diversity."

Comment: Unless these moths had these chemicals from the beginning of their species, they would not be here now. I think they were designed to be protected this way.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 27, 2017, 23:31 (2364 days ago) @ David Turell

A group of them work cooperatively, bunch up fish and attack:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148650-packs-of-killer-penguins-herd-fish-into-ba...

"African penguins were believed to forage in groups, but nobody had ever seen them hunt underwater. To find out how they catch common fish in their habitat, like schools of sardines and anchovies, Alistair McInnes of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa, and colleagues attached cameras to 12 of the birds.

"On most dives the penguins pursued single fish, but sometimes they teamed up for bigger rewards. Groups of penguins were seen herding schools of fish towards the surface, corralling them into a “bait ball”. Any fish trying to escape would peel off from the group, making them easy prey. The penguins’ plumage – black on the back, white at the front – probably makes it difficult for the fish to see them coming from below.

"The researchers calculated how efficient the penguins were by dividing the number of fish caught by the time spent foraging. When hunting a school of fish as a group, penguins were 2.7 times as efficient as when they attacked on their own.

"Foraging in groups can be beneficial in different ways. At the simplest level, animals like swordfish collaborate to slash at fish with their bills, killing more fish this way. At a more sophisticated level, creatures like dolphins communicate and coordinate their activity.

"Penguins aren’t cooperating like dolphins, but they may be more advanced than swordfish, says McInnes. At the surface, they communicate to find other birds and synchronise their dives.

“'This study provides the first evidence that penguins are actively interacting with other individuals to enhance hunting efficiency,” says Yuuki Watanabe at the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. He says other penguins may do the same, but we don’t have evidence yet."

Comment: This is undoubtedly a learned behaviour just like bubble-net feeding by humpback whales in Alaska, which has been shown to be a learned activity.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Thursday, September 28, 2017, 13:05 (2364 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: “'This study provides the first evidence that penguins are actively interacting with other individuals to enhance hunting efficiency,” says Yuuki Watanabe at the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. He says other penguins may do the same, but we don’t have evidence yet."

DAVID’s comment: This is undoubtedly a learned behaviour just like bubble-net feeding by humpback whales in Alaska, which has been shown to be a learned activity.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the implications of your comment, but please would you be a bit more specific about what you mean by a “learned activity”. Learned from what? It seems obvious to me that this would have started when some intelligent penguins realized that they could hunt more efficiently if they did it in packs, and they continue to use their intelligence to organize the hunt. But that doesn’t stop individuals from hunting too. What is the difference between this and human behaviour? Of course generations of penguins will learn from earlier generations, just as humans do, but in both cases it has to be penguin/human intelligence that starts things off.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 28, 2017, 14:36 (2364 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: “'This study provides the first evidence that penguins are actively interacting with other individuals to enhance hunting efficiency,” says Yuuki Watanabe at the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. He says other penguins may do the same, but we don’t have evidence yet."

DAVID’s comment: This is undoubtedly a learned behaviour just like bubble-net feeding by humpback whales in Alaska, which has been shown to be a learned activity.

dhw: Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the implications of your comment, but please would you be a bit more specific about what you mean by a “learned activity”. Learned from what? It seems obvious to me that this would have started when some intelligent penguins realized that they could hunt more efficiently if they did it in packs, and they continue to use their intelligence to organize the hunt. But that doesn’t stop individuals from hunting too. What is the difference between this and human behaviour? Of course generations of penguins will learn from earlier generations, just as humans do, but in both cases it has to be penguin/human intelligence that starts things off.

Your comment is right on. The humpbacks were observed learning in the same way.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Friday, September 29, 2017, 13:34 (2363 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the implications of your comment, but please would you be a bit more specific about what you mean by a “learned activity”. Learned from what? It seems obvious to me that this would have started when some intelligent penguins realized that they could hunt more efficiently if they did it in packs, and they continue to use their intelligence to organize the hunt. But that doesn’t stop individuals from hunting too. What is the difference between this and human behaviour? Of course generations of penguins will learn from earlier generations, just as humans do, but in both cases it has to be penguin/human intelligence that starts things off.

DAVID: Your comment is right on. The humpbacks were observed learning in the same way.

Thank you for this very important confirmation that the origin of such forms of behaviour must be the intelligence of the organisms concerned. It is a major issue between us that so often you attribute lifestyles and natural wonders to divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, when I see them as the product of natural intelligence. I suspect that many of those we discuss are the product of this (perhaps God-given) intelligence, which is why I try to find out where you draw the line between the two causes. You have given us another example of bird intelligence today, which raises further questions on the same subject:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50506/title/Pigeons-Can-Switch-Ta...

QUOTE: Recent research has demonstrated that many bird species have high-order cognitive processing abilities comparable to primates. […] For a long time, scientists used to believe the mammalian cerebral cortex to be the anatomical cause of cognitive ability,” coauthor Sara Letzner of Ruhr-Universität Bochum says in a press release. But birds have no cortex. “That means the structure of the mammalian cortex cannot be decisive for complex cognitive functions such as multitasking.”

DAVID’s comment: I think the study is misinterpreted. The birds are trained to respond automatically. The human metacognition, introspective brain comes to play when the delayed signal is introduced. But those birds are bright!

I don’t think you can have it both ways. If they respond automatically, it has nothing to do with brightness. Nobody would claim that pigeons are capable of metacognition and introspection on a human scale, but if the cerebral cortex is not the only source of cognitive abilities, we have to ask (a) whether cognitive abilities depend on the physical brain at all, and (b) just how “bright” our fellow organisms might be – from bacteria upwards. As you keep reminding us, what appears to be automatic may be pure intelligence – although you like to put it the other way round, don’t you?

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Friday, September 29, 2017, 15:12 (2363 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Your comment is right on. The humpbacks were observed learning in the same way.

dhw: Thank you for this very important confirmation that the origin of such forms of behaviour must be the intelligence of the organisms concerned. It is a major issue between us that so often you attribute lifestyles and natural wonders to divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, when I see them as the product of natural intelligence. I suspect that many of those we discuss are the product of this (perhaps God-given) intelligence, which is why I try to find out where you draw the line between the two causes.

I view this as an alteration in lifestyle activities during which animals can learn new techniques by trial and error.


QUOTE: Recent research has demonstrated that many bird species have high-order cognitive processing abilities comparable to primates. […] For a long time, scientists used to believe the mammalian cerebral cortex to be the anatomical cause of cognitive ability,” coauthor Sara Letzner of Ruhr-Universität Bochum says in a press release. But birds have no cortex. “That means the structure of the mammalian cortex cannot be decisive for complex cognitive functions such as multitasking.”

DAVID’s comment: I think the study is misinterpreted. The birds are trained to respond automatically. The human metacognition, introspective brain comes to play when the delayed signal is introduced. But those birds are bright!

dhw: I don’t think you can have it both ways. If they respond automatically, it has nothing to do with brightness. Nobody would claim that pigeons are capable of metacognition and introspection on a human scale, but if the cerebral cortex is not the only source of cognitive abilities, we have to ask (a) whether cognitive abilities depend on the physical brain at all, and (b) just how “bright” our fellow organisms might be – from bacteria upwards. As you keep reminding us, what appears to be automatic may be pure intelligence – although you like to put it the other way round, don’t you?

You are skipping over the fact that they were meticulously trained to be automatic. Humans were not.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Saturday, September 30, 2017, 13:25 (2362 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I view this as an alteration in lifestyle activities during which animals can learn new techniques by trial and error.

Agreed. I would say that any organism which can alter its lifestyle by creating new techniques must clearly be possessed of intelligence. Bacteria have been doing it since life began.

QUOTE: Recent research has demonstrated that many bird species have high-order cognitive processing abilities comparable to primates. […] For a long time, scientists used to believe the mammalian cerebral cortex to be the anatomical cause of cognitive ability,” coauthor Sara Letzner of Ruhr-Universität Bochum says in a press release. But birds have no cortex. “That means the structure of the mammalian cortex cannot be decisive for complex cognitive functions such as multitasking.”

DAVID’s comment: I think the study is misinterpreted. The birds are trained to respond automatically. The human metacognition, introspective brain comes to play when the delayed signal is introduced. But those birds are bright!

dhw: I don’t think you can have it both ways. If they respond automatically, it has nothing to do with brightness. Nobody would claim that pigeons are capable of metacognition and introspection on a human scale, but if the cerebral cortex is not the only source of cognitive abilities, we have to ask (a) whether cognitive abilities depend on the physical brain at all, and (b) just how “bright” our fellow organisms might be – from bacteria upwards. As you keep reminding us, what appears to be automatic may be pure intelligence – although you like to put it the other way round, don’t you?

DAVID: You are skipping over the fact that they were meticulously trained to be automatic. Humans were not.

They were trained to undergo a test that was not natural to them, and then to use their intelligence to make a decision. In any case, that is hardly the point. You have agreed that pigeons are “bright”, and it is the intelligence of our fellow creatures (right down to bacteria) that is so often the bone of contention between us when you provide us with the wonders of nature and insist that only God can design them. (The other really interesting issue raised by the article is (a) above, which of course we have discussed at length.)

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 30, 2017, 15:07 (2362 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID’s comment: I think the study is misinterpreted. The birds are trained to respond automatically. The human metacognition, introspective brain comes to play when the delayed signal is introduced. But those birds are bright!

dhw: I don’t think you can have it both ways. If they respond automatically, it has nothing to do with brightness. Nobody would claim that pigeons are capable of metacognition and introspection on a human scale, but if the cerebral cortex is not the only source of cognitive abilities, we have to ask (a) whether cognitive abilities depend on the physical brain at all, and (b) just how “bright” our fellow organisms might be – from bacteria upwards. As you keep reminding us, what appears to be automatic may be pure intelligence – although you like to put it the other way round, don’t you?

DAVID: You are skipping over the fact that they were meticulously trained to be automatic. Humans were not.

dhw: They were trained to undergo a test that was not natural to them, and then to use their intelligence to make a decision. In any case, that is hardly the point. You have agreed that pigeons are “bright”, and it is the intelligence of our fellow creatures (right down to bacteria) that is so often the bone of contention between us when you provide us with the wonders of nature and insist that only God can design them. (The other really interesting issue raised by the article is (a) above, which of course we have discussed at length.)

My point is still humans have lots of layers of activity going on in their introspective minds, and that may have delayed their responses. Yes, pigeons are bright.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Sunday, October 01, 2017, 13:43 (2361 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are skipping over the fact that they were meticulously trained to be automatic. Humans were not.

dhw: They were trained to undergo a test that was not natural to them, and then to use their intelligence to make a decision. In any case, that is hardly the point. You have agreed that pigeons are “bright”, and it is the intelligence of our fellow creatures (right down to bacteria) that is so often the bone of contention between us when you provide us with the wonders of nature and insist that only God can design them. (The other really interesting issue raised by the article is (a) above, which of course we have discussed at length.)

DAVID: My point is still humans have lots of layers of activity going on in their introspective minds, and that may have delayed their responses. Yes, pigeons are bright.

I’ll settle for pigeons being bright. A little questionnaire for you. Which of these organisms do you believe are “bright” (i.e. have an autonomous intelligence): weaverbirds, rats, frogs, ants, Venus flytrap, E-coli?

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 01, 2017, 14:40 (2361 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are skipping over the fact that they were meticulously trained to be automatic. Humans were not.

dhw: They were trained to undergo a test that was not natural to them, and then to use their intelligence to make a decision. In any case, that is hardly the point. You have agreed that pigeons are “bright”, and it is the intelligence of our fellow creatures (right down to bacteria) that is so often the bone of contention between us when you provide us with the wonders of nature and insist that only God can design them. (The other really interesting issue raised by the article is (a) above, which of course we have discussed at length.)

DAVID: My point is still humans have lots of layers of activity going on in their introspective minds, and that may have delayed their responses. Yes, pigeons are bright.

dhw: I’ll settle for pigeons being bright. A little questionnaire for you. Which of these organisms do you believe are “bright” (i.e. have an autonomous intelligence): weaverbirds, rats, frogs, ants, Venus flytrap, E-coli?

All but Venus flytrap and E. coli. All the others have a brain which allows for a degree of learned behaviour.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Monday, October 02, 2017, 13:42 (2360 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’ll settle for pigeons being bright. A little questionnaire for you. Which of these organisms do you believe are “bright” (i.e. have an autonomous intelligence): weaverbirds, rats, frogs, ants, Venus flytrap, E-coli?

DAVID: All but Venus flytrap and E. coli. All the others have a brain which allows for a degree of learned behaviour.

Learned behaviour, you have agreed, originates through the intelligence of the organisms concerned, which pass on their discoveries. So weaverbirds, rats, frogs and ants are autonomously intelligent (which as usual makes me wonder why you think the weaverbird can’t have designed its own nest). But apparently intelligence is impossible without a brain, and yet for a dualist like yourself, the brain is only a receiver of intelligence and is not the source. If we call the source the “soul”, anything with a soul is “bright”, but your God has to preprogramme or personally dabble all the responses, adaptations and strategies of plants and bacteria in no matter what environment. If you really believe that’s the case, don’t you wonder why he didn’t give some “soul” to them as he gave to the others – enough for them to devise their own adaptations etc.? (The materialist explanation of “brightness” in brainless organisms would be that it can have a different material source, i.e. the equivalent of a brain.)

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Monday, October 02, 2017, 15:39 (2360 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’ll settle for pigeons being bright. A little questionnaire for you. Which of these organisms do you believe are “bright” (i.e. have an autonomous intelligence): weaverbirds, rats, frogs, ants, Venus flytrap, E-coli?

DAVID: All but Venus flytrap and E. coli. All the others have a brain which allows for a degree of learned behaviour.

dhw: Learned behaviour, you have agreed, originates through the intelligence of the organisms concerned, which pass on their discoveries. So weaverbirds, rats, frogs and ants are autonomously intelligent (which as usual makes me wonder why you think the weaverbird can’t have designed its own nest). But apparently intelligence is impossible without a brain, and yet for a dualist like yourself, the brain is only a receiver of intelligence and is not the source. If we call the source the “soul”, anything with a soul is “bright”, but your God has to preprogramme or personally dabble all the responses, adaptations and strategies of plants and bacteria in no matter what environment. If you really believe that’s the case, don’t you wonder why he didn’t give some “soul” to them as he gave to the others – enough for them to devise their own adaptations etc.? (The materialist explanation of “brightness” in brainless organisms would be that it can have a different material source, i.e. the equivalent of a brain.)

Note the bold. The brain is the receiver of consciousness. Remember the degree of intelligence is variable and the brain is the mechanism through which it is developed to whatever degree it attains. The Jewish tradition is the animals have souls. Not of the same type as ours. I accept that. As for souls outside of brains, no.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Tuesday, October 03, 2017, 13:38 (2359 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Learned behaviour, you have agreed, originates through the intelligence of the organisms concerned, which pass on their discoveries. So weaverbirds, rats, frogs and ants are autonomously intelligent (which as usual makes me wonder why you think the weaverbird can’t have designed its own nest). But apparently intelligence is impossible without a brain, and yet for a dualist like yourself, the brain is only a receiver of intelligence and is not the source. If we call the source the “soul”, anything with a soul is “bright”, but your God has to preprogramme or personally dabble all the responses, adaptations and strategies of plants and bacteria in no matter what environment. If you really believe that’s the case, don’t you wonder why he didn’t give some “soul” to them as he gave to the others – enough for them to devise their own adaptations etc.? (The materialist explanation of “brightness” in brainless organisms would be that it can have a different material source, i.e. the equivalent of a brain.)

DAVID: Note the bold. The brain is the receiver of consciousness. Remember the degree of intelligence is variable and the brain is the mechanism through which it is developed to whatever degree it attains. The Jewish tradition is the animals have souls. Not of the same type as ours. I accept that. As for souls outside of brains, no.

I do not see how intelligence is possible without consciousness (not to be confused with human self-consciousness), and I do not see how a dualist can argue that it is the receiver brain that develops the degree of intelligence. In dualism, the brain provides information to the conscious intelligent self (soul) and implements the decisions made by the conscious intelligent self, but it is the soul that processes, selects, reasons and decides. Your final remark illustrates the confusion. How can human consciousness and intelligence (the soul) survive independently of the brain and yet animal consciousness and intelligence (the soul) depend on the brain? What is an animal soul if it is NOT the animal’s conscious intelligence? Either the brain is the source of consciousness and intelligence or it isn’t. There is similar confusion in your comment on “smart animals”:

DAVID: These birds did some type of simple analytic thought process to see the usefulness of the objects of play that might then be used as tools. This is their brain at work, which means adaptations require brain work. I do not believe this type of adaptation can happen without a brain.

If birds have souls, as you believe, what on earth do their souls do if they don’t think? Even what you call “simple analytic thought” is thought. However, I have to agree that bacteria would not be able to make “this type of adaptation” by waggling their wings, or gripping with their claws and beaks – you need wings, claws, beaks and a coordinating brain to do that.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 03, 2017, 14:30 (2359 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Note the bold. The brain is the receiver of consciousness. Remember the degree of intelligence is variable and the brain is the mechanism through which it is developed to whatever degree it attains. The Jewish tradition is the animals have souls. Not of the same type as ours. I accept that. As for souls outside of brains, no.

dhw: I do not see how intelligence is possible without consciousness (not to be confused with human self-consciousness), and I do not see how a dualist can argue that it is the receiver brain that develops the degree of intelligence. In dualism, the brain provides information to the conscious intelligent self (soul) and implements the decisions made by the conscious intelligent self, but it is the soul that processes, selects, reasons and decides. Your final remark illustrates the confusion. How can human consciousness and intelligence (the soul) survive independently of the brain and yet animal consciousness and intelligence (the soul) depend on the brain? What is an animal soul if it is NOT the animal’s conscious intelligence? Either the brain is the source of consciousness and intelligence or it isn’t. There is similar confusion in your comment on “smart animals”:

DAVID: These birds did some type of simple analytic thought process to see the usefulness of the objects of play that might then be used as tools. This is their brain at work, which means adaptations require brain work. I do not believe this type of adaptation can happen without a brain.

dhw: If birds have souls, as you believe, what on earth do their souls do if they don’t think? Even what you call “simple analytic thought” is thought. However, I have to agree that bacteria would not be able to make “this type of adaptation” by waggling their wings, or gripping with their claws and beaks – you need wings, claws, beaks and a coordinating brain to do that.

We don't know if animal simple consciousness can survive an NDE, since they can't tell us, but I may surprise you. I think their souls work just like ours do and they pass on to an afterlife where we may see them. As for dualism, I have my own concept of it, not confused by philosophic readings on the subject,.

Natures wonders:post-mating female bugs signal ready again

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 03, 2017, 21:44 (2358 days ago) @ David Turell

With mating the males leave an antiaphrodisiac, which their female partners can turn off:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50431/title/Insect-Deploys-Anti-A...

"Many male insects deploy “mate-guarding” chemicals that render females unattractive to other males for some time after copulation. The technique gives males’ sperm a competitive edge, but can disadvantage females if the effect lasts too long.

"In a first, Colin Brent of the US Department of Agriculture’s Arid Land Agricultural Research Center and colleagues stumbled on a female means of fighting back. In the western tarnished plant bug (Lygus hesperus), males’ seminal fluid contains antiaphrodisiac pheromones. Over several days or weeks, females convert one of those compounds to geranylgeraniol, which counteracts the antiaphrodisiacs to reveal that she may, in fact, be ready to mate again. “[They’re] basically competing signals,” Brent says.

“'This means that the female bugs are not just passive subjects, but they can actively influence the communication and mating system,” Sandra Steiger of Ulm University who was not involved in the study tells The Scientist in an email. Females continue to produce eggs throughout their lives, so reducing the time between new mates may enable them to have genetically more-diverse offspring, Brent says.

"Female Drosophila had been known to eject an antiaphrodisiac compound from her reproductive tract, but this is the first known instance of an insect countering such a pheromone with a signal of her own. The study’s authors predict that more anti-antiaphrodisiacs will be found now that researchers know to look for them. “We need to deepen our understanding of the female part” in post-mating chemical communications, says Steiger."

Comment: Constant reproduction is important for life and evolution to continue. But finding a counter protein chemical signal to overcome another chemical signal is a neat trick. Hard to understand how this might come about by chance mutations.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Wednesday, October 04, 2017, 14:16 (2358 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: These birds did some type of simple analytic thought process to see the usefulness of the objects of play that might then be used as tools. This is their brain at work, which means adaptations require brain work. I do not believe this type of adaptation can happen without a brain.

dhw: If birds have souls, as you believe, what on earth do their souls do if they don’t think? Even what you call “simple analytic thought” is thought. However, I have to agree that bacteria would not be able to make “this type of adaptation” by waggling their wings, or gripping with their claws and beaks – you need wings, claws, beaks and a coordinating brain to do that.

DAVID: We don't know if animal simple consciousness can survive an NDE, since they can't tell us, but I may surprise you. I think their souls work just like ours do and they pass on to an afterlife where we may see them. As for dualism, I have my own concept of it, not confused by philosophic readings on the subject.

Then forget philosophy and focus on your own beliefs. If you believe that organisms with brains have souls like ours which survive the death of the brain, do you or do you not believe that the brain provides them with information and implements their decisions but is NOT responsible for the thought processes that determine their actions? If you believe their thought processes take place in the soul and not the brain, am I right in thinking you believe conscious intelligence (the soul) to be a part of your God’s own conscious intelligence?

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 04, 2017, 19:19 (2358 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: These birds did some type of simple analytic thought process to see the usefulness of the objects of play that might then be used as tools. This is their brain at work, which means adaptations require brain work. I do not believe this type of adaptation can happen without a brain.

dhw: If birds have souls, as you believe, what on earth do their souls do if they don’t think? Even what you call “simple analytic thought” is thought. However, I have to agree that bacteria would not be able to make “this type of adaptation” by waggling their wings, or gripping with their claws and beaks – you need wings, claws, beaks and a coordinating brain to do that.

DAVID: We don't know if animal simple consciousness can survive an NDE, since they can't tell us, but I may surprise you. I think their souls work just like ours do and they pass on to an afterlife where we may see them. As for dualism, I have my own concept of it, not confused by philosophic readings on the subject.

dhw: Then forget philosophy and focus on your own beliefs. If you believe that organisms with brains have souls like ours which survive the death of the brain, do you or do you not believe that the brain provides them with information and implements their decisions but is NOT responsible for the thought processes that determine their actions? If you believe their thought processes take place in the soul and not the brain, am I right in thinking you believe conscious intelligence (the soul) to be a part of your God’s own conscious intelligence?

I think you are back to contorting how I view the brain working. The brain is a computer mechanism with soul/consciousness we are given as the software. We use our brains to develop information, since we have none at birth. We use our s/c to begin to interpret that incoming info as we develop our individual approaches and ego defense mechanisms to life's problems and challenges. We are part of God's consciousness. We control our thoughts through control over the s/c. Amazingly the brain responds to our style of use to make that use as easy as possible. We differ from animals only by a very large degree. I watched my dog develop from a confused puppy to an integrated member of the family who fully understands his role here. He has taught himself in the same way I described for humans.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Thursday, October 05, 2017, 13:34 (2357 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: If you believe that organisms with brains have souls like ours which survive the death of the brain, do you or do you not believe that the brain provides them with information and implements their decisions but is NOT responsible for the thought processes that determine their actions? If you believe their thought processes take place in the soul and not the brain, am I right in thinking you believe conscious intelligence (the soul) to be a part of your God’s own conscious intelligence?

DAVID: I think you are back to contorting how I view the brain working. The brain is a computer mechanism with soul/consciousness we are given as the software. We use our brains to develop information, since we have none at birth. We use our s/c to begin to interpret that incoming info as we develop our individual approaches and ego defense mechanisms to life's problems and challenges. We are part of God's consciousness. We control our thoughts through control over the s/c. Amazingly the brain responds to our style of use to make that use as easy as possible. We differ from animals only by a very large degree. I watched my dog develop from a confused puppy to an integrated member of the family who fully understands his role here. He has taught himself in the same way I described for humans.

The contortion is your own, because you have reverted to separating “we” from our “soul”. Otherwise you have simply repeated what I have said. If the soul survives the death of the brain, the soul is “we”. The brain provides the information, and “we”/the soul process/develop/interpret it, whether the soul is human or doggy. However, hidden in your statement are two important points:

1) “We differ from animals only by a very large degree.” Agreed. Degree, not kind.
2) “We are part of God’s consciousness.” In that case, since according to you the brain is NOT the source of consciousness, there is no reason to assume that the consciousness of bacteria is not also part of your God’s consciousness. They gather their information by brainless means, but the processing is done by their God-given soul. If, however, materialists are right and there is no such thing as a soul, bacterial processing and our own are both done chemically. In both cases, there is consciousness (as you have now agreed), and humans differ from all other life forms only by a very large degree.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 05, 2017, 15:15 (2357 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: The contortion is your own, because you have reverted to separating “we” from our “soul”. Otherwise you have simply repeated what I have said. If the soul survives the death of the brain, the soul is “we”.

Of course the soul is we or me. For some reason you don't like the way I state it.

dhw: The brain provides the information, and “we”/the soul process/develop/interpret it, whether the soul is human or doggy. However, hidden in your statement are two important points:

1) “We differ from animals only by a very large degree.” Agreed. Degree, not kind.
2) “We are part of God’s consciousness.” In that case, since according to you the brain is NOT the source of consciousness, there is no reason to assume that the consciousness of bacteria is not also part of your God’s consciousness. They gather their information by brainless means, but the processing is done by their God-given soul. If, however, materialists are right and there is no such thing as a soul, bacterial processing and our own are both done chemically. In both cases, there is consciousness (as you have now agreed), and humans differ from all other life forms only by a very large degree.

If I am correct that God is the consciousness of the universe, it pervades everything and every living organism. However use of that consciousness is limited. Bacteria can't. Humans can. That is where we differ.

Natures wonders: snakes eat toxins seem to know it

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 05, 2017, 19:06 (2357 days ago) @ David Turell

They change their behaviour when attacked:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149529-this-snake-knows-how-toxic-it-is-and-fight...

"Snakes fed a diet of toxic toads become toxic too — and they seem to know it.
While many snakes make their own toxins, not all do. Japan’s tiger keelback snake (Rhabdophis tigrinus) is one of a handful of species that can store toxins it acquires from its food.

"Tiger keelback snakes are usually less than a metre long, an ideal meal for many birds and mammals. But they eat toxic toads and store the toxins in specialised organs on the backs of their necks called nuchal glands.

"If a snake is threatened it arches its neck, making the nuchal gland area more prominent. A predator that bit the snake’s neck would probably get a jet of fluid from the glands straight in the mouth or face, which would be distasteful or even painful.

"But not all keelbacks exhibit this defensive behaviour. Snakes from a toad-free island flee when attacked, rather than standing their ground. Now it seems the snakes know whether or not they are armed with toxins.

"Akira Mori of Kyoto University, Japan, and Gordon Burghardt of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville reared hatchling snakes from toad-free and toad-rich Japanese islands. The snakes were fed controlled diets containing toxic toads – or not.

"When snakes from the toad-free island were fed toads, they started responding to threats with nuchal gland displays, rather than slithering away.

“'So far as I know, this is the only example in terrestrial vertebrates where there is some indication that animals act as if they are aware of when they are toxic and when they are not,” says Burghardt.

Apart from snakes, plenty of animals acquire toxins from what they eat, but Burghardt says there is no sign they change their behaviour depending on what they have eaten. “Poison dart frogs in captivity are not fed the types of food that make them toxic, but their behaviour towards predators does not seem to have changed at all,” he says.

“'It is remarkable that the researchers were able to demonstrate not only a difference in behaviour between these two populations, but that if you feed toads to toxin-free snakes, they are able to adjust their behaviour in a manner consistent with being chemically defended,” says Alan Savitzky of Utah State University in Logan.

"How they know is an open question. The snakes could somehow monitor the amount of toxin in their glands. Alternatively, they might detect changes in the microbial community living in their digestive system, which would be influenced by toxin levels."

Comment: How they recognize the level of toxins is not yet known, but I suspect they have an automatic sensor mechanism that will be discovered. The fact they store the toxins in their neck glands suggests an organized system of defense. First the snakes must develop as defense against the toxins, then pick a spot to store it, all the while recognizing its potential usage. The appearance of purposeful evolution suggests God's help.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Friday, October 06, 2017, 13:38 (2356 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The contortion is your own, because you have reverted to separating “we” from our “soul”. Otherwise you have simply repeated what I have said. If the soul survives the death of the brain, the soul is “we”.

DAVID: Of course the soul is we or me. For some reason you don't like the way I state it.

Thank you. I don’t like it when you say “we use our s/c” to interpret information, and “we control our thoughts through control over the s/c” – as if “we” are separate from our s/c. That is misleading if you believe that we ARE our soul/consciousness.

dhw: The brain provides the information, and “we”/the soul process/develop/interpret it, whether the soul is human or doggy. However, hidden in your statement are two important points:
1) “We differ from animals only by a very large degree.” Agreed. Degree, not kind.
2) “We are part of God’s consciousness.” In that case, since according to you the brain is NOT the source of consciousness, there is no reason to assume that the consciousness of bacteria is not also part of your God’s consciousness. They gather their information by brainless means, but the processing is done by their God-given soul. If, however, materialists are right and there is no such thing as a soul, bacterial processing and our own are both done chemically. In both cases, there is consciousness (as you have now agreed), and humans differ from all other life forms only by a very large degree.

DAVID: If I am correct that God is the consciousness of the universe, it pervades everything and every living organism. However use of that consciousness is limited. Bacteria can't. Humans can. That is where we differ.

According to you, humans can and doggies can and any organism with a brain can. The only difference is one of degree. But you have agreed that bacteria are conscious (= aware of what is outside and inside themselves). So what do you think is the point of them being conscious if they can’t use their consciousness and have to rely on God’s preprogramming or direct dabbling to provide all the solutions to all their problems?

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Friday, October 06, 2017, 21:35 (2355 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: If I am correct that God is the consciousness of the universe, it pervades everything and every living organism. However use of that consciousness is limited. Bacteria can't. Humans can. That is where we differ.

dhw: According to you, humans can and doggies can and any organism with a brain can. The only difference is one of degree. But you have agreed that bacteria are conscious (= aware of what is outside and inside themselves). So what do you think is the point of them being conscious if they can’t use their consciousness and have to rely on God’s preprogramming or direct dabbling to provide all the solutions to all their problems?

Bacteria are conscious in the sense that they can receive stimuli and react to them. I still think it is all automatic.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Saturday, October 07, 2017, 10:25 (2355 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If I am correct that God is the consciousness of the universe, it pervades everything and every living organism. However use of that consciousness is limited. Bacteria can't. Humans can. That is where we differ.

dhw: According to you, humans can and doggies can and any organism with a brain can. The only difference is one of degree. But you have agreed that bacteria are conscious (= aware of what is outside and inside themselves). So what do you think is the point of them being conscious if they can’t use their consciousness and have to rely on God’s preprogramming or direct dabbling to provide all the solutions to all their problems?

DAVID: Bacteria are conscious in the sense that they can receive stimuli and react to them. I still think it is all automatic.

And by “automatic” I presume you mean your God preprogrammed all their problems and solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or he pops in to do a dabble whenever there’s a problem he hadn’t solved for them 3.8 billion years ago.
Same issue under "4-D DNA neighborhood controls”:

DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 07, 2017, 14:37 (2355 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Bacteria are conscious in the sense that they can receive stimuli and react to them. I still think it is all automatic.

dhw: And by “automatic” I presume you mean your God preprogrammed all their problems and solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or he pops in to do a dabble whenever there’s a problem he hadn’t solved for them 3.8 billion years ago.
Same issue under "4-D DNA neighborhood controls”:

Same answer. They are programmed for automatic responses.


DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

dhw: A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Sunday, October 08, 2017, 13:29 (2354 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Bacteria are conscious in the sense that they can receive stimuli and react to them. I still think it is all automatic.

dhw: And by “automatic” I presume you mean your God preprogrammed all their problems and solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or he pops in to do a dabble whenever there’s a problem he hadn’t solved for them 3.8 billion years ago.
Same issue under "4-D DNA neighborhood controls”:

DAVID: Same answer. They are programmed for automatic responses.

Which is a high-falutin way of glossing over the extraordinary implications described in my comment above.

DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

dhw: A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.

The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 08, 2017, 14:45 (2354 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

dhw: A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.

dhw: The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.

Of course not.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by dhw, Monday, October 09, 2017, 12:55 (2353 days ago) @ David Turell


DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

dhw: A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.

dhw: The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Of course not.

Thank you. This is an important agreement, since it is key to the whole debate on how evolution has happened.

Natures wonders: killer penguins hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Monday, October 09, 2017, 15:01 (2353 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: The fact that DNA can rearrange itself so quickly to respond as necessary indicates there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood. It looks as if DNA can think, but that is beyond possibility. The complexity of the underlying organization it presents demands that the system is designed. Not by chance.

dhw: A materialist might say the fact that we can think indicates that “there are chemical controls that are yet to be understood”.
DNA is one part of the cell. If Margulis, McLintock, Buehler and Shapiro are right, cells can think. Certainly not “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Listing the names expresses their opinions, not anything more. I could name Wells, Meyer, Behe, but I never bother.

dhw: The very fact that there is no consensus among the experts should make it clear to you that neither hypothesis is “beyond possibility”.

DAVID: Of course not.

dhw: Thank you. This is an important agreement, since it is key to the whole debate on how evolution has happened.

Really?

Natures wonders: bumble bees look for blue

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 18, 2017, 19:34 (2344 days ago) @ David Turell

Only some flowers can produce petals that either are blue or look blue. Bumble bees look for them:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171018132826.htm

"Latest research has found that several common flower species have nanoscale ridges on the surface of their petals that meddle with light when viewed from certain angles.

"These nanostructures scatter light particles in the blue to ultraviolet colour spectrum, generating a subtle effect that scientists have christened the 'blue halo'.

"By manufacturing artificial surfaces that replicated 'blue halos', scientists were able to test the effect on pollinators, in this case foraging bumblebees. They found that bees can see the blue halo, and use it as a signal to locate flowers more efficiently.

"While the ridges and grooves on a petal surface line up next to each other "like a packet of dry spaghetti," when analysing different flower species the researchers discovered these striations vary greatly in height, width and spacing -- yet all produce a similar 'blue halo' effect.

"In fact, even on a single petal these light-manipulating structures were found to be surprisingly irregular. This is a phenomenon physicists describe as 'disorder'.

"The researchers conclude that these "messy" petal nanostructures likely evolved independently many times across flowering plant species, but reached the same luminous outcome that increases visibility to pollinators -- an example of what's known as 'convergent evolution'.

***

"All flowering plants belong to the 'angiosperm' lineage. Researchers analysed some of the earliest diverging plants from this group, and found no halo-producing petal ridges.

"However, they found several examples of halo-producing petals among the two major flower groups (monocots and eudicots) that emerged during the Cretaceous period over 100 million years ago -- coinciding with the early evolution of flower-visiting insects, in particular nectar-sucking bees.

"'Our findings suggest the petal ridges that produce 'blue halos' evolved many times across different flower lineages, all converging on this optical signal for pollinators," said Glover.

***

"Previous studies have shown that many species of bee have an innate preference for colours in the violet-blue range. However, plants do not always have the means to produce blue pigments.

"'Many flowers lack the genetic and biochemical capability to manipulate pigment chemistry in the blue to ultraviolet spectrum," said Vignolini. "The presence of these disordered photonic structures on their petals provides an alternative way to produce signals that attract insects."

***
"'Humans can identify some blue halos -- those emanating from darkly pigmented flowers. For example the 'black' tulip cultivar, known as 'Queen of the night'."

"'However, we can't distinguish between a yellow flower with a blue halo and one without -- but our study found that bumblebees can," she said."

Comment: Bees can see what we can't. But bees are needed for pollination and we are not. This is how balance of nature is set up; many little arrangements.

Natures wonders: rival bird songs

by David Turell @, Friday, October 20, 2017, 15:15 (2342 days ago) @ David Turell

Song birds studied in New Zealand sing back at rivals. Whatever you can sing I can sing better:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2150994-songbird-gets-angry-when-its-rivals-are-br...


"Not in my backyard. Territorial songbirds in New Zealand reacted more aggressively towards males encroaching on their territory if those rivals sang more complicated songs. The tui birds perceived these snappy singers as greater territorial threats than their simpler singing counterparts.

"Birdsong has two main functions: defending a territory and attracting a mate, says Samuel Hill at Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand. For tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), territory defence is a key concern. “There are flowering and fruiting trees year round in New Zealand, so the tui always have resources to defend,” says Hill. This explains why “they natter all year round”.

***

"To test males’ reactions, Hill and his colleagues studied 12 tui territories in Tawharanui Regional Park, north of Auckland. Using a speaker, they played simple and complex tui songs, and a control song from another species, for three minutes on the periphery of each territory. The complex songs were nearly twice the length of the simple songs, with more than twice as many total syllables and types of syllables.

"After complex songs, male tui approached the speaker more rapidly. They also got closer: on average 0.3 metres away, compared with nearly 6.3m for simple songs. In addition, males responded to complex songs with more complex songs of their own: their responses used a wider range of “syllables” and went on for longer.

"Songirds are known to be sensitive to what others are singing, but Hill’s study may be the first to show a direct link between song complexity and aggressive responses in territorial males, says Kazuhara Sasahara at Nagoya University in Japan."

Comment: Too much testosterone at work? Seems like logical rivalries.

Natures wonders: energy and shrew brains

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 24, 2017, 17:20 (2338 days ago) @ David Turell

Shrews shrink skull and brain size in winter to conserve energy. Brains take 20% of human energy; other mammals must follow the same metabolic pattern, although their brains are smaller and their metabolic costs lower:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-shrinking-of-the-shrew

"Writing in the journal Current Biology, researchers led by Javier Lazaro of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany report that the red-toothed shrew (Sorex araneus) reduces its head size on an annual basis. At the same time, its brain mass decreases by up to 30% and several major organs, as well as the spine, also grow smaller.

"The researchers speculate that the bizarre phenomenon might be a survival strategy. The shrews have very high metabolisms, but neither migrate nor hibernate when temperatures fall and food becomes scarce.

"'Reducing head size -- and thus brain size -- might save energy disproportionally as the brain is energetically so expensive," Lazaro says.

"The research has so far failed to uncover the cause of the head shrinkage, although the mechanism appears to be the absorption of tissue within cranial sutures.

"The fact that the rodents tended to have smaller heads in winter was first observed in 1949 by a Polish mammologist called August Dehnel – leading to the shrinkage being termed Dehnel’s phenomenon.

"However, Lazaro and his colleagues are the first to document the reduction and expansion of individual shrews by following them around for an entire year.

"The team captured 12 wild shrews, anaesthetised them, X-rayed their skulls, implanted microchips, and then released them. Using live traps, the rodents were periodically re-captured and X-rayed again. The scientists found that head size was smallest during winter, but regrew through spring.

"Earlier studies had suggested that Dehnel’s phenomenon might be more apparent than real, the result of shrews with larger heads simply dying off during the colder months and leaving their better adapted little brethren to carry on.

"Lazaro and his colleagues disprove the idea.

"'This means every single individual undergoes this change every winter, which remains baffling to us," he says."

Comment: Brains use lots of energy. This is an unusual adaptation to for the problem, but there is less food in winter. How the adaptation developed is unknown, but it involved reabsorption of skull plates which may have forced brain shrinkage. It is so massive a change it is akin to speciation. Research into this mechanism may unearth some information about speciation. And, if God arranges for new species, this may afford an insight into His methods.

Natures wonders: a tiny shrimp's powerful claw

by David Turell @, Friday, October 27, 2017, 23:45 (2334 days ago) @ David Turell

A five centimeter shrimp can hurt your hand.Don't go in the water:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2151700-how-a-tiny-shrimp-fires-a-savage-shock-wav...

"This reef ain’t big enough for the both of us. Two pistol shrimp face each other, each spreading open its giant snapping claw – nearly half the size of its body. One or both of them then snaps the claw shut in its opponent’s direction, firing off a powerful water jet at speeds up to 30 metres per second.

"These shrimp shootouts are rarely fatal, but can leave the loser retreating with missing claws or puncture wounds. But the high-speed squirt isn’t what harms their target – it’s the resulting shock wave. Now we have glimpsed how this unfolds in fine detail.

***

"They found that when the claw snaps shut, friction between the fast-moving jet and the still water surrounding it creates a swirling vortex. Once the vortex starts spinning rapidly enough, it leaves a void in the center, like the dimple in your tea as you stir it.
Eventually that void collapses, and as it does, it releases a powerful pressure wave. All of this happens in less than half a millisecond, Koukouvinis says.

"Because these shrimp only grow to about 5 centimetres, their underwater weapons are limited to targeting animals of a similarly minuscule size. But Nancy Knowlton at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC doesn’t recommend sticking your hand in any tank holding the shrimp.

“'You wouldn’t feel anything if you’re just snorkelling near a reef, but if you have your hand in front of a shrimp’s claw you’re definitely feeling it when it goes off,” she says. “It hurts.”

"And that’s the point. Pistol shrimp are scavengers, eating detritus on the sandy ocean floor, so they don’t often use their bubble-gun claws to stun prey, Knowlton says. Instead, they use their shock waves to protect their mates and homes in some of the tiniest gunfights on earth."

Comment: Like the bacterial spear, small organisms can develop amazing weapons.

Natures wonders: everyone has to eat

by David Turell @, Friday, November 03, 2017, 00:38 (2328 days ago) @ David Turell

It's a balance of nature. In this case wait until your prey has a full meal then eat him:

https://www.livescience.com/60836-sea-slugs-kleptopredators.html?utm_source=ls-newslett...

"A type of brightly colored sea slug has a taste for microscopic marine creatures called zooplankton, and it feeds on them using a method that's never been seen before: It captures quantities in a gulp by using a middleman.

"The sea slug's unsuspecting helpers are hydroid polyps — tiny, coral-like animals that live in colonies and gorge on zooplankton. And the sea slug, known as a nudibranch, treats the polyps as living fishing nets, avidly scooping them up and swallowing them down as soon as the hapless hydroids finish their zooplankton supper.

"The nudibranch Cratena peregrina is a common type of bottom-dwelling marine mollusk found in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coastal waters near the Iberian Peninsula, Senegal and the Canary Islands. It measures about 1 to 2 inches (3 to 5 centimeters) in length, and has a pale body covered with colorful, elongated, fleshy spines called cerata, which help with respiration by increasing the surface area on the upper part of the animal's body.

"C. peregrina was previously known to feed on hydroid polyps, but the study authors discovered that the nudibranchs preferred polyps that had just eaten. In experiments, when presented with a colony of polyps that had just fed and a colony that was "empty," the sea slugs ate twice as many of the polyps that were full of zooplankton.

"In fact, kleptopredation provides the nudibranchs with enough plankton to account for about half of their diet, overturning previous claims that polyps were the nudibranchs' primary food source, according to the study.

"Their findings hint that nudibranchs may not be the only marine creatures to use this previously unknown strategy, and that predator-prey interactions in this group may be more complex than once thought, the researchers wrote. "

Comment: Clever trick, just watchful waiting. Probably a learned behaviour. Part of an eco-niche balanced system of nature.

Natures wonders: succulent plant survival

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 16, 2017, 18:36 (2315 days ago) @ David Turell

They use special tricks in photosynthesis process to conserve water:

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-secrets-succulents-water-wise-ways-revealed.html

"Drought resistant plants, such as cacti, agaves and succulents, make use of an enhanced form of photosynthesis known as crassulacean acid metabolism, or CAM, to minimise water loss.

"Photosynthesis involves taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to convert into sugars using sunlight. Unlike other plants, CAM plants are able to take up CO2 during the cooler night, which reduces water loss, and store captured CO2 as malic acid inside the cell, allowing its use for photosynthesis without water loss during the next day.

"CAM photosynthesis is regulated by the plant's internal circadian clock, which allows plants to differentiate and pre-empt day and night and adjust their metabolism accordingly. However, relatively little is known about the exact molecular processes that underpin the optimal timing of CO2 being stored and released in this unique way.

"A team of researchers at the University's Institute of Integrative Biology looked at an enzyme of interest called PPCK that is involved in controlling the conversion of CO2 to its overnight stored form (malic acid; the fruit acid that makes apples taste sharp) and back again. They wanted to know whether PPCK is a necessary component for engineering CAM photosynthesis and tested this by switching the PPCK gene off in the succulent CAM plant Kalanchoë fedtschenkoi.

"They found that, for CAM to work properly, the cells must switch on PPCK each night driven by their internal circadian clock. When they prevented Kalanchoë from making PPCK at night, the plants could only capture a third of the CO2 captured by the normal plants.

"In addition, they found that the plants that were unable to make PPCK each night had alterations in their circadian clock, a surprising finding that suggests metabolites associated with CAM communicate time-of-day information into the plant's central timekeeper.

"Dr James Hartwell commented: "Drought is a key cause of global crop losses, so understanding the mechanisms that some desert-adapted plants have evolved to survive water stress is vital for engineering improved drought tolerance in crop species.

"'Our work demonstrates that ongoing efforts to engineer CAM photosynthesis into other plants will need to include PPCK. The unexpected complexity we revealed in the relationship between PPCK, CAM and the circadian clock also highlights the need for continued research into CAM processes before we can fully understand and exploit their ways.'"

Comment: It is amazing that this complex system change in photosynthesis found just the right enzyme to tolerate desert conditions as they appeared. Enzymes are the engines of life and are huge, highly complex organic molecules. A purposeless process of evolution (Darwin theory) is highly unlikely to achieve such a result, and living organisms use many thousand different enzymes of huge size and purposeful complexity. There must be a designer, God.

Natures wonders: beetle uses bacteria for digestion

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 16, 2017, 19:52 (2314 days ago) @ David Turell

A specialized beetle eating thistle leaves uses an onboard bacteria for digestion. Symbiosis at its best:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171116132757.htm

"A leaf-eating beetle has evolved a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that allows the insect to break down pectin -- part of a plant's cell wall that is indigestible to most animals.

"'This insect is a leaf eater largely because of these bacteria," says Hassan Salem, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral fellow in Emory University's Department of Biology. "And the bacteria have actually become developmentally integrated into the insect's body."

"Two organs alongside the foregut of the beetle Cassida rubiginosa house the bacteria and appear to have no other function than to maintain these microbes. "The organs are equivalent to the liver in humans, in the sense that they contain the tools to break down and process food," Salem says.

"The newly characterized bacterium has only 270,000 DNA base pairs in its genome, compared to the millions that are more typical for bacterial strains. That makes its genome closer to that of intracellular bacteria and organelles than to free-living microbes. Mitochondria, for example, the organelles that regulate metabolism within cells, have 100,000 base pairs.

***

"They used genome sequencing technology to characterize the microorganisms as a new species of bacterium. Despite its tiny genome, the bacterium has the power to degrade pectin.

"'Just as an apex predator has claws and strong mandibles to obtain the nutritional value that it needs from its prey, the bacterium has pectin-digesting genes that enable the beetle host to deconstruct a plant cell," Salem says.

"After the bacterium breaks down the pectin, the beetle's digestive system can then access all of the amino acids and vitamins within the plant's cells for its nutrients.

"Salem christened the new bacterium Candidatus Stammera capleta, after Hans-Jurgen Stammer, the ecologist who first glimpsed it and wondered about it more than 80 years ago."

Comment: One most wonder how this particular beetle ate before it found the helpful bacteria to take on board. Was it accidental or purposeful and helped by design?

Natures wonders: hummingbird hearts are huge

by David Turell @, Friday, December 01, 2017, 15:53 (2300 days ago) @ David Turell

Needed to allow beating wings to hover:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/hummingbirds-massive-hearts-power-hovering-flight/

"How well a bird flies depends on how big its heart is. The best flyers, like hummingbirds that dexterously hover in front of flowers, have the largest hearts. But unexpectedly, soaring and gliding turns out to be almost as much work as flapping wings.

"Previous research had suggested this, because sustained flight requires more aerobic power, which depends on heart size. The heart is like a carburetor pumping fuel into an engine: the bigger the heart, the more blood a bird can pump to its flight muscles.

"Hummingbirds have the biggest hearts for their body size, about three per cent of their mass. In contrast, a pelican’s heart is just 0.8 per cent of its mass.

"When a hummingbird hovers in place, air doesn’t move past its wings to generate the lift needed to keep it aloft. Instead, it beats its wings in a figure-of-eight pattern.

Comment: usual problem for Darwinian evolution. The hummingbird thrives by hovering at flowers. Which came first, big heart or hovering? Or stepwise small changes, in which case how did the birds survive while they worked out a difficult way to feed? Perhaps God at work.

Natures wonders: venus fly trap

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 27, 2017, 15:37 (2274 days ago) @ David Turell

A most unusual plant:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-secret-life-of-the-venus-flytrap

"The world’s most famous carnivorous plant can eat frogs and count.

***

"The Venus flytrap and the waterwheel plant are the only members of their respective genera, and they alone have ended up with a lightning-fast ‘snap-trap’ mode of capturing their prey.

"While carnivory in plants has evolved at least six times independently, it’s thought that snap-traps evolved only once, in the common ancestor of Aldrovanda and Dionaea.

"Late last year, Shabala and an international team of researchers discovered that this ‘snap-trap’ method of catching prey is based on the Venus flytrap’s ability to count: one means ignore, two means prey.

“'They don’t really recognise animals, they respond to mechanical stimulation,” Shabala explains.

“'When the animals walk across the plant, it produces a force, and if there are two touches within five seconds, it closes. One is not enough, because it could be a false start, but two means there’s something there.”

"Once the prey has ventured into the Venus flytrap’s jaws – often lured in by the sweet scent of the plant’s nectar – the flytrap gets ready to snap shut.

"Venus flytraps are equipped with sensory trichomes, which are external, hair-like structures that sit on its surface to pick up signals from wandering prey.

"These trichomes work like a booby-trap: they’re connected to an on channel that’s triggered by touch or pressure.

“'Usually it will close by 90 to 95%, but if the animal keeps struggling, it will send additional signals, and close completely,” says Shabala.

***

"After sealing an insect inside the snap-trap, the plant will emit digestive enzymes from specialised glands to dissolve its tough outer exoskeleton.

"Once the Venus flytrap has broken through that layer, it will start processing the insect’s nitrogen-rich blood.

"And in case you’re wondering, yes, those enzymes can break down human flesh, according to Barry Rice from the International Carnivorous Plant Society, who put a slice of his own freshly shed skin into a Venus flytrap.

“'After a week, the traps opened. I had predicted the skin chunks would be relatively inert and unaffected … [but they] were almost completely digested. Worse, what was left no longer had much cohesion, but was gooey and slimy.”

"One challenge carnivorous plants face is the fact that their food is far saltier than what most plants are used to, so they’ve had to evolve ways of ridding their cells of the excess sodium.

"In a 2016 study, Shabala and his team figured out how they do this, and are now working on ways to imbue crops with this trait so they can withstand saline environments.

"When they examined the movement of salt from the prey to the Venus flytrap’s ‘stomach’, they found that specialised sodium transporters got rid of the excess by depositing it into ‘capture organs’ so it wouldn’t interfere with the plant’s metabolism."

Comment: The biggest issue in understanding its evolution is how did it develop self-protection against digesting itself while developing digestive enzymes for it prey? Both had to happen simultaneously. And then they had to handle the salt overload. Is it designed?

Natures wonders: porpoise sonar

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 09, 2018, 00:51 (2261 days ago) @ David Turell

Both bats and porpoise's do it:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/secret-to-porpoise-sonar-revealed/?utm_sourc...

"The best military sonar technology pales in comparison with the echolocation porpoises use to track prey, predators and obstacles. The marine mammals can find objects a few centimeters wide from 100 meters away—akin to spotting a walnut from across a football field—by releasing clicks from their blowholes. Sonar-equipped ships, in contrast, must emit sound waves from multiple sources spread out over at least a few meters. A recent study suggests porpoises' ultraefficient echolocation is made possible by adjustable structures in their heads—a finding that may help humans improve our own sonar technology.

"Sonar works by bouncing sound waves off objects and detecting the signals' return time. Normally if the source of a sonar pulse is smaller than the wavelength of the sound, it releases sound signals in all directions, like light scattering from a disco ball. To send a targeted beam in a specific direction, the source must be much larger than the wavelength. But porpoises manage to evade this requirement.

"To find out how, scientists used CT scans to study the heads of finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides). They learned the creatures' foreheads contain complicated structures involving air sacs, soft tissues and skull bones. These components make up layers that let sound pass through at different velocities, enabling the animals to control their beams' focus. “If we can understand these structures, then we can redesign our sonar systems and put them into [smaller] boats,” says Wenwu Cao, a physicist at Pennsylvania State University.

"The work suggests that porpoises share some tricks with another mammal famous for echolocation: bats. “I am intrigued that there could be a way for the porpoises to change their emission pattern by compressing the forehead complex,” says Rolf Mu¨ller, a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, who has studied bat sonar but was not involved in the porpoise study. Next to human technology, it seems bats and porpoises really are a few flaps or laps ahead."

Comment: Nature's inventions are always better than ours. Not by chance! And Darwin evolution is all chance.

Natures wonders: porpoise sonar

by dhw, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 11:12 (2260 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "The work suggests that porpoises share some tricks with another mammal famous for echolocation: bats. “I am intrigued that there could be a way for the porpoises to change their emission pattern by compressing the forehead complex,” says Rolf Muller, a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, who has studied bat sonar but was not involved in the porpoise study. Next to human technology, it seems bats and porpoises really are a few flaps or laps ahead."

DAVID'S comment: Nature's inventions are always better than ours. Not by chance! And Darwin evolution is all chance.

Thank you for another great post, spoilt only by your usual snipe at Darwin and totally ignoring the alternative hypothesis of cellular intelligence that I keep offering. So I suppose you think bat and porpoise echolocation, like the weaverbird’s nest, the camouflaged cuttlefish and the skull-shrinking shrew, was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago as an essential part of God’s plan to keep life going till he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Ah, where would we have been without echolation? You snipe, I snipe.

Natures wonders: porpoise sonar

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 15:28 (2260 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "The work suggests that porpoises share some tricks with another mammal famous for echolocation: bats. “I am intrigued that there could be a way for the porpoises to change their emission pattern by compressing the forehead complex,” says Rolf Muller, a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, who has studied bat sonar but was not involved in the porpoise study. Next to human technology, it seems bats and porpoises really are a few flaps or laps ahead."

DAVID'S comment: Nature's inventions are always better than ours. Not by chance! And Darwin evolution is all chance.

dhw: Thank you for another great post, spoilt only by your usual snipe at Darwin and totally ignoring the alternative hypothesis of cellular intelligence that I keep offering. So I suppose you think bat and porpoise echolocation, like the weaverbird’s nest, the camouflaged cuttlefish and the skull-shrinking shrew, was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago as an essential part of God’s plan to keep life going till he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Ah, where would we have been without echolocation? You snipe, I snipe.

Poor Darwin didn't know what he didn't know. Not his fault. I snipe at Darwin worshipers who still believe his whole swiss-cheese theory. Only common descent survives. His propposed mechanism of descent is in tatters.

Natures wonders: porpoise sonar II

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 18:10 (2260 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "The work suggests that porpoises share some tricks with another mammal famous for echolocation: bats. “I am intrigued that there could be a way for the porpoises to change their emission pattern by compressing the forehead complex,” says Rolf Muller, a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, who has studied bat sonar but was not involved in the porpoise study. Next to human technology, it seems bats and porpoises really are a few flaps or laps ahead."

DAVID'S comment: Nature's inventions are always better than ours. Not by chance! And Darwin evolution is all chance.

dhw: Thank you for another great post, spoilt only by your usual snipe at Darwin and totally ignoring the alternative hypothesis of cellular intelligence that I keep offering. So I suppose you think bat and porpoise echolocation, like the weaverbird’s nest, the camouflaged cuttlefish and the skull-shrinking shrew, was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago as an essential part of God’s plan to keep life going till he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Ah, where would we have been without echolocation? You snipe, I snipe.


Poor Darwin didn't know what he didn't know. Not his fault. I snipe at Darwin worshipers who still believe his whole Swiss-cheese theory. Only common descent survives. His proposed mechanism of descent is in tatters.

An addendum comment: A perfect example of convergence, championed by Conway Morris as indicating evolution is pre-determined, shown in his book: Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. It states there is an underlying pattern to evolution leading to intelligence. As a scientist his work does not show God, but he is known to be a believer.

Natures wonders: plant roots seek water

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 19:05 (2259 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study shows that root tips grow toward water. The exact cellular mechanism is not yet known:

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-darkhow-roots-growth.html

"Without eyes, ears, or a central nervous system, plants can perceive the direction of environmental cues and respond to ensure their survival.

"For example, roots need to extend through the maze of nooks and crannies in the soil toward sources of water and nutrients. The various ways that plants guide this branching to take advantage of their environment is of great interest to scientists and of potential use by farmers in need of crops that produce more food with fewer resources.

"Carnegie and Stanford University biologist José Dinneny has spent years studying how root growth responds to water, particularly through a phenomenon called hydropatterning, which allows plants to optimize root branching to maximize water uptake.

"Just like how plants branch out above ground to gain access to sunlight, plant roots form a branching underground network, with lateral roots growing out from a main axis. The structure of these root system networks must be regulated in ways that optimize soil exploration, while limiting expansion into water-poor regions.

"'We knew plants were doing this—branching toward water—but not the mechanism of how the plant was perceiving and reacting to this environmental signal," Dinneny explained.

"He and Stanford graduate student Neil Robbins II set out to determine whether a plant root's observed ability to encourage branching toward moisture and discourage branching into dry soil is localized to any part of the root, or is shared by the whole root structure.

"By understanding where the root perceives water we might get clues as to how the plant performs this remarkable task," says Dinneny.

"Using both fine-scale microdissection and mathematical modeling approaches, they found that the tip of the root where cell expansion drives growth is uniquely able to perceive and respond to moisture cues by shaping the direction in which the root branches out into the soil. The use of mathematical modeling showed that the perception of water as observed by water movement into the root was dramatically affected by the root growth rate.

"Lead author Robbins commented: "When root growth slowed down, the root's ability to respond to the direction of water was strongly diminished. This work indicates that the active process of water uptake by the root is necessary to see where water is in soil water and respond developmentally to this key environmental cue."

"To place this work into context, it is important to realize that little is understood about how plants perceive the abundance of water in the environment and most work has focused on the signaling events that happen at the cellular level.

"Robbins' and Dinneny's work, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the very process of growth itself induces a physical state in the plant that uniquely allows it to perceive at the organ scale the direction of a much-needed resource in its surroundings.

"'The plant appears to see the direction of water only when it is trying to extract it from the environment," Dinneny said. "When cell expansion isn't driving growth, the ability to see the direction for water is reduced, and the root either can't see or doesn't care where water is and starts making branches in every direction.'"

Comment: I am sure the cells at the tip of each root have automatic stimuli receptors which then set up growth director systems, and will be discovered.

Natures wonders: a sleeping jellyfish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 19:14 (2259 days ago) @ David Turell

A jellyfish has neurons which go quiescent in a rhythmic way:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31023-0

"Do all animals sleep? Sleep has been observed in many vertebrates, and there is a growing body of evidence for sleep-like states in arthropods and nematodes. Here we show that sleep is also present in Cnidaria, an earlier-branching metazoan lineage. Cnidaria and Ctenophora are the first metazoan phyla to evolve tissue-level organization and differentiated cell types, such as neurons and muscle. In Cnidaria, neurons are organized into a non-centralized radially symmetric nerve net that nevertheless shares fundamental properties with the vertebrate nervous system: action potentials, synaptic transmission, neuropeptides, and neurotransmitters. It was reported that cnidarian soft corals and box jellyfish exhibit periods of quiescence, a pre-requisite for sleep-like states, prompting us to ask whether sleep is present in Cnidaria. Within Cnidaria, the upside-down jellyfish Cassiopea spp. displays a quantifiable pulsing behavior, allowing us to perform long-term behavioral tracking. Monitoring of Cassiopea pulsing activity for consecutive days and nights revealed behavioral quiescence at night that is rapidly reversible, as well as a delayed response to stimulation in the quiescent state. When deprived of nighttime quiescence, Cassiopea exhibited decreased activity and reduced responsiveness to a sensory stimulus during the subsequent day, consistent with homeostatic regulation of the quiescent state. Together, these results indicate that Cassiopea has a sleep-like state, supporting the hypothesis that sleep arose early in the metazoan lineage, prior to the emergence of a centralized nervous system."

Comment: What this shows is that all neuron networks need a resting period.

Natures wonders: Aussie birds hunt with fire

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 11, 2018, 00:50 (2259 days ago) @ David Turell

They literally pick up burn1ng sticks, set fire to grass and grab their fleeing prey:

https://www.livescience.com/61375-fire-spreading-raptors.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&...

"Three species of raptors — predatory birds with sharp beaks and talons, and keen eyesight — are widely known not only for lurking on the fringes of fires but also for snatching up smoldering grasses or branches and using them to kindle fresh flames, to smoke out mammal and insect prey.

***

"In total, the study authors identified 12 Aboriginal groups in which people described firsthand sightings of raptors deliberately setting new fires with smoldering brands salvaged from existing fires, acting on their own and cooperating with other birds.

***

"From their reports, a behavioral pattern emerged: Firehawks (also described as kitehawks, chickenhawks and, on several occasions by non-Aboriginals, s---hawks) purposely swiped burning sticks or grasses from smoldering vegetation — or even from human cooking fires — and then made off with the brands and dropped them into unburned areas to set them alight, presumably to drive out more prey.

"The range of the birds' reported fire stealing spans a significant area measuring approximately 1,490 by 620 miles (2,400 by 1,000 kilometers) across part of northern Australia, the scientists reported.

***

"Close collaboration with Aboriginal teams and individuals will be a critical part of studying the birds' use of fire and its relationship to the Australian tropical grasslands, which indigenous people have inhabited and managed with controlled burning for at least 50,000 years. Over millennia, Aboriginal people have accumulated an unparalleled understanding of this ecosystem and the animals that inhabit it — knowledge that is in danger of being lost as cultural traditions are abandoned by younger generations, Bonta explained.

"'Our work is a collaborative effort to help valorize indigenous knowledge of birds, particularly as known to the older generations — this is not simply 'folklore' but rather intricate ecosystem knowledge that is typically unparalleled even by most outsider experts," he said."

Comment: This is likely a learned behaviour past from generation to generation rather than instinct.. Birds have amazing abilities to find useful tools, and these are not crows.

Natures wonders: porpoise sonar II

by dhw, Thursday, January 11, 2018, 15:26 (2259 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Thank you for another great post, spoilt only by your usual snipe at Darwin and totally ignoring the alternative hypothesis of cellular intelligence that I keep offering. So I suppose you think bat and porpoise echolocation, like the weaverbird’s nest, the camouflaged cuttlefish and the skull-shrinking shrew, was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago as an essential part of God’s plan to keep life going till he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Ah, where would we have been without echolocation? You snipe, I snipe.

DAVID: Poor Darwin didn't know what he didn't know. Not his fault. I snipe at Darwin worshipers who still believe his whole swiss-cheese theory. Only common descent survives. His propposed mechanism of descent is in tatters.

I agree that random mutations provide an extremely unsatisfactory explanation for the almost indescribable complexities involved in evolutionary history. But I’m afraid the substitution of a theory that some unknown power preprogrammed every detail 3.8 billion years ago in order to keep life going until it could produce the one thing it wanted to produce – the human brain – leaves me with the same feeling that there simply has to be a better explanation!

DAVID's addendum comment: A perfect example of convergence, championed by Conway Morris as indicating evolution is pre-determined, shown in his book: Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. It states there is an underlying pattern to evolution leading to intelligence. As a scientist his work does not show God, but he is known to be a believer.

I don’t doubt convergence. It stands to reason that intelligent organisms confronted with similar problems will come up with similar solutions.

Natures wonders: ants kill ants, disinfect nest

by David Turell @, Monday, January 15, 2018, 14:11 (2255 days ago) @ dhw

Sick ants and pupa are cared for, but killed if their infection with fungus threatens the nest:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-kill-the-sick-to-save-the-rest

"Ants practice infanticide to protect the health of the colony.

"The invasive garden ant (Lasius neglectus) takes the drastic measure of killing sick colony members, even pupae, when they are infected with a pathogenic fungus. Invasive garden ants are so named because they are originally from Turkey, Iran and Uzbekistan and now inhabit urban areas throughout Europe.

"A new study in the journal eLife, led by researchers Christopher Pull and Sylvia Cremer at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria, discovered that the ants can detect and eliminate infections developing inside the bodies of their nest mates even before they have shown external disease symptoms.

"'We found that the ants are able to smell and single out sick colony members very early on in the infection process,” explains Cremer.

“'They then perform what we have termed ‘destructive disinfection’, the killing of the sick animal and the fungus, to prevent the pathogen becoming contagious and spreading to nest mates.”

"Cremer and Pull have previously studied the behaviours that invasive garden ants perform to prevent infection in contaminated colony members, referred to as sanitary care. They found that the ants look after colony members carrying the pathogenic fungus Metarhizium brunneum by intensively grooming them and thus removing spores that threaten the health of the colony.

"The recent discovery of destructive disinfection takes the colony’s sanitary protocols a step further – colony members are cared for when possible, but sacrificed if necessary.
“The ants produce formic acid that can kill the fungus, but it needs to enter the pupa's body for it to work,” says Pull.

“'During destructive disinfection, the ants therefore remove pupa's silk cocoon and bite holes in its body. They then spray their formic acid through these holes, so that it enters the pupa's body and kills the pupa along with the fungus.”

"There are other examples of ants engaging in public health measures in order to save a colony from disease.

"In carpenter ants (Camponotus aethiops), individuals who are infected by the Metarhizium fungus change their behaviour radically. In 2011, a study in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology showed that infected ants isolate themselves from other colony members, act aggressively towards any other ants they encounter, and spend from day three post-infection outside of the nest until death.

"In another study reported in BMC Evolutionary Biology, ant queens of the species Lasius niger will carefully dismember and then bury the corpses of their sister queens who have died from fungal infection. Carrying out this hygienic action reduced the risk of the surviving queen falling ill seven-fold.

"Cremer and Pull believe their recent discoveries on invasive garden ants’ social immune defence responses demonstrate striking parallels between ant colonies and the immune systems of vertebrates.

"Like the immune system of a body that specifically targets and eliminates infected cells, ants destroy the infected pupae to stop the pathogen completing its lifecycle, thus protecting the rest of the colony.

"Hence, in an analogous fashion, the same principles of disease defence apply at different levels of biological organisation. “The ability to detect and destroy harmful elements was likely necessary for the evolution of both multicellular organisms from single celled life and superorganisms from individual animals,” Cremer says."

Comment: The comments from Cremer are correct. The ability to disinfect had to be present from the beginning of ant nest evolution.

Natures wonders: ants kill ants, disinfect nest

by dhw, Tuesday, January 16, 2018, 12:15 (2254 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for yet another wonderful post, highlighting the astonishing intelligence of ants. The manner in which the ant community comes up with these brilliant ideas, and then cooperates in order to implement them, seems to me to illustrate the way in which all cell communities function, both as independent organisms and as communities within organisms.

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp clubs prey

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 18:04 (2253 days ago) @ dhw

How its construction is now understood:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/mantis-shrimp-floats-like-a-butterfly-hits-like-a-he...

"In research published this week in the journal Advanced Materials, researchers from the University of California at Riverside, US, have identified a unique structure that wraps around the shrimp's club to protect it from self-inflicted damage as it crushes hard-shelled prey.

***

"Mantis shrimp, marine crustaceans of the order Stomatopoda, are aggressive hunters known for killing their prey using a predatory strike that is among the fastest known animal movements. Stomatopods are divided into two groups: "spearers", which attack soft-bodied prey using a harpoon-like structure, and the more recently evolved "smashers", which crush hard-shelled prey using a hammer-like appendage called a dactyl club.

"The researchers uncovered how the mantis shrimp uses its smasher to carry out such rapid underwater attacks, which can occur at speeds of up to 23 meters per second. The profile of the club, together with an adjoining region called the propodus, is a hydrodynamic teardrop design that reduces drag resistance.

"This teardrop design allows the club to accelerate so quickly that it shears the water, creating imploding bubbles – an effect known as cavitation – to yield a secondary impact on prey.

***

"In previous research, Kisailus and his team found that the dactyl club is a composite made of mineralised chitin – the same as found in the shells of other crustaceans and insects – but arranged in several unique structures. The exterior of the club, called the impact region, has a hard, crack-resistant coating that enables the mantis shrimp to inflict incredible damage to its prey by transferring its momentum upon impact.

"The interior of the club comprises the periodic region, an energy-absorbing structure that dissipates cracks along a series of long, spiral-like fibres; and the striated region.
In the current paper, the researchers show that the striated region has a series of highly aligned fibres that wrap around the club and stop it from expanding upon impact.

“'We believe the role of the fibre-reinforced striated region in the smasher's club is much like the hand wrap used by boxers when they fight: to compress the club and prevent catastrophic cracking,” Kisailus says.

“'Together, the impact, periodic and striated regions form a club of incredible strength, durability and impact resistance.”

"He says a similar striated architectural element is seen in the smasher's more ancient cousin, the spearer, where it is thought to prevent the long, thin barbs from becoming deformed during penetrating strikes.

"The study suggests the presence of this structure in the spear likely enabled the advent of the smasher and its biological hammer, a diversification that coincided with the appearance of hard-shelled prey with more sophisticated defences.

"The researchers also found a similar structure in the tibia of the land-based praying mantis, suggesting biology has used this design for similar functions."

Comment: Nature always comes up with ingenious designs. Why not recognize the designer, God?

Natures wonders: parasite controls plant's defense

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 18, 2018, 14:59 (2252 days ago) @ David Turell

An obligate parasite's amazing ability to block a plant's defense:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180103132751.htm

"Dodder, a parasitic plant that causes major damage to crops in the US and worldwide every year, can silence the expression of genes in the host plants from which it obtains water and nutrients. This cross-species gene regulation, which includes genes that contribute to the host plant's defense against parasites, has never before been seen from a parasitic plant.

***

"'Dodder is an obligate parasite, meaning that it can't live on its own," said Michael J. Axtell, professor of biology at Penn State and an author of the paper. "Unlike most plants that get energy through photosynthesis, dodder siphons off water and nutrients from other plants by connecting itself to the host vascular system using structures called haustoria. We were able to show that, in addition to the nutrients that flow into dodder from the host plant across the haustoria, dodder passes microRNAs into its host plant that regulate the expression of host genes in a very direct way."

"MicroRNAs are very short bits of nucleic acid -- the material of DNA and RNA -- that can bind to messenger RNAs that code for protein. This binding of microRNA to messenger RNA prevents the protein from being made, either by blocking the process directly or by triggering other proteins that cut the messenger RNA into smaller pieces. Importantly, the small remnants of the messenger RNA can then function like additional microRNAs, binding to other copies of the messenger RNA, causing further gene silencing.

"'Dodder seems to turn on the expression of these microRNAs when it comes into contact with the host plant," said James H. Westwood, professor of plant pathology, physiology, and weed science at Virginia Tech and another author of the paper. "What was really interesting is that the microRNAs specifically target host genes that are involved in the plant's defense against the parasite."

"When a plant is attacked by a parasite it initiates a number of defense mechanisms. In one of these mechanisms, similar to blood clotting after a cut, the plants produce a protein that clots the flow of nutrients to the site of the parasite. MicroRNA from dodder targets the messenger RNA that codes for this protein, which then helps to maintain a free flow of nutrients to the parasite. The gene that codes for this clotting protein has a very similar sequence across many plant species, and the researchers showed that the microRNA from dodder targets regions of the gene sequence that are the most highly conserved across plants.
Because of this, dodder can probably silence this clotting protein in, and therefore parasitize, a wide variety of plant species."

Comment: The evolution of this arrangement must have been stepwise with the Dodder partially independent until it worked out a way to silence the plant's defenses and then become totally obligate. Living organisms show purposeful behavior. I think that was programmed into life when life originated. God at work.

Natures wonders: parasite controls plant's defense

by dhw, Friday, January 19, 2018, 13:03 (2251 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: The evolution of this arrangement must have been stepwise with the Dodder partially independent until it worked out a way to silence the plant's defenses and then become totally obligate. Living organisms show purposeful behavior. I think that was programmed into life when life originated. God at work.

Thank you for another fascinating natural wonder, and also for the long awaited acknowledgement that the Dodder must have worked out a way to silence the plant’s defences. Yes, indeed, living organisms show purposeful behaviour, and it may well be that when life originated, your God gave them the means to behave purposefully and to work out their own solutions to life's problems, as opposed to preprogramming their behaviour and all the solutions. Hallelujah!

Natures wonders: parasite controls plant's defense

by David Turell @, Friday, January 19, 2018, 15:35 (2251 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: The evolution of this arrangement must have been stepwise with the Dodder partially independent until it worked out a way to silence the plant's defenses and then become totally obligate. Living organisms show purposeful behavior. I think that was programmed into life when life originated. God at work.

dhw: Thank you for another fascinating natural wonder, and also for the long awaited acknowledgement that the Dodder must have worked out a way to silence the plant’s defences. Yes, indeed, living organisms show purposeful behaviour, and it may well be that when life originated, your God gave them the means to behave purposefully and to work out their own solutions to life's problems, as opposed to preprogramming their behaviour and all the solutions. Hallelujah! (my bold)

Hallelujah ha! The bolded sentence fits my theory perfectly. "Gave them the means" simply implies that God preprogrammed them with an inventive mechanism, as we have discussed before.

Natures wonders:brittle stars are light sensitive all over

by David Turell @, Friday, January 26, 2018, 14:13 (2244 days ago) @ David Turell

They have light sensitive cells everywhere on their bodies, but no eyes:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/seeing-stars

"The brittle star Ophiocoma wendtii, shown above, is a relative of sea stars and sea urchins that lives among the bright reefs of the Caribbean Sea.

"The creatures have fascinated scientists for decades because they respond to light in striking ways – changing colour between night and day, avoiding light and seeking shelter when exposed – yet have no eyes.

"O. wendtii has an enormous number of microscopic crystal bumps over the tops of their arms, and it has been suggested that these bumps might act as ‘microlenses’ in a visual system. No actual light sensors, however, had been found.

"New research led by Lauren Sumner-Rooney of Oxford University has uncovered the real story.

"Using specially-designed fluorescent antibodies, the researchers identified light-sensitive cells in O. wendtii for the first time – not only in the tops of the arms, but embedded in the skin across the entire body.

"It’s unclear exactly to what extent the brittle stars use the cells to “see”, but behavioural experiments indicate they are able to detect shadows from a distance."

Comment: Darwin thought vision started from light sensitive cells, but it is a giant step to actual eyes. The giant steps are seen in the Cambrian, but the actual evolutionary steps are not understood, since the eyes simply appear out of nothing.

Natures wonders: how giardia attack human guts

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 01:09 (2240 days ago) @ David Turell

By imitating our own proteins to get food from injured cells:

https://www.livescience.com/61550-giardia-mimics-gut-proteins.html?utm_source=ls-newsle...

"If you've ever sipped some untreated tap water while you were abroad on vacation, you may have returned home with an unexpected souvenir: diarrhea.
In most cases, there's a good chance you can blame a resilient, waterborne parasite called Giardia, which is responsible for one of the most common gastrointestinal illnesses in the world. Giardiasis infects an estimated 2 percent of people in high-income countries and 33 percent of people in developing countries.

***

"The first family of proteins that jumped out to the researchers are called proteases, proteins that help the human body digest other proteins, Tyler told Live Science.
"However, if you put them onto a cell, they'll eat through the cell lining and cause damage," Tyler said. "So, we knew those were probably part of the story."

"The second family of proteins was more surprising. "There was a large group that looked very much like human proteins we call tenascins," Tyler said. "We believe that these are structural and functional mimics that've evolved independently in the parasite to do the same things that our proteins do."

"In the human body, tenascins work as part of your cellular remodeling crew. "Tenascins are part of our extracellular matrix, which is present between cells to glue them together and make tissues," Tyler said.

"'Most of the proteins in the extracellular matrix are there to bind the cells together, but when you need to move cells around and remodel tissue, then you need proteins that can unstick them," he said. "That's what tenascins do: unstick cells."

"Combined with proteases, these tenascin-look-alike proteins could pack a powerful one-two punch in the host's intestinal cells. "With the protease, these parasites are pulling the cells of the intestine apart in order to get nutrients from the host," Tyler said, "and with the tenascins, they're stopping the cells from coming back together. So, they've essentially made these human proteins to keep the flow of nutrients open."

***

"'The majority of damage [from Giardia infection] probably comes from accompanying bacteria that can get into that environment and start to proliferate on the foodstuffs that are released between the cellular junctions," Tyler said. "Because people have different bacteria in their guts than one another, some [people] may have more bacteria that causes an inflammatory reaction, or they may have immune systems that react in a more inflammatory way. That probably is the difference between those people who experience severe symptoms and those people who don't.'"

Comment: How Giardia learned to create these mimicking proteins while in the human gut is unknown. It must have taken a period of time to adapt to production of these active proteins, before being able to eat in the gut. Perhaps they just passed through while learning. Giardia are carried by grazing animals in the wild, who while defecating in the waterways pass it on to anyone who takes a drink. It is obvious they learned how to do it.

Natures wonders: naked mole rat length of life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 19:59 (2238 days ago) @ David Turell

It is compared to a half life of radioactive decay:

https://www.livescience.com/61568-naked-mole-rats-no-aging.html?utm_source=ls-newslette...

"Just when it seemed the naked mole rat couldn't get any weirder, it turns out the buck-toothed, bare-skinned rodents don't even age.

"Unlike literally every other mammal, naked mole rats don't become more likely to die as they get up there in years. In humans, for example, with all else being equal besides age, a person's risk of dying doubles every 8 years after age 40. For naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber), there is no increase in the risk of death even when the rats are 25 times older than the onset of sexual maturity.

"'It doesn't matter how old you are," said Rochelle Buffenstein, a senior principal investigator at Calico Life Sciences LLC, a research company in San Francisco. "Your death is random."

***

"The animals' biology is downright weird. They can live without oxygen for up to 18 minutes without ill effect, by switching over to metabolizing fructose instead of the more usual glucose. They almost never get cancer. Their sperm is of "dismal" quality, according to one researcher, yet they are still perfectly fertile. And they live bizarrely long, over 30 years in captivity and up to 17 years in the wild. Based on their size, naked mole rats should live about 6 years in cushy conditions, just like lab mice. Now, it seems their lack of normal aging might help explain their longevity.

"Naked mole rats aren't immortal, of course; they do eventually die. The pattern by which they die, though doesn't seem to be related to how many years they have under their belts. Instead, when Buffenstein and her colleagues graphed out the mortality of naked mole rats through time, they saw a pattern that looks like the exponential decay of a radioactive material: constantly declining by the same proportion of the overall number. In exponential decay, scientists talk about the concept of a "half-life," when half of the original material is left. For nonbreeding naked mole rats in captivity, Buffenstein and her team calculated, the half-life of a group would be 19 years.

"The researchers based their findings on 3,329 naked mole rats living in colonies in their research facility over more than 30 years. They found that on any given day, an average rat's chances of dying were 1 in 10,000.

"'The chance of a mole rat dying at one year of age or dying at 25 years of age is the same," Buffenstein told Live Science. It would be like if humans were equally likely to die at 30 as at 90, she said.

'Naked mole rats don't go through menopause, so they're able to breed even at advanced age.

"Naked mole rats generally don't get many chronic diseases that become familiar to humans as they age, like diabetes or Alzheimer's, Buffenstein said. In the wild, the animals might die by predator attack or from starvation, infection or lack of water, she said. In the lab, the cause of death is usually hard to find; the main issue that shows up in necropsies, Buffenstein said, are mouth sores, indicating the animals weren't eating, drinking or producing saliva well in their last few days and infection set in.

"'We really don't know what's killing them at this point," Buffenstein said.

"Buffenstein and her team are deeply interested in figuring out why naked mole rats seem immune to the normal ravages of age. Other studies have turned up some possible molecular tricks that explain the phenomenon. For example, naked mole rats produce a unique form of a protein called hyaluronan. This protein form, HMW-HA, seems to have anti-cancer properties, according to 2013 research. A 2009 study suggested that the animals also maintain the integrity of their proteins throughout their lives. Their bodies also seem to protect their genomes from damage and clear away cellular mutations rapidly, Buffenstein said."

Comment: A weird product of evolution, which proves there are strange branches on the bush of life. All part of the balance of nature.

Natures wonders: bird call warns of snake

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 01, 2018, 20:25 (2237 days ago) @ David Turell

Japanese Tits have a warning call which other birds can interpret:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2159745-snake-alarm-call-makes-birds-scan-for-appr...

"When we hear a sound associated with a particular object, we are primed to see that object too. The ability to visualise something in this way was once thought to be unique to humans. But some birds seem to have that ability as well, a study has found.

"When the Japanese tit hears a rattling alarm call like that of a snake, it responds as if a snake was nearby and reacts to objects that might be moving like a snake.

"Scientists used a wooden stick to demonstrate the same talent in the Japanese tit, a songbird that produces particular alarm calls only when it encounters dangerous snakes.

"In a series of experiments, recordings of snake-specific calls were played while the birds approached a stick being moved in a serpentine fashion up a tree trunk or along the ground.

"The birds responded as if threatened, but ignored the stick if other non-snake alarm calls were played or the stick’s movement was not snake-like enough.

“These birds do not respond to the calls in a uniform way, but appear to retrieve a snake image and then decide how to deal with the predator according to the circumstance,” says team leader Toshitaka Suzuki, from the Centre for Ecological Research at Kyoto University, Japan.

“'With a snake’s image in mind, tits can efficiently search out a snake regardless of its spatial position.”

"When they meet a real snake, Japanese tits typically go on the offensive, hovering over the reptile while spreading their wings and tail to deter it from attacking.

"Faced with a snake-like moving stick, the birds reacted in the same way but their distraction behaviour was more limited.

“'They may have realised that the stick was not a real snake once they got close enough,” says Suzuki.

"Many animals, including monkeys and meerkats, have been shown to produce calls that warn of specific predators or share the discovery of particular kinds of food."

Comment: Not a surprising learned instinct, considering how bright tool-making corvids are.

Natures wonders: warring bacteria protect plants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 00:48 (2233 days ago) @ David Turell

There are bacteria that associate with plants and protect them from harmful bacteria. this study explores how:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-insight-molecular-weapons-microbiome.html

"Like all organisms, plants are associated with bacterial communities in which helpful and harmful bacteria compete for dominance. Among the weaponry of these warring bacteria are molecular syringes that some bacteria can use to inject toxins into others.

***

"The bacterium Pseudomonas protegens can kill soil-dwelling plant pathogens, including fungi and bacteria that attack the roots of important crops such as cotton. Pseudomonas protegens releases diverse antimicrobial compounds into the soil, but John Whitney was curious specifically about the compounds that it was injecting directly into other bacteria through the type VI secretion system, or T6SS.

"'[The T6SS] is this molecular nanomachine that injects toxic protein into other species of bacteria and kills them," Whitney said. "Plant protective bacteria that have [T6SS] can protect plants from pathogens better relative to [bacteria] that don't have it."

"Jenny Tang and Nathan Bullen, undergraduate students from the University of Waterloo working with Whitney on a co-op work-study assignment, spearheaded the discovery that the toxic protein used by P. protegens against other bacteria acts on a molecule found in nearly all living cells: nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+.

"NAD+ is a cofactor, or "helper" molecule, in many biochemical reactions. By injecting a protein that destroys NAD+, P. protegens is able to kill other bacteria.

"The team then investigated the genome sequences of many other bacteria to see how widespread the strategy of targeting NAD+ is in microbial warfare. They found that many bacteria with secretion systems carry genes similar to the one encoding the NAD-targeting toxin.

"We started to see that this isn't just a way of killing that is enacted by plant-protective bacteria," Whitney said. "If you look at the distribution of this (protein) among all sequenced bacteria, it appears that many different bacteria in many different environmental niches use this mode of action to outcompete other bacteria."

Comment: Nicotinamide is used by humans to protect plants from insect pests. Again looks like evolutionary convergence in that bacteria use it also. The real puzzle is how did this complex arrangement with bacteria and plants ever evolve stepwise, or was it set up all at once.

Natures wonders: bombardier escape mechanism

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 08, 2018, 00:08 (2231 days ago) @ David Turell

Bombardier beetles famously eject a very hot toxin and use it to escape after being swallowed by toads:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2160429-beetles-escape-alive-after-almost-2-hours-...

"Imagine spending almost two hours wallowing in the stomach juices of a toad. Bombardier beetles do just that, but they have found a way to escape alive.

"A swallowed bombardier beetle squirts so much hot, toxic fluid into the toad’s stomach that the animal is sick, ejecting the beetle to freedom.

***

"Bombardier beetles famously produce explosive jets of hot, corrosive and toxic chemicals from their rear ends when threatened. Reaching temperatures of 100°C, the jets make loud popping noises and generate clouds of smoke and steam.

"To find out if this is how the beetles escape, Sugiura and Sato fed single bombardier beetles to toads. They provoked half the beetles to jettison their toxic loads beforehand, depriving them of this means of defense.

"Only 3 out of 37 disarmed beetles survived, whereas 16 out of 37 fully-armed beetles escaped. “We showed that the bombardier beetle ejects toxic chemicals inside the toad, forcing it to vomit,” says Sugiura.

"Bigger beetles survived best, probably because they ejected more toxic fluid and were harder to digest. Likewise, smaller toads allowed more beetles to escape.

"In another experiment, the researchers found bombardier beetles are more likely to survive after 20 minutes in a toad stomach than 14 other beetle species. This suggests they have evolved a tolerance for toad digestive juices.

"Several other prey species are known to escape digestion. They include snails eaten by birds, mussels eaten by sea anemones and nematode worms eaten by slugs. Toxins from the rough-skinned newt rapidly kill frogs that eat it, allowing the newts to crawl back out again."

Comment: Not surprising since the bombardier has the mechanism of defense. The real issue is how did the bombardier evolve the hot toxin and not have it harm itself. Must be done with defenses for its own tissues in space

Natures wonders: 'fastest spin' flattie spiders

by David Turell @, Monday, February 12, 2018, 17:27 (2227 days ago) @ David Turell

The timed spin is the fastest measured. These spiders don't use webs. They stalk and spin:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-fastest-earth-animals-legs-scientists.html

"There's no sneaking by this spider. New research from the University of California Merced and the California Academy of Sciences shows that individuals from the spider family Selenopidae—commonly known as flattie spiders—can sense prey approaching from any direction and whip around in one-eighth of a second to strike. High-speed footage reveals that a swift flex of their long legs helps the hunters accomplish this feat, deemed the fastest leg-driven turn of any animal on the planet.

***

"What makes flattie spiders ready to spin on a dime? It's all in the legs: Their outward stance tracks parallel to the ground, allowing for a wider range of unrestricted motion. Each leg also faces a separate direction and thereby covers a different slice of their 365-degree surroundings. This means the spider can spin to orient itself toward unsuspecting prey no matter the angle of approach.

***

"Flattie spiders keep watchful eyes out—eight to be exact—for their next victim, although it's still not known if any are actually used for seeing. Instead the spiders detect approaching prey, like hopping crickets or buzzing fruit flies, through disturbances in air current.

***

"We found that the leg nearest the prey anchors to the ground, creating a leverage point from which the spider can pull in its torso closer to the prey," says Zeng, describing the spider's linear lunge. Legs opposite the prey push off the ground to assist. Together, this combination of pull and push also provides the beginnings of a twisting force—known as torque—that propels the spider into a swift spin.

"Like figure skaters drawing their arms inward to spin faster, flattie spiders then pull their remaining legs in off the ground, holding them close. This allows the graceful hunters to spin up to 40% faster and land perfectly positioned with their mouth towards that first bite of prey.

"Around the globe, flattie spiders are turning to strike their prey at speeds of up to 3,000 degrees per second. In the time it takes you to blink your eyes, these spiders—when moving full speed—can complete three full rotations. Their spin is the fastest leg-driven turning maneuver of any terrestrial animal, and also one of the fastest turns on the planet—on par with quick airborne spinners like hummingbirds and fruit flies."

Comment: Amazing muscle coordinatiion based on a tiny spider brain which senses air current changes in their nocturnal environment. Be sure to go to the website to see the action video.

Natures wonders: warring ants protect the wounded

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 15, 2018, 13:48 (2224 days ago) @ David Turell

After a fight the less wounded are brought back to the nest for care:

https://www.livescience.com/61752-war-ants-treat-wounds.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&a...

"A species of warmongering sub-Saharan ant not only rescues its battle-wounded soldiers but also treats their injuries.

"This strikingly unusual behavior raises the survival rate for injured ants from a mere 20 percent to 90 percent, according to new research.

***

"M. analis is a nondescript-looking species that lives in colonies of several hundred to over a thousand ants. They're skilled raiders, sending out columns of several hundred ants to attack termite nests and drag termite corpses back to their own nests for a feast. These raids, however, often come with a cost: ants with lost or crushed limbs, or even ants limping home with tenacious termites clinging to their bodies.

***

"They found that in the vast majority of cases, severely injured ants were left to die on the battlefield. This version of ant triage wasn't at the behest of the rescuers, Frank said; instead, ants with five missing limbs flailed, rotated and generally refused to cooperate with their rescuers. Ants with two lost limbs, on the other hand, curled up into easy-to-carry balls and let themselves be taken home.


***

"Once back at the nest, healthy ants would attend to the wounded, licking their injuries for sometimes up to minutes at a time. Ants that were prevented from getting this treatment had an 80-percent chance of dying within 24 hours, the researchers found, whereas ants that were cared for had only a 10-percent chance of death.

"To find out what was killing the injured, untreated ants, the researchers relocated some to a sterile environment and found that only 20 percent died, indicating that infections are probably the biggest risk for injured ants.

"'This seems to strongly suggest that the treatment inside the nest prevents an infection inside the wound," Frank said.

"Any uninjured ant seems capable of providing the licking treatment — there's no indication of dedicated ant "medics," Frank said — but it's not yet clear whether the treatment prevents infections or actively treats them.

"Either way, the behavior is exciting to see because it's extremely rare to observe any individual animal treating another's wounds in any species, Frank said. It's especially counterintuitive in ants, because the tendency is to think that ant individuals are easily replaced cogs in the machinery of the colony, he said. But in M. analis, colonies aren't that large, and only a dozen or so baby ants are born each day, Frank said."

Comment: These ants really work as a societal organization. As a warring group it is likely learned behavior.

Natures wonders: warring ants protect the wounded

by dhw, Friday, February 16, 2018, 12:55 (2223 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: After a fight the less wounded are brought back to the nest for care:
https://www.livescience.com/61752-war-ants-treat-wounds.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&a...

DAVID’s comment: These ants really work as a societal organization. As a warring group it is likely learned behavior.

Ants are truly amazing. Most of our own social behaviour is learned, and the question that arises is how it originates. If the authors’ very credible explanation is right, this apparent altruism has a practical value for the survival of the colony, but it would have required a high degree of intelligence to work out what needed to be done and how to do it. Once again, many thanks for yet another instance of the wonders of nature and the astonishing intelligence of our fellow creatures.

Natures wonders: warring bacteria are clever

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 00:29 (2086 days ago) @ David Turell

They can turn opposing bacteria on each other:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-bacteria-conquer-vanquish-enemies.html

"Some bacteria can release toxins that provoke their neighbours into attacking each other, a tactic that could be exploited to fight infections.

"Bacteria often engage in 'warfare' by releasing toxins or other molecules that damage or kill competing strains. This war for resources occurs in most bacterial communities, such as those living naturally in our gut or those that cause infection.

"As well as producing toxins that directly kill their competitors, bacteria can release toxins that can act as 'provoking agents'. These provoking toxins make other strains increase their aggression levels by boosting their toxic response.

"They found that when used against a single competitor, provocation backfires: the provoked strain mounts a strong toxic counterattack and harms the provoking strain.

"However, when there are three or more strains present, provocation causes the other competing strains to increase their aggression and attack each other. This can lead to the competitors wiping each other out, especially when the provoking strain is shielded from, or resistant to, their toxins.

"Senior author Dr. Despoina Mavridou, from the Department of Life Sciences at Imperial, said: "This behavior is strongly reminiscent of the human 'divide and conquer' strategy, famously delineated by Niccolò Machiavelli in his book The Art of War and shows that bacteria are capable of very elaborate warfare tactics.'"

Comment: The Muslim provided 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' comes to mind.

Natures wonders: how root microbiome helps plants

by David Turell @, Monday, July 05, 2021, 19:37 (988 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210705113916.htm

"Researchers have discovered that signaling occurring from the response of plant leaves to light, and plant roots to microbes, is integrated along a microbiota-root-shoot axis to boost plant growth when light conditions are suboptimal.

***

"the amount and quality of light perceived by chloroplasts through light absorbing pigments, such as chlorophyll, is a defining factor in plant growth and health. A substantial amount of the chemical compounds produced during the conversion of light energy to chemical energy, termed photoassimilates (mainly sugars), is translocated to the plant root compartment and invested in the surrounding soil to sustain microbial growth. Consequently, roots harbour complex microbial communities of bacteria and filamentous eukaryotes (i.e., fungi and oomycetes), and the composition of these communities profoundly influences plant performance.

***

"By comparing the growth of Arabidopsis thaliana (Thale Cress) grown in the absence of root microbes (i.e., germ-free) to those colonized by a complex community of 183 bacteria, 24 fungi and 7 oomycetes, the researchers observed that the presence of microbes rescued the plant growth-deficiency observed under low light conditions. Inoculation experiments with leaf pathogens further indicated that plants colonized by microbes were also more resistant to aboveground leaf pathogens than germ-free control plants, indicating that the presence of root microbes can promote both plant growth and defense under low light.

***

"...the authors of the study then hypothesized that when light conditions are suboptimal, plants favor microbe-induced growth over microbe-induced defense responses. To test this hypothesis, the researchers screened different A. thaliana mutants to identify those that failed to invest in growth under low light. Consistent with their hypothesis, the identified mutants were better at resisting leaf pathogens instead. Furthermore, the scientists found that the presence of the host transcription factor MYC2 was crucial to tip the balance in favor of microbiota-induced growth instead of microbiota-induced defense under low light conditions.

***

"This experiment led to the identification of 67 bacterial strains that were predicted to be associated with plant growth rescue under low light. To test a potential causal link, the researchers prepared three different bacterial communities composed of either: 1) all 183 strains, 2) the 183 strains lacking the 67 strains predicted to be important for growth rescue or 3) the 67 strains alone. Remarkably, A. thaliana wild-type plants colonized with the 67-member community invested in growth under low light, whereas those colonized by the community lacking these bacterial strains did not, instead favoring better resistance to leaf infection by pathogens.

***

"In the words of study lead Stéphane Hacquard: "Our results suggest that plant growth and defense responses are engaged in different feedback loops with the root microbiota depending on aboveground light conditions. It is likely that light-induced change in root exudation profiles is an important mechanism that stimulates the growth of particular beneficial bacterial root commensals that boost plant growth, in the expense of defense responses under low light." The observation that microbiota-root-shoot-circuits exist in plants is reminiscent of recent results obtained in the context of the microbiota-gut-brain axis in animals, where a direct link between gut commensals and brain functions was uncovered. The results suggest that bacterial root and gut commensals have important functions in modulating stress responses not only locally, but also in distant host organs."

Comment: the main import of the study is the above paragraph. All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

Natures wonders: fungal. hyphae electrical signal

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2022, 21:09 (704 days ago) @ David Turell

Possible communication:

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/04/not-just-plants-even-fungi-like-mushrooms-talk-to-each-o...

"Fungi send electrical signals to one another through hyphae—long, filamentous tendrils that the organisms use to grow and explore. The Guardian reports that previous research shows that the number of electrical impulses traveling through hyphae, sometimes likened to neurons, increases when fungi encounter new sources of food, and that this suggests it’s possible that fungi use this “language” to let each other know about new food sources or injury.

"That would make fungi, one of the kingdoms of life, similar to plants in that they can send chemical messages.

"When researchers studied that, they discovered that the messages were somewhat complex:

“'A fungal word length averaged over four species […] is 5.97 which is of the same range as an average word length in some human languages, e.g. 4.8 in English and 6 in Russian,” Adamatsky writes in the paper.

"NATALIA MESA, “CAN MUSHROOMS “TALK” TO EACH OTHER?” AT THE SCIENTIST (APRIL 6, 2022)

***

"While researchers can agree that the patterns are not random, more study is needed before making mushroomese an official language.

“'Though interesting, the interpretation as language seems somewhat overenthusiastic, and would require far more research and testing of critical hypotheses before we see ‘Fungus’ on Google Translate,” said University of Exeter mycologist Dan Bebber, a co-author on previous studies on the phenomenon, who suggested the electrical impulses could be indicative of active nutrient foraging. My bold)

***

"If we assume that nature is full of intelligence, smart systems for active nutrient foraging is roughly what we might expect of mushrooms and other fungi. Unlike plants, fungi can’t produce food from the environment via photosynthesis. And unlike animals, they can’t just hunt it down. They live on the detritus of other life forms and depend on information about where to find it.

"Given the amount of information in nature, it is not surprising that fungi communicate, as plants do, about surrounding conditions. But no, they are not talking about our lives, any more than a smart alarm system is.

"As one researcher put it, it will be a long time before we see “‘Fungus’ on Google Translate.” As in, never. In the meantime, we can enjoy the remarkable intelligence displayed in fungi."

Comment: living organisms operate on electrical impulses as well as other reactions. We needn't assume too much.

Natures wonders: crab migration in Cuba

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 16, 2022, 22:47 (702 days ago) @ David Turell

Now forest to sea:

https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2022-04-12/in-cuba-crabs-embark-on-perilous-m...

"Every year in Cuba, millions of crabs emerge from the forest at the beginning of the spring rains and head for the waters of the Bay of Pigs, crossing streets and highways on a perilous journey to mate and reproduce.

"Now underway, the migration causes concern to drivers who try to swerve in an often futile attempt not to kill the crustaceans. The crabs are a nuisance to residents but the sight of their road-crossing is a wonder for tourists and other first-time onlookers.

“'They got here before us,” said Amaury Urra, a 50-year-old hiking guide who spent his entire life in this part of the Ciénega de Zapata, the largest wetland in the Caribbean, particularly picturesque for the backdrop of turquoise sea waters and the coastal cliffs. ″We’re used to this.″

“'Where I live, which is in the center of the town of Girón, the crabs don’t get there as much,″ though there are plenty on the outskirts, he said.

***

"This year, the crabs started their journey early. At the end of March, the municipal authorities issued a warning to drivers to avoid traveling in the morning and evening hours - the favorite crossing times for the crabs. Environmentalists usually demand the closure of the main road, especially at key migration times.

"The passage of the red crustaceans — the species is called gecarcinus ruricola — could last until July. The largest amount of traffic occurs between April and May. Residents have to be careful: When the crabs feel threatened, they can puncture car tires with their pincers.

"Official figures estimate that some 3.5 million crabs die each season on the road, many crushed by passing vehicles. They take a minute and a half to cross.

"This type of crab lives and migrates in the Bahamas, Nicaragua, Jamaica and Dominica. But only here, and perhaps in another sector of the coast towards the neighboring province of Cienfuegos, does its path collide so dramatically with human traffic."

Comment: not a heat/cold problem as in birds, but crabs are water creatures and mate there. I have no idea why they overwinter in forest.

Natures wonders: how redwoods adapt for water

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 17, 2022, 15:48 (702 days ago) @ David Turell

They are giants, live in California with low rainfall, and have special adaptations of their leaves:

https://www.sciencealert.com/redwood-trees-have-a-secret-trait-that-helps-them-fight-cl...

"Because redwoods are long-lived, large, and decay-resistant, the forests they dominate store more above-ground mass, and thus presumably more carbon, than any other ecosystem on Earth.

***

"Redwoods, it turns out, have two types of leaves that look different and perform very different tasks. This previously unknown feature helps the trees adapt to both wet and dry conditions – an ability that could be key to their survival in a changing climate.

***

"Scientists have long known about redwoods' ability to absorb water through their leaves. But figuring out how much water redwoods can absorb this way, and how the capacity to do so might vary from one type of climate to another, is a real challenge in this species.

"First, a big redwood has over 100 million leaves with a massive amount of surface area for water absorption. And these leaves drastically change structure with height, going from long and flat to short and awllike. So we couldn't get this right by simply picking leaves at ground level.

***

"To complicate matters further, gravity is always pushing down on the giant column of water rising upward through a redwood's trunk. As a result, leaves at the top of the tree always have less available water than those lower down.

***

"As we took apart clusters of redwood shoots to immerse them in fog, we divided each cluster into pieces. Redwood shoot clusters fan out from a woody core and are segmented into individual shoots of multiple ages, each with its own set of leaves. We separated shoots along the woody central axis from the much more common pliable shoots on the outer edges of each cluster.

"It quickly became obvious that shoots from the center axis had leaves that could absorb water three times faster than peripheral leaves. When we looked inside the leaves with a microscope, we understood that they were two completely different types.

"They don't look the same on the outside either, but this was so unexpected that we needed to see their internal structure to really convince ourselves.

***

"With some additional measurements, we found that redwoods' axial leaves are specialized for absorbing water. Differences between the surfaces of axial and peripheral leaves, especially their wax coverage, cause the differences in their water absorption rates.

"Unlike the axial leaves, redwoods' peripheral leaves have waxy surfaces with lots of stomata. This helped to explain how they photosynthesize year-round regardless of the long wet season in much of their current habitat.

"Further analysis showed that the redwoods' axial leaves account for only about 5 percent of the trees' total leaf area, and barely produce enough energy through photosynthesis to maintain themselves. But they contribute up to 30 percent of the trees' total water absorption capacity.

"Together these two types of leaves balance the dueling requirements of photosynthesis and water absorption, allowing redwoods to thrive in both wet and dry habitats.

"Using large-scale tree measurements and equations for estimating redwood leaf area, we estimated that these thirsty giants can absorb as much as 105 pounds (48 kilograms) of water in the first hour of a rainfall wetting their leaves. That's equivalent to 101 pints of beer.

***

"Redwoods vary their two leaf types to suit their local climates. In wet rainforests in the northern part of their range, above Mendocino County, the trees invest in fewer of the axial leaves that are specialized for absorbing water.

"These leaves are concentrated in the trees' lower crowns, leaving the photosynthetically high-performing treetops free to maximize sugar production in the bright sun.

"In dry forests on the southern margins of redwoods' range, trees have more axial leaves in their water-stressed tops.

"This allows them to take better advantage of briefer leaf-wetting events, but it means they photosynthesize less per leaf area than redwoods in wetter areas.

"Redwoods' ability to shift leaf types to match regional climatic differences may help them adjust to climate change in an ever-drier California."

Comment: dhw will wonder why these trees exist. I accept they do.

Natures wonders: sex lures let plants eat insects

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 19:59 (699 days ago) @ David Turell

A new possible plant of this type:


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jack-in-the-pulpit-plant-flower-sex-lure-pollinator...

"Jack-in-the-pulpits (Arisaema) are the only plants known to kill their own insect pollinators as a matter of routine, says evolutionary ecologist Kenji Suetsugu of Kobe University in Japan. The new twist, if confirmed, would be using sexual deception to woo pollinators into the death traps.

"Until now, biologists have found only three plant families with any species that pretend to offer sex to insects, Suetsugu says online March 28 in Plants, People, Planet. But unlike deceit in jack-in-the-pulpits, those other attractions aren’t fatal, just phony.

"The orchid family has turned out multiple cheats, some so seductive that a male insect leaves wasted sperm as well as pollen on a flower. Yet he doesn’t get even a sip of nectar (SN: 3/5/08; SN: 3/27/08). Similar scams have turned up among daisies: A few dark bumps that a human in bad light might mistake for an insect can drive male flies to frenzies on the yellow, orange or red Gorteria petals. Enthusiasm wanes with repeated disappointment though (SN: 1/29/14). And among irises, a species dangles velvety purple petals where deluded insects wallow.

"Two jack-in-the-pulpit species in Japan have now raised suspicions that their family, the arums, should be added to the list of sexual cheats. To visually oriented humans, the 180 or so Arisaema species look like just a merry reminder of evolution’s endless weirdness.

***

"These oddball flowers depend mostly on pollinators that deserve a much bigger fan base: fungus gnats. These gnats, small as punctuation marks and hard to identify, are true flies. But don’t hold that against them. They don’t stalk picnic spreads or buzz-thump against windows. Pollinating gnats “are very frail,” Suetsugu says, and their wings make no noise a human can hear.

***

"A tiny escape hatch deep in the trap stays open during the male phase of flowering, but that two-millimeter hole vanishes during the big mama stage. A gnat can’t overcome the slippery, flaking wax of the plant’s inner wall to climb out. So any gnat tricked twice is doomed.

***

"The notion that biologists have so far overlooked a scent important to other animals seems “more than possible” to Kelsey J.R.P. Byers of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, England. Byers’ work overturned a common assumption that monkeyflowers (Mimulus) had no scent even though hawkmoths, flying at night and known to track odors, visit the flowers.

“We’re such visual creatures,” says Byers, who studies floral scents. We can laugh at how insects mistake some off-color blob of plant tissue for a fabulous female, but we’re missing the odors. Fungus gnats, however, even look like the citizens of a smellier world, with giant guy-style antennae “like an ostrich plume on a hat.”

"At least now, modern analytical lab techniques and equipment are opening up the vast sensory world of communication wafting around us. To see if even familiar plants like jack-in-the-pulpits are up to something odd, scientists need to identify the lure itself. Then maybe we’ll understand the irresistible valentine scent of a female fungus gnat."

Comment: the steps to create this include, a physical trap design, a pheromone that is correct and digestive enzymes with protections for the plant itself. Irreducibly complex, it must be designed.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Friday, September 14, 2018, 02:15 (2013 days ago) @ David Turell

Electrical impulses and glutamate use demonstrated:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-blazes-reveal-danger-distances.html

"'We do know that if you wound a leaf, you get an electrical charge, and you get a propagation that moves across the plant," Gilroy adds. What triggered that electric charge, and how it moved throughout the plant, were unknown.

"But calcium was one candidate. Ubiquitous in cells, calcium often acts as a signal about a changing environment. And because calcium carries a charge, it can also produce an electrical signal. But calcium is ephemeral, spiking and dipping in concentration quickly. The researchers needed a way to see the calcium in real time.

"So Toyota developed plants that showed calcium in a whole new light. The plants produce a protein that only fluoresces around calcium, letting the researchers track its presence and concentration. Then came caterpillar bites, scissor cuts and crushing wounds.

"In response to each kind of damage, videos show the plants lighting up as calcium flows from the site of damage to other leaves. The signal moved quickly, about one millimeter per second. That's just a fraction of the speed of animal nerve impulses, but it's lightning fast in the plant world—quick enough to spread out to other leaves in just a couple minutes. It took just a few more minutes for defense-related hormone levels to spike in distant leaves. These defense hormones help prepare the plant for future threats by, for example, increasing the levels of noxious chemicals to ward off predators.

"Previous research by Swiss scientist Ted Farmer has demonstrated that defense-related electrical signals depended on receptors for glutamate, an amino acid that is a major neurotransmitter in animals and also common in plants. Farmer showed that mutant plants missing glutamate receptors also lost their electrical responses to threats. So Toyota and Gilroy looked at the flow of calcium during wounding in these mutant plants.

"'Lo and behold, the mutants that knock out the electrical signaling completely knock out the calcium signaling as well," says Gilroy.

"Where normal plants blaze brightly with fluorescent calcium waves during wounding, videos show the mutant plants barely sputtering marginal flashes of light. These results suggest that glutamate spilling out from wound sites triggers the burst in calcium that spreads across the plant.

"The study connects decades of research that has revealed how plants, often seen as inert, dynamically respond to threats by preparing distant tissues to deal with future attacks. Glutamate leads to calcium leads to defense hormones and altered growth and biochemistry, all without a nervous system."

Comment: Plants must have this kind of defense or they would not have survived. Must have been designed, because it could not have developed by chance mutations.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, September 14, 2018, 02:40 (2013 days ago) @ David Turell

Electrical impulses and glutamate use demonstrated:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-blazes-reveal-danger-distances.html

"'We do know that if you wound a leaf, you get an electrical charge, and you get a propagation that moves across the plant," Gilroy adds. What triggered that electric charge, and how it moved throughout the plant, were unknown.

"But calcium was one candidate. Ubiquitous in cells, calcium often acts as a signal about a changing environment. And because calcium carries a charge, it can also produce an electrical signal. But calcium is ephemeral, spiking and dipping in concentration quickly. The researchers needed a way to see the calcium in real time.

"So Toyota developed plants that showed calcium in a whole new light. The plants produce a protein that only fluoresces around calcium, letting the researchers track its presence and concentration. Then came caterpillar bites, scissor cuts and crushing wounds.

"In response to each kind of damage, videos show the plants lighting up as calcium flows from the site of damage to other leaves. The signal moved quickly, about one millimeter per second. That's just a fraction of the speed of animal nerve impulses, but it's lightning fast in the plant world—quick enough to spread out to other leaves in just a couple minutes. It took just a few more minutes for defense-related hormone levels to spike in distant leaves. These defense hormones help prepare the plant for future threats by, for example, increasing the levels of noxious chemicals to ward off predators.

"Previous research by Swiss scientist Ted Farmer has demonstrated that defense-related electrical signals depended on receptors for glutamate, an amino acid that is a major neurotransmitter in animals and also common in plants. Farmer showed that mutant plants missing glutamate receptors also lost their electrical responses to threats. So Toyota and Gilroy looked at the flow of calcium during wounding in these mutant plants.

"'Lo and behold, the mutants that knock out the electrical signaling completely knock out the calcium signaling as well," says Gilroy.

"Where normal plants blaze brightly with fluorescent calcium waves during wounding, videos show the mutant plants barely sputtering marginal flashes of light. These results suggest that glutamate spilling out from wound sites triggers the burst in calcium that spreads across the plant.

"The study connects decades of research that has revealed how plants, often seen as inert, dynamically respond to threats by preparing distant tissues to deal with future attacks. Glutamate leads to calcium leads to defense hormones and altered growth and biochemistry, all without a nervous system."

Comment: Plants must have this kind of defense or they would not have survived. Must have been designed, because it could not have developed by chance mutations.

The interesting thing is that this could be looked at two ways. One way is using the 'competitive ecology model' that views this as a defense mechanism. The other way is to see this as a negative feedback loop to segregate vegetative food sources. The plant gets wounded, sends out a signal that raises toxicity, herbivores sensitive to the toxin would get deterred, probably through getting ill, while those that were immune to it munched their way through their food supply. In short, it may be a food/animal matching mechanism. Dollars to doughnuts, animal noses are keyed negatively to those particular toxins that they are not immune to or positively towards those they are immune to. Like the different UV signalling of nectar and pollen bearing plants.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Friday, September 14, 2018, 05:56 (2013 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Electrical impulses and glutamate use demonstrated:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-blazes-reveal-danger-distances.html

"'We do know that if you wound a leaf, you get an electrical charge, and you get a propagation that moves across the plant," Gilroy adds. What triggered that electric charge, and how it moved throughout the plant, were unknown.

"But calcium was one candidate. Ubiquitous in cells, calcium often acts as a signal about a changing environment. And because calcium carries a charge, it can also produce an electrical signal. But calcium is ephemeral, spiking and dipping in concentration quickly. The researchers needed a way to see the calcium in real time.

"So Toyota developed plants that showed calcium in a whole new light. The plants produce a protein that only fluoresces around calcium, letting the researchers track its presence and concentration. Then came caterpillar bites, scissor cuts and crushing wounds.

"In response to each kind of damage, videos show the plants lighting up as calcium flows from the site of damage to other leaves. The signal moved quickly, about one millimeter per second. That's just a fraction of the speed of animal nerve impulses, but it's lightning fast in the plant world—quick enough to spread out to other leaves in just a couple minutes. It took just a few more minutes for defense-related hormone levels to spike in distant leaves. These defense hormones help prepare the plant for future threats by, for example, increasing the levels of noxious chemicals to ward off predators.

"Previous research by Swiss scientist Ted Farmer has demonstrated that defense-related electrical signals depended on receptors for glutamate, an amino acid that is a major neurotransmitter in animals and also common in plants. Farmer showed that mutant plants missing glutamate receptors also lost their electrical responses to threats. So Toyota and Gilroy looked at the flow of calcium during wounding in these mutant plants.

"'Lo and behold, the mutants that knock out the electrical signaling completely knock out the calcium signaling as well," says Gilroy.

"Where normal plants blaze brightly with fluorescent calcium waves during wounding, videos show the mutant plants barely sputtering marginal flashes of light. These results suggest that glutamate spilling out from wound sites triggers the burst in calcium that spreads across the plant.

"The study connects decades of research that has revealed how plants, often seen as inert, dynamically respond to threats by preparing distant tissues to deal with future attacks. Glutamate leads to calcium leads to defense hormones and altered growth and biochemistry, all without a nervous system."

Comment: Plants must have this kind of defense or they would not have survived. Must have been designed, because it could not have developed by chance mutations.


Tony: The interesting thing is that this could be looked at two ways. One way is using the 'competitive ecology model' that views this as a defense mechanism. The other way is to see this as a negative feedback loop to segregate vegetative food sources. The plant gets wounded, sends out a signal that raises toxicity, herbivores sensitive to the toxin would get deterred, probably through getting ill, while those that were immune to it munched their way through their food supply. In short, it may be a food/animal matching mechanism. Dollars to doughnuts, animal noses are keyed negatively to those particular toxins that they are not immune to or positively towards those they are immune to. Like the different UV signalling of nectar and pollen bearing plants.

What is also fascinating is that glutamate is active in our brains.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Friday, December 07, 2018, 23:17 (1928 days ago) @ David Turell

Another defense found:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181207112727.htm

"Plants wounded by e.g. chewing herbivores produce jasmonic acid as a defense signal, as a phytohormone to mount their defense responses -- this includes for example the formation of toxic substances. They even employ volatile derivatives of jasmonic acid to warn their neighbors to fight the rising threat in time.

***

"They found that jasmonic acid also is involved in the quick closure of stomata.

"Stomata are adjustable pores formed by two guard cells in the epidermis of plant leaves. They control the uptake of carbon dioxide crucial for photosynthesis and at the same time the plants' water balance. The phytohormone abscisic acid (ABA) represents a key signal for stomatal closure. Plants produce ABA during drought stress to save water.

"During their experiments on guard cell volume control by biotic stress the team from the JMU Chair of Plantphysiology and Biophysics noticed that mechanical wounding of leaves of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana quickly triggers stomatal closure, too. Surprisingly, this effect was not restricted to the wounded leaf, but also occurred in neighboring leaves.

***

"Stomatal closure requires the efflux of anions and potassium mediated by guard cell ion channels. To understand the molecular mechanism that underlie jasmonic acid controlled stomatal closure the Becker team went out searching for mutants that would not respond to jasmonate treatment.

***

"'Wounding induces calcium signals in guard cells and in electrophysiological studies we could demonstrate that the calcium-binding CBL1/CIPK5 complex activates the ion channel," Dirk Becker states.

"The research team further identified the protein phosphatase ABI2 to counteract kinase mediated channel activation, thus representing a negative regulator of jasmonate signaling in guard cells. Becker further explains, "Interestingly, ABI2 is the co-receptor for the plant drought hormone ABA. This is indicating molecular crosstalk between the two phytohormones jasmonic acid and abscisic acid." Indeed, together with colleagues from the Pedro Rodriguez lab (Universitat Politecnica Valencia) the team could show that Arabidopsis mutants lacking guard cell ABA receptors are also insensitive to jasmonic acid.

"With their story the international team of plant biologists led by JMU scientist Dirk Becker has made an important step in understanding the molecular framework that allows plants to respond to wounding stress in guard cells. Leaf turgor and photosynthetic rates correlate with stomatal conductance.

***

"Plant pathogenic Pseudomonas bacteria are capable of producing a molecular mimicry of jasmonic acid, known as Coronatine. Plant physiologists commonly use Coronatine as a substitute for jasmonic acid in their experiments.

"'In the long term, however," Becker explains, "Coronatine does just the opposite of jasmonic acid in guard cells: it opens stomata providing an entry pathway for the pathogenic bacteria." This puzzling observation shall be resolved in future studies by comparing differentially expressed genes in guard cells after jasmonic acid or coronatine treatment."

Comment: more plant complexity in their defense mechanisms. How did Pseudomonas bacteria learn to mimic jasmonic acid? Trial and error? Did God bother to design this? At times the findings have no apparent explanation.

Natures wonders: plant signals when stressed

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 21:48 (1563 days ago) @ David Turell

They can squeal at a level we cannot hear when stressed, among other abilities:

https://www.livescience.com/plants-squeal-when-stressed.html?utm_source=Selligent&u...

"plant sounds are too high-frequency for us to hear them, according to the research, which was posted Dec. 2 on the bioRxiv database. But when researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel placed microphones near stressed tomato and tobacco plants, the instruments picked up the crops' ultrasonic squeals from about 4 inches (10 centimeters) away. The noises fell within a range of 20 to 100 kilohertz, a volume that could feasibly "be detected by some organisms from up to several meters away"

"Like animals, plants respond to stress in a variety of ways; studies suggest that plants may release smelly chemical compounds or change their color and shape in response to drought and bites from hungry herbivores. Animals seem to recognize and respond to these botanical stress signals, and even other plants appear to pick up on the airborne scents wafting from their tense neighbors. Some previous research had suggested that plants react to sound, too, but questions remained about whether plants themselves emit detectable noises.

"The recordings revealed that the different plant species made distinct sounds at varying rates, depending on their stressor. Drought-stressed tomato plants emitted about 35 ultrasonic squeals per hour, on average, while those with cut stems made about 25. Drought-stressed tobacco plants let out about 11 screams per hour, and cut crops made about 15 sounds in the same time. In comparison, the average number of sounds emitted by untouched plants fell below one per hour.

"In this study, the authors did not test whether plants exposed to disease, excess levels of salt or unfavorable temperatures also emit sound, so it remains unknown whether all stressed plants squeal. However, the researchers did record similar sounds in other cut or drought-stressed plants, including spiny pincushion cacti, and henbit deadnettle weeds. Insects, such as moths, may listen for sounds emitted by stressed plants to assess their condition before laying eggs on their leaves, the authors suggested.

"Until the scientists observe how and whether moths react to plant noises, this conclusion remains speculative, the authors added — in fact, one outside expert said the idea may be a "little too speculative."

"Edward Farmer, a professor of plant molecular biology at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, told New Scientist that insects are known to favor certain plants for a variety of reasons and that he doubts excessive noise is one of those reasons. Furthermore, the new study failed to account for sounds that drying soil may make on its own, as well as other confounding noises that the researchers' microphones may have picked up, Farmer added. "

Comment: No explanation of how sounds are made. All organisms need defenses and I am sure they are designed into the organisms DNA instructions.

Natures wonders: plant signals when stressed

by David Turell @, Friday, January 24, 2020, 19:31 (1515 days ago) @ David Turell

Sweet potatoes release strong chemical smell signals when stressed:

https://legitresearchchemicals.com/sweet-potato-sends-secret-signals/

"When nibbled, the leaves of one type of sweet potato release a strong-smelling chemical warning that prompts other leaves—on the same plant and those nearby—to produce defensive proteins that make them hard to digest. New research tracks this odorous alert system.

“'It’s sort of a shortcut,” says Axel Mithöfer, a plant ecologist at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany,...Other plants have chemical warning systems that prompt neighbors to prepare for attack, but individual leaves often wait to manufacture defensive compounds until bitten themselves. But this plant’s leaves produce the compound immediately when neighbors are bitten, he says.

"To investigate this response, Mithöfer and his colleagues released caterpillars on the pest-resistant sweet potato strain Tainong (TN) 57 and its more susceptible cousin TN66, both native to Taiwan. Each “exhaled” at least 40 chemicals when attacked, but the TN57 leaves released twice the amount of a compound called DMNT, also found in other plant-defense responses.

"Next, the scientists placed a healthy TN57 plant in a closed glass tank with one whose leaves had been pierced with tweezers. Within 24 hours high levels of a protein called sporamin formed in both plants’ uninjured leaves. Sporamin, also found in sweet potato tubers themselves, is what makes it difficult for humans to digest them uncooked—and it causes trouble in insect guts, too. When researchers released synthesized DMNT into a tank with healthy plants, the leaves again readily formed sporamin.

"Mithöfer’s team is now probing the mechanism TN57 leaves use to “smell” and “recognize” DMNT. The researchers also hope to test whether other chemicals the leaves release also elicit defenses.

"Cesar Rodriguez-Saona, an entomologist at Rutgers University, who was not involved in the study, says this research showcases an intriguing defense mechanism—although he cautions that DMNT exposure in closed tanks could be higher than what plants experience in open, windy fields. It is also possible, he notes, that unattacked TN57s may not always expend the energy to use this direct defense “shortcut.'”

Comment: Other defense mechanism like this have been previously described here. Looks like a designed system because the proper protein signal is very unlikely found by a chance mechanism.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Friday, May 08, 2020, 23:34 (1410 days ago) @ David Turell

A new set of plant defense findings:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200508083547.htm


"Some plants, like soybean, are known to possess an innate defense machinery that helps them develop resistance against insects trying to feed on them. However, exactly how these plants recognize signals from insects has been unknown until now. Scientists have now uncovered the cellular pathway that helps these plants to sense danger signals and elicit a response, opening doors to a myriad of agricultural applications.

***

"Plants, too, have innate systems that are triggered in response to a particular threat, such as insects feeding on them. For example, some plants sense "herbivore-derived danger signals" (HDS), which are specific chemicals in oral secretions of insects. This activates a cascade of events in the plant's defense machinery, which leads to the plant developing "resistance" to (or "immunity" against) the predator. (my bold)

***

"They chose to study membrane proteins called "receptor-like kinases" (RLKs), which are found in soybean leaves. They based their study on previous evidence from plants like Arabidopsis, tobacco, and cowpea, in which RLKs play a major role in HDS systems.

***

"When they tested these plants using oral secretions from the pest, they uncovered genes for two novel RLKs that showed a defense response specific to the oral secretions, called GmHAK1 and GmHAK2. These findings were unprecedented: the role of these RLKs in soybean HDS systems had never been revealed before. Moreover, when the scientists dug deeper into the mechanism of these regulatory factors in Arabidopsis, they found two proteins, a HAK homolog and PBL27 (which play a role in intracellular signaling), to be involved in this pathway. Accordingly, this confirmed what the scientists had initially expected―soybean and Arabidopsis possess similar mechanisms for "danger response.'"

Comment: Once again we see complex gene controlled defense mechanisms that had to be designed to protect plants when they evolved. Note the bold. A cascade is an organized series of events that requires no input from intelligence having been triggered by molecular responses.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 17, 2020, 19:12 (1279 days ago) @ David Turell

Another review:

http://nautil.us/issue/90/something-green/when-plants-go-to-war-rp?mc_cid=0b8d3e5c0f&am...

"The voracious appetites of pests put plants under constant stress: They have to fight just to stay alive.

"And fight they do. Far from being passive victims, plants have evolved potent defenses: chemical compounds that serve as toxins, signal an escalating attack, and solicit help from unlikely allies.

***

"Rather than pump out chemical defenses 24-7 (a waste of resources), plants hold off production until an attack is underway. As soon as an insect bites a leaf, the leaf sounds the alarm by emitting volatiles—chemical flares that tell other parts of the plant, as well as its neighbors, to start manning the barricades.

"This early warning system works via a cascade of molecular events. First, it triggers the release of “jasmonate” hormones, which in turn break down proteins known as JAZ. These proteins silence genes that direct the manufacture of various toxic and protective chemicals. By eliminating JAZ, jasmonate hormones free these genes to express themselves, thus powering up a plant’s weapons assembly line.

"Plants also make use of underground networks to warn each other of impending danger. Many species have a symbiotic relationship with a soil-borne fungus, which penetrates the outer layers of a plant’s roots, feeding off its carbon stores and helping it take up vital nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in return. The fungus grows by sending out long, threadlike branches called hyphae, which colonize nearby plants, forming vast underground webs.

"In experiments with bean plants, when researchers placed aphids on a plant encased in a polythene bag (so it couldn’t broadcast warnings by air), other plants hooked up to the subterranean fungal web began churning out defensive compounds. Their unconnected neighbors, however, did not. The fungus appears to work like a biological Internet, carrying vital intelligence from plant to plant.

"Plants also conserve resources by recruiting allies to fight some of their battles for them. Among a plant’s armaments are volatiles that beckon predators of its insect attackers.

"When caterpillars graze European maize, for example, the plants emit the volatile β-caryophyllene, which attracts parasitic wasps. The wasps lay their eggs inside the caterpillars, slowing their feeding and eventually, when the eggs hatch a few weeks later, killing them. European maize also releases β-caryophyllene below ground in response to rootworm attacks. This signal drifts through pores in the soil, calling to predatory roundworms: “Dinner’s ready, come and get it!”

***

"Plants in the Brassicaceae family (including broccoli, cabbage, and mustard) store seemingly harmless compounds known as glucosinolates in cellular compartments next to stores of enzymes called myrosinase. The two reserves are separated only by a thin cell wall. When an unsuspecting herbivore chews through this wall, the myrosinase enzymes mix with the glucosinolates, catalyzing chemical reactions that engulf the attacker in a toxic cloud.

***

"Aphids, for example, release the pheromone β-farnesene when a predator attacks. This warning tells other aphids in the area that they’ve been rumbled and it’s time to skedaddle. Plants often emit β-farnesene during an aphid attack, perhaps in an attempt to scare off their aggressors by aping their distress call. But not just any β-farnesene signal will do.

***

"During a hard-fought battle, a plant must tend to its injuries. A range of compounds known as green leaf volatiles act as antiseptics, protecting damaged tissue against bacterial or fungal infection. (These volatiles, which make up the fragrance of freshly cut grass, send another warning to neighboring plants, reminding them that danger is at hand.)

"An injured plant also produces traumatic acid, known as the “wound hormone,” which stimulates cell division to close up a laceration in much the same way that blood clots in an animal’s wound. These responses happen within minutes of attack: Plants begin patching themselves up while still fighting off invaders".

Comment: An amazing list of plant defenses, by God's design. How would chance mutations solve these problems? Would plants survive the time it took to find answers?

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by dhw, Friday, September 18, 2020, 11:05 (1278 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: Far from being passive victims, plants have evolved potent defenses: chemical compounds that serve as toxins, signal an escalating attack, and solicit help from unlikely allies.

Plants also make use of underground networks to warn each other of impending danger. Many species have a symbiotic relationship with a soil-borne fungus

During a hard-fought battle, a plant must tend to its injuries.

DAVID: An amazing list of plant defenses, by God's design. How would chance mutations solve these problems? Would plants survive the time it took to find answers?

First and foremost, once more huge thanks for all the "wonders" articles – and especially this one on plants. These posts are a real education in themselves. I’ve cherry-picked the above quotes because yet again they raise the whole question of cellular and organismal intelligence. The expressions used (“solicit help”, “warn”, “make use of” “tend to”) show just how difficult it is to describe these actions without implying a form of awareness. Not our own form, of course, but an intelligence confined to working out strategies for survival. I agree with you that chance mutations are so unlikely as to be out of the question. I do not agree with you that these defences could not have taken time to evolve. I’m not going to ask you why your God, whose sole purpose was apparently to design H. sapiens, would have stepped in to design these particular defences, but I will ask you why plants can’t “take time” though you know that bacteria take time to find solutions to the problems we humans set them, and billions of them die until they find a means of combating the new threat. New diseases kill humans and it takes time for a cure to be found or the body to develop its own defences. Many plants would no doubt also have died until the defences were found. But disease does not mean extinction. New attackers will continue to succeed until the surviving victims can develop a successful defence.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Friday, September 18, 2020, 15:06 (1278 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: Far from being passive victims, plants have evolved potent defenses: chemical compounds that serve as toxins, signal an escalating attack, and solicit help from unlikely allies.

Plants also make use of underground networks to warn each other of impending danger. Many species have a symbiotic relationship with a soil-borne fungus

During a hard-fought battle, a plant must tend to its injuries.

DAVID: An amazing list of plant defenses, by God's design. How would chance mutations solve these problems? Would plants survive the time it took to find answers?

dhw: First and foremost, once more huge thanks for all the "wonders" articles – and especially this one on plants. These posts are a real education in themselves. I’ve cherry-picked the above quotes because yet again they raise the whole question of cellular and organismal intelligence. The expressions used (“solicit help”, “warn”, “make use of” “tend to”) show just how difficult it is to describe these actions without implying a form of awareness. Not our own form, of course, but an intelligence confined to working out strategies for survival. I agree with you that chance mutations are so unlikely as to be out of the question. I do not agree with you that these defences could not have taken time to evolve. I’m not going to ask you why your God, whose sole purpose was apparently to design H. sapiens, would have stepped in to design these particular defences, but I will ask you why plants can’t “take time” though you know that bacteria take time to find solutions to the problems we humans set them, and billions of them die until they find a means of combating the new threat. New diseases kill humans and it takes time for a cure to be found or the body to develop its own defences. Many plants would no doubt also have died until the defences were found. But disease does not mean extinction. New attackers will continue to succeed until the surviving victims can develop a successful defence.

These articles keep appearing and I will keep presenting, so thank you for cheering me on. The problem with developing a defense is recognizing the complexity of the defense and finding the right combination of protein molecules with the proper functions. Chance hunt-and-peck won't do it. In using bacteria as an example you forget they multiply every 20 minutes and use gene transfer. Plants crawl along in growth and reproduction. But attacks by pests are immediate and constant. As for humans remember babies are born with immediate defenses such as interferon and if nursing from colostrum antibodies. In adults antibodies appear immediately and in large enough numbers over a very short period of time. Recovery from flu is about two weeks. I'll stick with design.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by dhw, Saturday, September 19, 2020, 10:14 (1277 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: Far from being passive victims, plants have evolved potent defenses: chemical compounds that serve as toxins, signal an escalating attack, and solicit help from unlikely allies.

Plants also make use of underground networks to warn each other of impending danger. Many species have a symbiotic relationship with a soil-borne fungus

During a hard-fought battle, a plant must tend to its injuries.

DAVID: An amazing list of plant defenses, by God's design. How would chance mutations solve these problems? Would plants survive the time it took to find answers?

I missed out the following quotation from another post:
DAVID (under “Guppies”): A neat designed defense. This could not have developed over time or guppies would not have survived.

dhw: First and foremost, once more huge thanks for all the "wonders" articles – and especially this one on plants. These posts are a real education in themselves. I’ve cherry-picked the above quotes because yet again they raise the whole question of cellular and organismal intelligence. The expressions used (“solicit help”, “warn”, “make use of” “tend to”) show just how difficult it is to describe these actions without implying a form of awareness. Not our own form, of course, but an intelligence confined to working out strategies for survival. I agree with you that chance mutations are so unlikely as to be out of the question. I do not agree with you that these defences could not have taken time to evolve. I’m not going to ask you why your God, whose sole purpose was apparently to design H. sapiens, would have stepped in to design these particular defences, but I will ask you why plants can’t “take time” though you know that bacteria take time to find solutions to the problems we humans set them, and billions of them die until they find a means of combating the new threat. New diseases kill humans and it takes time for a cure to be found or the body to develop its own defences. Many plants would no doubt also have died until the defences were found. But disease does not mean extinction. New attackers will continue to succeed until the surviving victims can develop a successful defence.

DAVID: These articles keep appearing and I will keep presenting, so thank you for cheering me on.

What keeps this website going is not only the wonders, but also your amazing capacity for keeping us updated on the latest research in all the different fields – even on those rare occasions when the research goes against your own beliefs, as with the question of new genes. Our own discussions tend to go round in circles, but may sometimes help to clarify ideas. The articles you present are an ongoing education, which more than fulfils the hopes I had when I opened the website. So I am the one to say thank you, and yes, I’ll cheer you on even in the midst of our battles!

DAVID: The problem with developing a defense is recognizing the complexity of the defense and finding the right combination of protein molecules with the proper functions. Chance hunt-and-peck won't do it. In using bacteria as an example you forget they multiply every 20 minutes and use gene transfer. Plants crawl along in growth and reproduction. But attacks by pests are immediate and constant. As for humans remember babies are born with immediate defenses such as interferon and if nursing from colostrum antibodies. In adults antibodies appear immediately and in large enough numbers over a very short period of time. Recovery from flu is about two weeks. I'll stick with design.

All this is also educational, but misses the point of my post. I’m not arguing for chance hunt-and-peck. But “finding the right combination of protein molecules with the proper functions” takes time, and although attacks by pests and by new diseases is immediate and constant, the fact that they cause death and destruction shows that the “cure” DOES take time, as cells and cell communities search for the right combination. Once cures have been found, they are passed on, and so babies are born with immediate defences, and bacteria become resistant to our efforts to destroy them. My point is that the system (I propose cellular intelligence, which does the "designing") is there from the beginning, but it constantly adapts as it has to work out defences against new threats. The “cures” are NOT there from the beginning. And I would extend this to the whole mechanism of evolution, as intelligent cells / cell communities respond to new conditions by adapting themselves (process proven) or by creating brand new structures (speciation - process unproven).

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 19, 2020, 15:05 (1277 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: Far from being passive victims, plants have evolved potent defenses: chemical compounds that serve as toxins, signal an escalating attack, and solicit help from unlikely allies.

Plants also make use of underground networks to warn each other of impending danger. Many species have a symbiotic relationship with a soil-borne fungus

During a hard-fought battle, a plant must tend to its injuries.

DAVID: An amazing list of plant defenses, by God's design. How would chance mutations solve these problems? Would plants survive the time it took to find answers?

I missed out the following quotation from another post:
DAVID (under “Guppies”): A neat designed defense. This could not have developed over time or guppies would not have survived.

dhw: First and foremost, once more huge thanks for all the "wonders" articles – and especially this one on plants. These posts are a real education in themselves. I’ve cherry-picked the above quotes because yet again they raise the whole question of cellular and organismal intelligence. The expressions used (“solicit help”, “warn”, “make use of” “tend to”) show just how difficult it is to describe these actions without implying a form of awareness. Not our own form, of course, but an intelligence confined to working out strategies for survival. I agree with you that chance mutations are so unlikely as to be out of the question. I do not agree with you that these defences could not have taken time to evolve. I’m not going to ask you why your God, whose sole purpose was apparently to design H. sapiens, would have stepped in to design these particular defences, but I will ask you why plants can’t “take time” though you know that bacteria take time to find solutions to the problems we humans set them, and billions of them die until they find a means of combating the new threat. New diseases kill humans and it takes time for a cure to be found or the body to develop its own defences. Many plants would no doubt also have died until the defences were found. But disease does not mean extinction. New attackers will continue to succeed until the surviving victims can develop a successful defence.

DAVID: These articles keep appearing and I will keep presenting, so thank you for cheering me on.

dhw: What keeps this website going is not only the wonders, but also your amazing capacity for keeping us updated on the latest research in all the different fields – even on those rare occasions when the research goes against your own beliefs, as with the question of new genes. Our own discussions tend to go round in circles, but may sometimes help to clarify ideas. The articles you present are an ongoing education, which more than fulfils the hopes I had when I opened the website. So I am the one to say thank you, and yes, I’ll cheer you on even in the midst of our battles!

To answer the bold, the internet makes finding new research easy. As for things that change my mind, I'm still learning, and my mind is open to every point that I feel is not settled. God is settled. The rest is still open.


DAVID: The problem with developing a defense is recognizing the complexity of the defense and finding the right combination of protein molecules with the proper functions. Chance hunt-and-peck won't do it. In using bacteria as an example you forget they multiply every 20 minutes and use gene transfer. Plants crawl along in growth and reproduction. But attacks by pests are immediate and constant. As for humans remember babies are born with immediate defenses such as interferon and if nursing from colostrum antibodies. In adults antibodies appear immediately and in large enough numbers over a very short period of time. Recovery from flu is about two weeks. I'll stick with design.

dhw: All this is also educational, but misses the point of my post. I’m not arguing for chance hunt-and-peck. But “finding the right combination of protein molecules with the proper functions” takes time, and although attacks by pests and by new diseases is immediate and constant, the fact that they cause death and destruction shows that the “cure” DOES take time, as cells and cell communities search for the right combination. Once cures have been found, they are passed on, and so babies are born with immediate defences, and bacteria become resistant to our efforts to destroy them. My point is that the system (I propose cellular intelligence, which does the "designing") is there from the beginning, but it constantly adapts as it has to work out defences against new threats. The “cures” are NOT there from the beginning. And I would extend this to the whole mechanism of evolution, as intelligent cells / cell communities respond to new conditions by adapting themselves (process proven) or by creating brand new structures (speciation - process unproven).

We both agree cells act intelligently. I choose God, and you stick to wonder. So we debate.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by dhw, Sunday, September 20, 2020, 13:39 (1276 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What keeps this website going is not only the wonders, but also your amazing capacity for keeping us updated on the latest research in all the different fields – even on those rare occasions when the research goes against your own beliefs, as with the question of new genes. Our own discussions tend to go round in circles, but may sometimes help to clarify ideas. The articles you present are an ongoing education, which more than fulfils the hopes I had when I opened the website. So I am the one to say thank you, and yes, I’ll cheer you on even in the midst of our battles!

DAVID: To answer the bold, the internet makes finding new research easy. As for things that change my mind, I'm still learning, and my mind is open to every point that I feel is not settled. God is settled. The rest is still open.

I’m still cheering you on! Your second comment is very reassuring. I have absolutely no problem with your theism. You have provided the strongest possible case for your belief in God, and although I don’t share it (you know my reasons), I have complete respect for it. As an agnostic, I can never advance any theories of my own without leaving open the possibility that your God is the creator of life and its mechanisms. Where we differ is in our interpretation of life’s history and of a possible God’s motives and methods. It goes without saying that the atheist in me would find no purpose in life other than survival for all organisms and a variety of subjective purposes created by humans. But in our discussions on subjects such as evolution, I always wear my theist’s hat!

dhw: My point is that the system (I propose cellular intelligence, which does the "designing") is there from the beginning, but it constantly adapts as it has to work out defences against new threats. The “cures” are NOT there from the beginning. And I would extend this to the whole mechanism of evolution, as intelligent cells / cell communities respond to new conditions by adapting themselves (process proven) or by creating brand new structures (speciation - process unproven).

DAVID: We both agree cells act intelligently. I choose God, and you stick to wonder. So we debate.

Not quite. Remember that I’m wearing my theist’s hat. You believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or direct dabbling as your God’s method of directing every single evolutionary change (plus every single econiche, natural wonder, strategy etc.). I propose (it is not as strong as a belief) that your God designed an autonomous mechanism enabling all organisms to do their own designing. This is not “sticking to wonder” – and even you have agreed that theoretically there is a 50/50 chance that what looks intelligent may actually be intelligent!

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 20, 2020, 15:51 (1276 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: What keeps this website going is not only the wonders, but also your amazing capacity for keeping us updated on the latest research in all the different fields – even on those rare occasions when the research goes against your own beliefs, as with the question of new genes. Our own discussions tend to go round in circles, but may sometimes help to clarify ideas. The articles you present are an ongoing education, which more than fulfils the hopes I had when I opened the website. So I am the one to say thank you, and yes, I’ll cheer you on even in the midst of our battles!

DAVID: To answer the bold, the internet makes finding new research easy. As for things that change my mind, I'm still learning, and my mind is open to every point that I feel is not settled. God is settled. The rest is still open.

dhw: I’m still cheering you on! Your second comment is very reassuring. I have absolutely no problem with your theism. You have provided the strongest possible case for your belief in God, and although I don’t share it (you know my reasons), I have complete respect for it. As an agnostic, I can never advance any theories of my own without leaving open the possibility that your God is the creator of life and its mechanisms. Where we differ is in our interpretation of life’s history and of a possible God’s motives and methods. It goes without saying that the atheist in me would find no purpose in life other than survival for all organisms and a variety of subjective purposes created by humans. But in our discussions on subjects such as evolution, I always wear my theist’s hat!

One of the areas always open for discussion is your theist's hat does not contain the same judgements as my hat about God and His personality


dhw: My point is that the system (I propose cellular intelligence, which does the "designing") is there from the beginning, but it constantly adapts as it has to work out defences against new threats. The “cures” are NOT there from the beginning. And I would extend this to the whole mechanism of evolution, as intelligent cells / cell communities respond to new conditions by adapting themselves (process proven) or by creating brand new structures (speciation - process unproven).

DAVID: We both agree cells act intelligently. I choose God, and you stick to wonder. So we debate.

dhw: Not quite. Remember that I’m wearing my theist’s hat. You believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or direct dabbling as your God’s method of directing every single evolutionary change (plus every single econiche, natural wonder, strategy etc.). I propose (it is not as strong as a belief) that your God designed an autonomous mechanism enabling all organisms to do their own designing. This is not “sticking to wonder” – and even you have agreed that theoretically there is a 50/50 chance that what looks intelligent may actually be intelligent!

Again the difference is the view of God's personality, the degree of hands-on or hands-off.

Natures wonders: new found plant defenses

by David Turell @, Monday, December 07, 2020, 00:41 (1198 days ago) @ David Turell

How cow peas signal an attack:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201204110239.htm

"Plants can fight back, unleashing an array of chemical defenses to discourage wayward foragers -- from releasing chemicals that attract caterpillar predators to secreting compounds that make the plant taste so foul that desperate caterpillars resort to cannibalism. But scientists know little about how plants detect these attacks and marshal defenses.

"In a paper published Nov. 23 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team led by scientists at the University of Washington and the University of California, San Diego reports that cowpeas -- a type of bean plant -- harbor receptors on the surface of their cells that can detect a compound in caterpillar saliva and initiate anti-herbivore defenses.

***

"The receptor is a protein known by the acronym INR. The team showed that, in response to both leaf wounds and the presence of a protein fragment specific to caterpillar saliva, the cowpea's INR protein boosts the production of ethylene, a hormone that plants often produce in response to munching by herbivores and other types of environmental stress. The protein fragment in caterpillar spit that elicited this response, Vu-IN, is actually a fragment of a cowpea protein, which gets broken down by the caterpillar as it dines on cowpea leaves.

"Researchers have fewer methods to study cowpeas compared to other plants. So to learn more cellular details about INR's function, they popped the gene for INR into tobacco plants. These tobacco plants, when exposed to Vu-IN, increased production of ethylene as well as reactive oxygen species, another anti-herbivore defense that consists of chemically reactive forms of oxygen. In addition, the team's experiments showed that a tobacco-eating caterpillar -- the beet armyworm -- munched less on INR-harboring tobacco plants than plants without INR.

"The research shows that plants like the cowpea sound the alarm only after their cells detect specific molecules associated with herbivory. Vu-IN is a trigger for cowpea defenses. Other plants likely have different molecular triggers for their own defensive systems, the researchers believe."

Comment: I see no way that chance mutation or trial an error can produce this type of specific molecular response signaling. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: cheetah social life

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 08, 2020, 16:21 (1197 days ago) @ David Turell

Males have territories with urine marked trees or stones:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/male-cheetahs-leave-messages-cat-bars-knowing-t...

"Specific trees and large rocks in Africa are like bars for male cheetahs, new research reveals. The big cats use these places to find mates and send signals to other males, effectively making them communication hubs for their species. They may also be key to saving the animals from angry farmers, the study suggests.

***

"Caro’s earlier research served as a starting point for the cheetah study. In the 1980s, he discovered that the big cats have a unique social system among mammals: Solitary females range over huge areas that encompass the smaller territories held by males. Competition among males for their domains is fierce, and they often form coalitions with one or two unrelated males to defend their land. Males without territories (called floaters) roam around looking to take over one of these holdings.

***

"Territorial males spent half their time at these trees or rocks, marking them frequently with urine, the team found. Meanwhile, floaters visited the sites regularly, but only stopped by to sniff. Females also occasionally checked in, leaving their mark when in estrus. Each such site was typically found in the center of a male’s territory and functioned “like a popular bar, where you might have a better chance of finding mating partners,” Melzheimer says.

"These hubs were stable over time. Even when new males took over a territory, they used the same scent-marking location as the previous owners.

***

"Melzheimer’s team collaborated with 35 farmers who had lost stock to cheetahs. Of these, six had a cheetah communication hub on their land, and well-documented cheetah attacks. Melzheimer thought the information the cheetahs gathered at these sites was so important, the cats would not follow the livestock if farmers moved their animals elsewhere. Although the six farmers were skeptical, they agreed to move their herds with suckling calves to areas away from these hubs. The number of calves subsequently lost to predation by cheetahs decreased by 86% on average, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"That’s an “astounding” drop, says Maximilian Allen, a carnivore ecologist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved in the study. “It seems these findings can be applied in any areas where cheetahs overlap with agriculture and livestock.”

"Melzheimer concurs. “We’ve discovered there aren’t ‘problem animals,’” he says, but “‘problem areas.’” He adds that “every farmer [in this part of Namibia] who has a communication hub is now implementing our advice,” and that additional farmers in the country are participating in the research."

Comment: Simple animal thought controls the geography. Learning it helps the farmers

Natures wonders: bacterial toxin warfare weapons

by David Turell @, Monday, September 21, 2020, 20:14 (1274 days ago) @ David Turell

Still finding new ones:

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-family-toxins-bacterial-competition.html

"The novel family's founding member is the protein Tlde1 (type VI L,D-transpeptidase effector 1), which attacks bacterial cell wall precursors. It is secreted via the type VI secretion system or T6SS. Targeted bacteria continue growing but because their cell walls are weakened they eventually die as cell contents leak owing to osmotic pressure and lysis.

"'This family of toxins has a hitherto undescribed mechanism. While other anti-bacterial toxins secreted by the same system destroy the already formed cell walls of target bacteria, this one acts on precursors so that they're weak or cannot form at all," said Ethel Bayer-Santos,...

***

"This co-expression neutralized the toxic effect and the bacteria survived, confirming that the proteins in question are indeed a toxin and an immune protein respectively.

"In evolutionary terms, T6SS is related to the apparatus of bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacteria. It comprises 13 structural proteins that are assembled into a weapon resembling a spear or harpoon with a sharp tip inside a retractable cytoplasmic sheath. The attacking cell ejects the harpoon full of toxic proteins from the sheath into the target cell.

"Bioinformatics analysis showed that members of the Tlde1 family are present in several species of bacterium and that the family probably evolved from bacterial enzymes with a key role in cell wall synthesis. The next step in the project is an effort to understand by structural biology how an enzyme that had this role has ended up doing the opposite."

Comment: I wonder how chance evolution found these specific poisons which are not dangerous to their hosts?

Natures wonders: Australia's most toxic spider

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 01:07 (1274 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolved well before an advanced primate they are very dangerous to humans:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/funnelweb-venom/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+M...

"Australia’s funnel-web spiders are deadly to humans – particularly the males from the species Atrax robustus that calls Sydney home – but how they evolved to do this has been a mystery.

"Primates – including humans – weren’t around when these spiders originated around 150 to 200 million years ago, so wouldn’t have featured as predators or prey in their evolution.

"Now, research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests the adult male funnel-webs repurposed toxins used to kill insect prey to defend themselves against vertebrate predators.

***

“'If we could find common patterns across the full range of funnel-web spiders,” he says, “that would provide big inroads into understanding the evolutionary processes that have shaped their venoms into such potent chemical cocktails.”

"It took 20 years for the researchers to find a broad range of species and raise juveniles to adulthood so they could investigate venom changes, which they did by investigating their molecular evolution.

"The peptides that make funnel-web spider venom so deadly are a group of neurotoxins called delta-hexatoxins. Previously, only eight of these peptides from five species had been analysed. Fry and team nearly tripled that by profiling 22 from the venom of 10 species.

"They found the toxins had originally evolved to kill insects, such as cockroaches and flies, and were used by juvenile males and females of all ages.

"The males, once they reach adulthood, venture far and wide to find females, which exposes them to predators. They feed very little during this mating season, and the study supports theories that their venom evolved long ago via natural selection to protect them against hungry vertebrates such as dunnarts, birds, rats and geckos.

***

“'The defensive toxins are gene duplicates of the toxins used for insect feeding, but these gene duplicates are more potent for vertebrates than to insects. So the spiders have genes for a myriad of toxins, but they turn different ones on at different life stages.'”

Comment: How did the spider figure out it could produce a neurotoxin to stun predators and protect itself. This reeks of design, not chance evolution.

Natures wonders: newly found bacterial weapon:

by David Turell @, Friday, January 05, 2024, 19:14 (73 days ago) @ David Turell

A use of fibers:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240104121930.htm
"...researchers from the University of Birmingham and the University of Nottingham have discovered how natural antimicrobial predatory bacteria, called Bdellovibrio bacterivorous, produce fibre-like proteins on their surface to ensnare prey.

***

"The breakthrough came when Sam Greenwood an undergraduate student, and Asmaa Al-Bayati, a PhD student in the Sockett lab, discovered that the Bdellovibrio predators lay down a sturdy vesicle (a "pinched-off" part of the predator cell envelope) when invading their prey.

"Professor Liz Sockett explained: "The vesicle creates a kind of airlock or keyhole allowing Bdellovibrio entry into the prey cell. We were then able to isolate this vesicle from the dead prey, which is a first in this field. The vesicle was analysed to reveal the tools used during the preceding event of predator/prey contact. We thought of it as a bit like a locksmith leaving the pick, or key, as evidence, in the keyhole.

"'By looking at the vesicle contents, we discovered that because Bdellovibrio doesn't know which bacteria it will meet, it deploys a range of similar prey recognition molecules on its surface, creating lots of different 'keys' to 'unlock' lots of different types of prey."

"The researchers then undertook an individual analysis of the molecules, demonstrating that they form long fibres, approximately ten times longer than common globular proteins.

"This allows them to operate at a distance and "feel" for prey in the vicinity.

"In total, the labs counted 21 different fibres. Researchers Dr Simon Caulton, Dr Carey Lambert and Dr Jess Tyson worked on how they operated both at the cellular and molecular level.

***

"...we discovered a chemical signature on the outside of prey bacteria that was a tight fit to the fibre tip. This is the first time a feature of Bdellovibrio has been matched to prey selection."

"Scientists in this field will now be able to use these discoveries to ask which fibre set is used by the different predators they study and potentially attribute these to specific prey.

"Improving understanding of these predator bacteria could enable their usage as antibiotics, to kill bacteria that degrade food, or ones which are harmful to the environment.

"Professor Lovering concluded: "We know that these bacteria can be helpful, and by fully understanding how they operate and find their prey, it opens up a world of new discoveries and possibilities'"

Comment: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria. Hopefully it may help us create new antibiotic molecules.

Natures wonders: parasite controls plant's defense

by David Turell @, Friday, September 04, 2020, 19:03 (1292 days ago) @ David Turell

Dodder plant uses host's signals to flower:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/parasitic-dodder-plant-eavesdrops-host-flower

"The tiny plant, which will never grow leaves or roots, elongates in a spindly spiral. Round and round it swirls, searching for a host plant. When the dodder finds one, it latches on and infiltrates the host with tiny tubes that siphon off water and nutrients. The parasitic dodder grows, eventually covering its victim in a tangled, threadlike web of orange or yellow stems. Then, when the host plant flowers, so does the dodder, setting the stage for the sinister cycle to begin again.

***

"Australian dodder plants (Cuscuta australis) absorb the chemical that triggers flowering, a protein called Flowering Locus T, or FT, from their hosts and use it to flower synchronously, researchers report August 31 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This synchronization maximizes the dodder’s growth and reproduction, and may be part of why the plant parasite, which consists of over 100 different species, has spread around the world, parasitizing organisms as different as alfalfa and acacia trees.

“'Synchronizing flowering really makes sense for these plant parasites,” says Jianqiang Wu, a botanist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Kunming Institute of Botany. If a dodder flowers too soon, it won’t grow as large as it could have and will produce fewer seeds. Too late and its host may have already died, leaving the dodder with less nutrients to support flowering.

***

“'Dodder and host plant synchronization has never been so clearly shown as in this paper,” says James Westwood, a plant pathologist at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. But there might still be more to the story, he says. “There are examples of dodders flowering when their host isn’t flowering,” he says, so it remains unclear whether the parasites sometimes use other signals to flower.

"If it turns out that dodders truly use only FT from hosts to induce flowering, Westwood says that would be a simple and elegant example of how evolution has entwined plant parasites with the organisms they depend on for survival. But he thinks more research is needed. “Biology is rarely that simple.'”

Comment: The real issue or me is how did this strange parasite appear in the first place, if it always requires an existing host plant. Design required.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 02:07 (2218 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants care for their sick mates in different ways depending on their level of immunity:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180220161159.htm

"Ants care for their sick nest mates in different ways, depending on their own immune status. When they themselves are susceptible to dangerous superinfections, they use a different method to care for sick colony members compared to ants that are not susceptible, thus protecting themselves from infection.

***

"There are two ways for ants to care for nest mates: either by grooming off pathogens or by chemically disinfecting them. However, the extensive contact between contaminated and caring ants during care may lead to a transmission of the pathogen, which often induces low-level infections in the caring individual that do not cause disease. As the research team has shown in a previous study, such low-level infections of the caring ants stimulate their immune system and can lead to a protective effect against future infection, similar to the early form of vaccination used by humans, termed variolation. If this ant comes in contact with the same pathogen again in the future, its defense against the fungal pathogen is already upregulated, and the course of the disease is mild. However, in the current study the research team showed that this immunization caused by low-level infections, unlike modern vaccinations in humans, has a cost. If the ant comes in contact with a second, different pathogen, it is not only unprotected, but is even more susceptible to the second pathogen, which can subsequently cause a highly detrimental, superinfection.

"Although ants with low-level infections are more susceptible to superinfections, the researchers show that this altered disease susceptibility affects how ants care for their infectious nest mates. They continue to perform care, but alter how they do so to decrease their risk of contracting a second infection. This risk avoidance is flexible and depends on the current immune status of the ant. If an ant is protected against a pathogen because it is currently immunized, it grooms the infected nestmate more than non-immunized ants. "This close contact means that the caring ant is exposed to a large number of fungal spores from the infectious nest mates, but it is less susceptible to them because of previous immune stimulation," explains Sylvia Cremer.

"The situation is different when the ant encounters a nest mate carrying a pathogen that the caring ant is susceptible to. If the ant has developed a susceptibility to pathogen B due to a previous infection with pathogen A, then it sprays the contaminated nestmate carrying pathogen B with formic acid to neutralize the pathogen. This avoids the need for grooming and the close contact that comes with it, preventing pathogen transmission and protecting the caring ant from superinfection. "This risk-averse care improves and maintains the health of the caring animals and thus of the whole colony. In humans, nursing staff and doctors also pay attention to their immune status, for example by vaccinating before entering a dangerous zone. Importantly, ants are capable of this adjustment without the need for vaccination records that humans typically rely on" explains Sylvia Cremer."

Comment: Ants social construct continues to amaze.

Natures wonders: sea urchins eat rock with five teeth

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 23:50 (2217 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazingly true. They create rock burrows for themselves:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161771-sea-urchins-can-drill-holes-in-solid-rock-...

"Sea urchins can scrape their way through solid rock to make themselves homes. This ability has long been suspected but never demonstrated, until now.

"Michael Russell at Villanova University in Pennsylvania and his colleagues studied purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), which live along the west coast of North America.

" These animals look like purple balls with hundreds of spines, called tubefeet, which they use to walk and move food to their mouths. They also use their tubefeet to attach themselves to rock, making it difficult to dislodge them. The safest homes are pits and holes, which offer a larger surface area for an urchin to lock onto.

"In the lab, the researchers placed single sea urchins on flat pieces of soft mudstone, moderately hard sandstone and tough granite. After a year, they measured the weights of the rocks, how the surfaces looked, and how much the rocks were eroded.

"The sea urchins had eaten holes in all the rocks, although they made slower progress on the harder ones. Holes in mudstone were about 220 cubic centimetres, whereas holes in sandstone were 63 cubic centimetres and holes in granite were just 45 cubic centimetres.

“'We were not surprised that they excavate rock,” says Russell. “What shocked us was… how fast they were able to form pits, particularly in the sandstone.”

"Russell says the sea urchins’ drilling abilities are a by-product of how they eat. Each animal has five sharp teeth on its underside. Even when they are not chewing on food, the teeth are constantly scraping the rock they sit on, sculpting it in the process. The urchins eat the rock scrapings.

"The team calculates that sea urchins can create an immense amount of sediment every year: perhaps 200 tonnes per hectare. That is comparable to the amount of sediment carried to the sea by many rivers."

Comment: A surprising activity. Since the Earth started as a rocky planet, it is reasonable that lichen and sea urchins are around to create sediment and eventually soil.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 03, 2018, 20:08 (2176 days ago) @ David Turell

How the ants discover fungus infected pupas is discovered as a compound on the pupa surface:

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/52082/title/Infected-Ants-Chemic...

"The team also noticed that workers were destroying infected pupae while the fungal infection was still in its incubation period, before it had become visible or contagious. Something other than the infectious agent was telling the workers that the ants were sick. Pull and his colleagues knew that ants communicate with their nestmates via chemical compounds called cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs), and suspected that the infected pupae might be signaling workers in this manner.

"To test the hypothesis, the researchers washed some of the infected pupae with a solvent to remove CHCs. Presented with these pupae, the worker ants carried out their disinfection routine 72 percent less often than when they were given infected pupae that were unwashed or had been rinsed with water. The researchers then used gas chromatography to confirm that infected pupae that hadn’t been solvent treated had a unique chemical profile on their cuticles—a kind of “find-me/eat-me” signal, Pull notes, functionally similar to those released by apoptotic cells to attract phagocytic immune cells in the human body (eLife, 7:e32073, 2018).

"While this sickness cue usually leads to the death of the infected individual by stimulating disinfection behavior in workers, it protects the rest of the colony, including egg-producing queens, from fatal infection, Pull says. “[The sick ants] are performing these behaviors and putting themselves at risk, but at the end of the day it’s still to maximize genes which they carry, to ensure that genes they carry are being passed on to the next generation.'”

Comment: Automatically producing a perfume to say I'm sick certainly protects the colony and must have been developed as ants developed social colonies. This is an automatic designed protection as part of an immune response.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Wednesday, April 04, 2018, 11:17 (2176 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: Automatically producing a perfume to say I'm sick certainly protects the colony and must have been developed as ants developed social colonies. This is an automatic designed protection as part of an immune response.

I really don’t know why you go on and on inserting the word “automatic”, as if your use of it somehow proved that ants are not intelligent, and when they first came up with this form of protection, they didn’t know what they were doing. If they didn’t design it, then presumably you think your God did. So there we go again: your God designs diseases (unless he is not in control) and then designs protection against the diseases he has designed so that life can go on so that eventually he can produce the brain of Homo sapiens. (You have not yet come up with any other “secondary” purpose). There is no coherence in such a scenario.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 04, 2018, 15:12 (2176 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: Automatically producing a perfume to say I'm sick certainly protects the colony and must have been developed as ants developed social colonies. This is an automatic designed protection as part of an immune response.

dhw: I really don’t know why you go on and on inserting the word “automatic”, as if your use of it somehow proved that ants are not intelligent, and when they first came up with this form of protection, they didn’t know what they were doing. If they didn’t design it, then presumably you think your God did. So there we go again: your God designs diseases (unless he is not in control) and then designs protection against the diseases he has designed so that life can go on so that eventually he can produce the brain of Homo sapiens. (You have not yet come up with any other “secondary” purpose). There is no coherence in such a scenario.

Not being able to see the coherence is why you are agnostic. My God knows what He is doing.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Thursday, April 05, 2018, 12:49 (2175 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: Automatically producing a perfume to say I'm sick certainly protects the colony and must have been developed as ants developed social colonies. This is an automatic designed protection as part of an immune response.

dhw: I really don’t know why you go on and on inserting the word “automatic”, as if your use of it somehow proved that ants are not intelligent, and when they first came up with this form of protection, they didn’t know what they were doing. If they didn’t design it, then presumably you think your God did. So there we go again: your God designs diseases (unless he is not in control) and then designs protection against the diseases he has designed so that life can go on so that eventually he can produce the brain of Homo sapiens. (You have not yet come up with any other “secondary” purpose). There is no coherence in such a scenario.

DAVID: Not being able to see the coherence is why you are agnostic. My God knows what He is doing.

I have never said your God doesn’t know what he is doing. I am simply suggesting that the incoherence of the above scenario may indicate that YOU don’t know what your God is doing.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 05, 2018, 15:19 (2175 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: Automatically producing a perfume to say I'm sick certainly protects the colony and must have been developed as ants developed social colonies. This is an automatic designed protection as part of an immune response.

dhw: I really don’t know why you go on and on inserting the word “automatic”, as if your use of it somehow proved that ants are not intelligent, and when they first came up with this form of protection, they didn’t know what they were doing. If they didn’t design it, then presumably you think your God did. So there we go again: your God designs diseases (unless he is not in control) and then designs protection against the diseases he has designed so that life can go on so that eventually he can produce the brain of Homo sapiens. (You have not yet come up with any other “secondary” purpose). There is no coherence in such a scenario.

DAVID: Not being able to see the coherence is why you are agnostic. My God knows what He is doing.

dhw: I have never said your God doesn’t know what he is doing. I am simply suggesting that the incoherence of the above scenario may indicate that YOU don’t know what your God is doing.

From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.

Natures wonders:ant care for the sick protects well ants. II

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 05, 2018, 18:16 (2175 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not being able to see the coherence is why you are agnostic. My God knows what He is doing.

dhw: I have never said your God doesn’t know what he is doing. I am simply suggesting that the incoherence of the above scenario may indicate that YOU don’t know what your God is doing.


From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.

Here is the Nature article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04102-7?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...

"Researchers have discovered more than 200 previously unknown viruses in a category whose members cause illnesses such as influenza and haemorrhagic fevers. The scientists also traced the origins of these RNA viruses back hundreds of millions of years to when most modern animals started to appear.

***

"Holmes and his colleagues looked at nearly 190 creatures in other vertebrate classes — from jawless fish such as lampreys, which have changed little from their evolutionary ancestors, to reptiles such as turtles. By analysing the RNA extracted from the animals’ guts, livers, lungs or gills, the team discovered 214 RNA viruses that had never been described before.

"Most belong to virus families known to infect birds and mammals. For example, some fish harbour viruses that are related to Ebola, which causes a deadly disease in primates, including people. “That’s surprising,” says Holmes, but it doesn’t mean that those fish viruses pose a threat to human health. People and fish are so different that viruses that infect one group would not able to infect the other, he says.

"This is because most RNA viruses have evolved with their hosts for millions of years. When the researchers built an evolutionary tree of the new-found RNA viruses and compared it to that of their vertebrate hosts, the two histories mirrored each other. The team concluded that as vertebrates moved from the sea to land, so did their microscopic hitchhikers: RNA viruses that infect people today probably evolved from viruses that infected our vertebrate ancestors 500 million years ago.

"Scientists suspected that RNA viruses were ancient because they are found in single-celled organisms such as amoebas2 and in invertebrates such as insects and worms3. But this study shows it “very convincingly”, says Eric Delwart, a virologist at the Blood Systems Research Institute in San Francisco, California."

Comment: Life appears driven to start early on an inhospitable Earth. Perhaps the drive was so strong it also produced partial life as exemplified by viruses, and we left to wonder whether God wanted them or not.

Natures wonders:bird lungs better than human

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2020, 23:39 (1362 days ago) @ David Turell

The air goes in one way and out the other; probably came from dinosaurs:

http://nautil.us/issue/86/energy/why-birds-can-fly-over-mount-everest?mc_cid=0737aeaa21...

"Every year, millions of bar-headed geese migrate over the Himalayas and have been doing so for millions of years. They have been seen flying at 28,000 feet. They have flown over Mount Everest! How do they do that?

"The answer seems to be that bar-headed geese, like all birds—hummingbirds, ostriches, pigeons—have super-efficient lungs. It makes our lungs—and the lungs of all mammals—look primitive. I’m sure when birds get together they gossip about how pathetic our lungs are!

***

"...that’s what the birds have with their lungs: an in point and an out point. They also have air sacs and hollow spaces in their bones. When they breathe in, half of the good air (with oxygen) goes into these hollow spaces, and the other half goes into their lungs through the rear entrance. When they breathe out, the good air that has been stored in the hollow places now also goes into their lungs through that rear entrance, and the bad air (carbon dioxide and water vapor) is pushed out the front exit. So it doesn’t matter whether birds are breathing in or out: Good air is always going in one direction through their lungs, pushing all the bad air out ahead of it.

***

"...scientists have now folded Aves into a category called Dinosauria, and those dinosauria, like pigeons and seagulls and geese, are flying all around us today. If you want to know what a dinosaur probably tasted like, eat some chicken!"

Comment: Except for bats no mammals are built to fly. Look at the eagle. Six-foot wings and only 12 pounds of weight. A very helpful design since wing flapping takes lots of energy, and needs lots of air/blood exchange. Designer required

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Friday, April 06, 2018, 11:35 (2174 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So there we go again: your God designs diseases (unless he is not in control) and then designs protection against the diseases he has designed so that life can go on so that eventually he can produce the brain of Homo sapiens. (You have not yet come up with any other “secondary” purpose). There is no coherence in such a scenario.

DAVID: Not being able to see the coherence is why you are agnostic. My God knows what He is doing.

dhw: I have never said your God doesn’t know what he is doing. I am simply suggesting that the incoherence of the above scenario may indicate that YOU don’t know what your God is doing.

DAVID: From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.

Your “perhaps” is most welcome. By the same token, you cannot tell if God allowed evolution to follow its own course, as I have suggested, or controlled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. I see a glimmer of hope that you may yet acknowledge the possibility that your God used evolution to create the ever-changing spectacle (including humans) which he watches with interest because he wanted an ever changing spectacle which he could watch with interest, i.e. “diversity for diversity’s sake”.

Thank you for the article you posted afterwards, which leads you to repeat your dilemma: “we [are] left to wonder whether God wanted them or not.”

DAVID: (under “Genome complexity”): We have one DNA but it can make all sorts of different functioning cells:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-discovery-cells-identical-genes-unique.html
Scientists have made a significant discovery that explains how and why the billions of different cells in our bodies look and act so differently despite containing identical genes.

You understandably emphasize the design aspect of this. I would also emphasize the versatility of the cell. This ability to change form and function would be a key element in my hypothesis that the mechanism existed from the very beginning of life for organisms to restructure themselves. In a theistic context, this would mean your God gave them both the mechanism for diversity and the intelligence to use it.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Friday, April 06, 2018, 15:29 (2174 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.

dhw: Your “perhaps” is most welcome. By the same token, you cannot tell if God allowed evolution to follow its own course, as I have suggested, or controlled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. I see a glimmer of hope that you may yet acknowledge the possibility that your God used evolution to create the ever-changing spectacle (including humans) which he watches with interest because he wanted an ever changing spectacle which he could watch with interest, i.e. “diversity for diversity’s sake”.

I don't think I will in any way leave my point that humans were the obvious purpose.


Thank you for the article you posted afterwards, which leads you to repeat your dilemma: “we [are] left to wonder whether God wanted them or not.”

DAVID: (under “Genome complexity”): We have one DNA but it can make all sorts of different functioning cells:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-discovery-cells-identical-genes-unique.html
Scientists have made a significant discovery that explains how and why the billions of different cells in our bodies look and act so differently despite containing identical genes.

dhw: You understandably emphasize the design aspect of this. I would also emphasize the versatility of the cell. This ability to change form and function would be a key element in my hypothesis that the mechanism existed from the very beginning of life for organisms to restructure themselves. In a theistic context, this would mean your God gave them both the mechanism for diversity and the intelligence to use it.

I appreciate your interest in the articles I present that point to design. We know that adaptations are due to cellular flexibility, but that dos not explain macro-evolution, speciation. My view is it requires a designer.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Saturday, April 07, 2018, 12:47 (2173 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.
dhw: Your “perhaps” is most welcome. By the same token, you cannot tell if God allowed evolution to follow its own course, as I have suggested, or controlled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. I see a glimmer of hope that you may yet acknowledge the possibility that your God used evolution to create the ever-changing spectacle (including humans) which he watches with interest because he wanted an ever changing spectacle which he could watch with interest, i.e. “diversity for diversity’s sake”.
DAVID: I don't think I will in any way leave my point that humans were the obvious purpose.

You can’t tell whether my hypothesis is correct or not, but you will stick to your own hypothesis. Perfectly fair. But not a reason for rejecting my hypothesis.

DAVID: (under “Genome complexity”): We have one DNA but it can make all sorts of different functioning cells:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-discovery-cells-identical-genes-unique.html

Scientists have made a significant discovery that explains how and why the billions of different cells in our bodies look and act so differently despite containing identical genes.

dhw: You understandably emphasize the design aspect of this. I would also emphasize the versatility of the cell. This ability to change form and function would be a key element in my hypothesis that the mechanism existed from the very beginning of life for organisms to restructure themselves. In a theistic context, this would mean your God gave them both the mechanism for diversity and the intelligence to use it.
DAVID: I appreciate your interest in the articles I present that point to design. We know that adaptations are due to cellular flexibility, but that dos not explain macro-evolution, speciation. My view is it requires a designer.

It then becomes a question of where you draw the line between adaptation and speciation. Legs becoming flippers, or vice versa, may be part of speciation through adaptation. If the mechanism exists for flexibility, who knows how far that flexibility may extend? And if we don’t know, we cannot dismiss my hypothesis.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 07, 2018, 16:04 (2173 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: From recent research reported in Nature, viruses have been around since life was very early. Bacteria have their own viruses. Perhaps they are part of the requirement of diversity for diversity sake, a point you seem to love. I cannot tell whether God wanted this or allowed it.
dhw: Your “perhaps” is most welcome. By the same token, you cannot tell if God allowed evolution to follow its own course, as I have suggested, or controlled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. I see a glimmer of hope that you may yet acknowledge the possibility that your God used evolution to create the ever-changing spectacle (including humans) which he watches with interest because he wanted an ever changing spectacle which he could watch with interest, i.e. “diversity for diversity’s sake”.
DAVID: I don't think I will in any way leave my point that humans were the obvious purpose.

dhw: You can’t tell whether my hypothesis is correct or not, but you will stick to your own hypothesis. Perfectly fair. But not a reason for rejecting my hypothesis.

Your humanizing Him is a good enough reason.


DAVID: (under “Genome complexity”): We have one DNA but it can make all sorts of different functioning cells:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-discovery-cells-identical-genes-unique.html

Scientists have made a significant discovery that explains how and why the billions of different cells in our bodies look and act so differently despite containing identical genes.

dhw: You understandably emphasize the design aspect of this. I would also emphasize the versatility of the cell. This ability to change form and function would be a key element in my hypothesis that the mechanism existed from the very beginning of life for organisms to restructure themselves. In a theistic context, this would mean your God gave them both the mechanism for diversity and the intelligence to use it.
DAVID: I appreciate your interest in the articles I present that point to design. We know that adaptations are due to cellular flexibility, but that dos not explain macro-evolution, speciation. My view is it requires a designer.

dhw: It then becomes a question of where you draw the line between adaptation and speciation. Legs becoming flippers, or vice versa, may be part of speciation through adaptation. If the mechanism exists for flexibility, who knows how far that flexibility may extend? And if we don’t know, we cannot dismiss my hypothesis.

We have no evidence of gradual adaptation leading to speciation. All we see in the fossil record is the gaps of saltation.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 11:13 (2172 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I appreciate your interest in the articles I present that point to design. We know that adaptations are due to cellular flexibility, but that dos not explain macro-evolution, speciation. My view is it requires a designer.

dhw: It then becomes a question of where you draw the line between adaptation and speciation. Legs becoming flippers, or vice versa, may be part of speciation through adaptation. If the mechanism exists for flexibility, who knows how far that flexibility may extend? And if we don’t know, we cannot dismiss my hypothesis.

DAVID: We have no evidence of gradual adaptation leading to speciation. All we see in the fossil record is the gaps of saltation.

Agreed, and that I why it is a hypothesis and not a fact, though my hypothesis also explains saltations. Once again, we do not know how far cellular flexibility and intelligence may extend. And once again, we do not have evidence of a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every natural wonder in life’s history, but that doesn’t stop you from actually believing your hypothesis and rejecting mine.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 19:25 (2172 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I appreciate your interest in the articles I present that point to design. We know that adaptations are due to cellular flexibility, but that dos not explain macro-evolution, speciation. My view is it requires a designer.

dhw: It then becomes a question of where you draw the line between adaptation and speciation. Legs becoming flippers, or vice versa, may be part of speciation through adaptation. If the mechanism exists for flexibility, who knows how far that flexibility may extend? And if we don’t know, we cannot dismiss my hypothesis.

DAVID: We have no evidence of gradual adaptation leading to speciation. All we see in the fossil record is the gaps of saltation.

dhw: Agreed, and that I why it is a hypothesis and not a fact, though my hypothesis also explains saltations. Once again, we do not know how far cellular flexibility and intelligence may extend. And once again, we do not have evidence of a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every natural wonder in life’s history, but that doesn’t stop you from actually believing your hypothesis and rejecting mine.

The problem for me is your hypothesis does not fit the facts we know. The gaps are the problem because the next addition of a species requires enormous changes in form and function, as shown, for example, in the whale series. I see design as the only plausible answer. Your hypothesis requires that the organisms do their own designing and change in one fell swoop. I see that as totally impossible. And while you propose your idea you admit the evidence for design keeps you agnostic. If design catches your attention to such a degree, why can't you accept a designing mind in action?

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by dhw, Monday, April 09, 2018, 11:41 (2171 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have no evidence of gradual adaptation leading to speciation. All we see in the fossil record is the gaps of saltation.

dhw: Agreed, and that I why it is a hypothesis and not a fact, though my hypothesis also explains saltations. Once again, we do not know how far cellular flexibility and intelligence may extend. And once again, we do not have evidence of a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every natural wonder in life’s history, but that doesn’t stop you from actually believing your hypothesis and rejecting mine.

DAVID: The problem for me is your hypothesis does not fit the facts we know. The gaps are the problem because the next addition of a species requires enormous changes in form and function, as shown, for example, in the whale series. I see design as the only plausible answer. Your hypothesis requires that the organisms do their own designing and change in one fell swoop. I see that as totally impossible. And while you propose your idea you admit the evidence for design keeps you agnostic. If design catches your attention to such a degree, why can't you accept a designing mind in action?

You are conflating two separate issues. The first issue is how evolution works. If we accept common descent, we accept that every species has developed out of existing species, right back to the first form(s) of life. This means that the first form(s) of life must have contained the mechanism to engender all the changes. You insist that the mechanism was a divine computer programme for every single change, apart from those which your God engineered with a personal dabble. I suggest that the mechanism was an autonomous intelligence plus an in-built flexibility that would allow for all the changes, and I acknowledge the possibility that this mechanism was designed by your God. The different interpretations of how evolution work therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism (the second issue being the existence of God). I am extremely sceptical about your computer programme for every non-dabbled change and about your insistence that all changes were somehow geared to the production of the human brain. You are extremely sceptical about the ability of a possibly God-given intelligence to design the major changes required for speciation. I am less sceptical than you about the latter, but recognize that the evidence so far is restricted to minor changes (adaptations), which is why my explanation remains a hypothesis. You remain wedded to your own hypothesis, occasionally agree that much of it leads to sheer illogicality, and excuse that by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

Natures wonders: ant care for the sick protects well ants

by David Turell @, Monday, April 09, 2018, 17:54 (2171 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have no evidence of gradual adaptation leading to speciation. All we see in the fossil record is the gaps of saltation.

dhw: Agreed, and that I why it is a hypothesis and not a fact, though my hypothesis also explains saltations. Once again, we do not know how far cellular flexibility and intelligence may extend. And once again, we do not have evidence of a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every natural wonder in life’s history, but that doesn’t stop you from actually believing your hypothesis and rejecting mine.

DAVID: The problem for me is your hypothesis does not fit the facts we know. The gaps are the problem because the next addition of a species requires enormous changes in form and function, as shown, for example, in the whale series. I see design as the only plausible answer. Your hypothesis requires that the organisms do their own designing and change in one fell swoop. I see that as totally impossible. And while you propose your idea you admit the evidence for design keeps you agnostic. If design catches your attention to such a degree, why can't you accept a designing mind in action?

dhw: You are conflating two separate issues. The first issue is how evolution works. If we accept common descent, we accept that every species has developed out of existing species, right back to the first form(s) of life. This means that the first form(s) of life must have contained the mechanism to engender all the changes. You insist that the mechanism was a divine computer programme for every single change, apart from those which your God engineered with a personal dabble. I suggest that the mechanism was an autonomous intelligence plus an in-built flexibility that would allow for all the changes, and I acknowledge the possibility that this mechanism was designed by your God.

Natural Common Descent has some big holes in the theory. My entry today on orphan genes speaks to that point. The orphan genes are ones that have no predecessor in the previous branches. They must be saltations, and I would say God is seen here in action controlling the path of evolution. I don't claim to believe in the same common descent that you do.

dhw: The different interpretations of how evolution work therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism (the second issue being the existence of God). I am extremely sceptical about your computer programme for every non-dabbled change and about your insistence that all changes were somehow geared to the production of the human brain. You are extremely sceptical about the ability of a possibly God-given intelligence to design the major changes required for speciation. I am less sceptical than you about the latter, but recognize that the evidence so far is restricted to minor changes (adaptations), which is why my explanation remains a hypothesis. You remain wedded to your own hypothesis, occasionally agree that much of it leads to sheer illogicality, and excuse that by claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

Of course you are skeptical, but orphan genes are great evidence that God steps in the run the show. And yes, we cannot judge God's logic. He is a person like no other person .

Natures wonders: ants kill ants, disinfect nest

by David Turell @, Monday, April 16, 2018, 19:13 (2164 days ago) @ David Turell

New research has identified the compounds that signal sickness:

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/52082/title/Infected-Ants-Chemic...

"The team also noticed that workers were destroying infected pupae while the fungal infection was still in its incubation period, before it had become visible or contagious. Something other than the infectious agent was telling the workers that the ants were sick. Pull and his colleagues knew that ants communicate with their nestmates via chemical compounds called cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs), and suspected that the infected pupae might be signaling workers in this manner.

"To test the hypothesis, the researchers washed some of the infected pupae with a solvent to remove CHCs. Presented with these pupae, the worker ants carried out their disinfection routine 72 percent less often than when they were given infected pupae that were unwashed or had been rinsed with water. The researchers then used gas chromatography to confirm that infected pupae that hadn’t been solvent treated had a unique chemical profile on their cuticles—a kind of “find-me/eat-me” signal, Pull notes, functionally similar to those released by apoptotic cells to attract phagocytic immune cells in the human body (eLife, 7:e32073, 2018).

"While this sickness cue usually leads to the death of the infected individual by stimulating disinfection behavior in workers, it protects the rest of the colony, including egg-producing queens, from fatal infection, Pull says. “[The sick ants] are performing these behaviors and putting themselves at risk, but at the end of the day it’s still to maximize genes which they carry, to ensure that genes they carry are being passed on to the next generation.”
Provided the colony’s queen survives to pass on her genes, the evolutionary fitness of every individual is maximized, explains Cremer. “In systems like this, selection acts on the level of the reproductive entity,” favoring the evolution of collective defenses or “social immunity.” The kind of altruistic chemical cues discovered by the team “could be very widespread” among social insects, Cremer adds. The CHCs that make up the “disinfect-me” signal for L. neglectus are upregulated not only in ants during fungal infection, but also in honeybees—which have similar colony dynamics—after viral infection or when injected with bits of bacterial cells, she notes."

Comment: Again, this mechanism had to be present from the beginning of nesting or insect nests would not have survived. Certainly requires design.

Natures wonders: echolocation in diverse species

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 05, 2019, 23:57 (1626 days ago) @ dhw

A major study shows echolocation developed in many different sorts of organisms mutating similar genes in all of them, a form of convergence in evolution:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191004105643.htm

"Insect-eating bats navigate effortlessly in the dark and dolphins and killer whales gobble up prey in murky waters thanks in part to specific changes in a set of 18 genes involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion -- a group of nerves that transmit sound from the ear to the brain, according to a new study.

***

"The discovery solves a long-standing biological debate as to whether echolocating bats and whales have independently undergone many similar genomic changes "under the hood" to accomplish the same goal.

***

"'Developmental biologists have long wondered whether, at the most basic level, something that's the same on the outside -- like species that use echolocation -- are the same on the inside. That is, do they acquire these traits through similar molecular changes? Now we know that not only is this true as least some of the times, but also that many of these changes occur in the coding region of the genome. It's fascinating."

***

"'For a long time, biologists have wondered whether important evolutionary changes could occur through changes in the sequences of genes that are very similar across related species," Bejerano said. "These genes often control multiple functions in different tissues throughout the body, so it seems it would be very difficult to introduce even minor changes. But here we've found that not only do these very different species share specific genetic changes, but also that these changes occur in coding genes."

***

"Remarkably, the researchers found that their unbiased analysis homed in on the cochlear ganglion as the single most affected tissue among echolocating mammals. In particular, 25 "convergent" amino acid changes occurred in 18 genes known to be involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion. Only two of the 25 changes had been previously identified in past echolocation studies." (my bold)

Comment: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

Natures wonders: detecting predator feces protecting larvae

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 19:00 (1624 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain insects detect predator feces when egg laying to protect the larvae when they appear:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191008094243.htm

"Scientists have demonstrated that not only plant odors determine the best oviposition site for egglaying hawkmoths, but also the frass of other larvae. They specified the repelling substance in the feces which signals the presence of competing conspecifics. Moreover, the researchers identified an odorant receptor which is involved in the detection of the typical smell of larval frass and thereby governs competition avoidance during oviposition.

***

"Tobacco hornworms (Manduca sexta) are extremely voracious. Their Latin name Manduca is derived from the verb manducare, which means eating or chewing. These insatiable caterpillars, which may become as big as an adult's finger, do not do anything but eat and chew all day long. Therefore, a single larva is able to defoliate a host plant, such as the wild tobacco Nicotiana attenuata or sacred datura Datura wrightii (at least small plants) completely. Hence, one plant is seldom enough to feed a second caterpillar.

***

"It seemed plausible that tobacco hawkmoths would try to avoid competition for their offspring. Nevertheless, that one specific class of volatile compounds in the larval feces (6-carbon aliphatic acids) would be sufficient to trigger avoidance behavior came as a surprise. Behavioral assays in the wind tunnel in which moths were exposed to individual odor components on filter paper clearly showed that moths were repelled by some of the frass-related compounds.

***

"...they knocked out specific receptor proteins in the antennae, the moth's nose, that were crucial for the detection of these compounds, and were thus able to show that the ionotropic receptor 8a (IR8a) governs the avoidance response to larval feces.

***

" It is not a new discovery that tobacco hawkmoths lay significantly fewer eggs on plants that are already being attacked by caterpillars. In addition, the smell of larval feces is known to attract predators, the enemies of the larvae. However, it was not known that the same larval frass [larval feces] ensures that conspecifics which would otherwise compete for food are kept at a distance. Thus, the chemical signal from the frass helps not only the caterpillars which are already feeding on a plant but also the hovering moths: By avoiding the smell of larval feces, they may find better food for their offspring.

Comment: this sort of avoidance activity suggest that the insect somehow knows the future consequences of its egg deposition. How do insects anticipate the future? I doubt they do and are programmed in this way to protect the larvae.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Monday, July 30, 2018, 22:31 (2058 days ago) @ David Turell

A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:

https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

"In the mutualistic-symbiotic relationship between the ants and acacia trees, “the ants receive shelter and food from the host plant, and they aggressively defend the plant against herbivores and competing plants.” The tree makes nectar for the ants, and the ants, in return, protect the tree from large herbivores and other plants. When it is time for the acacia tree to reproduce, however, animals must be able to have access to the flowers; otherwise, the plants could not reproduce. The acacia tree, therefore, produces ant repellent on its flowers during the time that its flowers bloom, making it safe for insects to land there. If a power-set is made for all the necessary traits in this relationship it looks like this:

1) Acacia tree makes nectar for the ants
2) Ants attack anything that tries to graze on the tree
3) Trees produce ant repellent on the flowers
4) Acacia tree makes nectar for the ants, and ants attack anything that tries to graze on the tree
5) Acacia tree makes nectar for the ants, and trees produce ant repellent on the flowers
6) Ants attack anything that tries to graze on the tree, and trees produce ant repellent on the flowers
7) Acacia tree makes nectar for the ants, ants attack anything that tries to graze on the tree, and trees produce ant repellent on the flowers.

"(1-3) are the isolated traits need for the first evolutionary gradation. (4-6) are possible second modifications. (7) is the end-product. Some pathways are logically impossible. For example, the progression from (1) to (6) is not coherent. Thus, when scientists use this approach, they must only consider those progressions which are logically coherent. For the purpose of simplicity, I will only be focusing on (4-6). If (4-6) are considered, it becomes clear that any of these combinations would break down the entire system.

"(4) would be dangerous; if the ants had access to the tree’s flowers, insects could not land on the flowers and the plant could not reproduce. This combination of traits would destroy the system.

"(5) is also dangerous and seemingly impossible. The acacia trees rely on the protection of the ants for survival. The ants are a means of preventing other species from overtaking or out-competing the trees in the struggle for survival, and also provide protection from harmful pathogens. Moreover, the data strongly indicate that the resources provided by the tree are contingent upon the presence of large herbivores; when humans isolated the plants from large herbivores, they stopped producing the nectar, became sickly, and the entire system collapsed. Thus, the nectar provided by the tree is contingent upon large herbivores, which would threaten the tree if not for the ants.

"(6) would not be possible without (1) since (1) is necessary to attract the ants to the trees. Thus, (6) simply would not happen in nature.

"It seems that (4-6) would not physically occur in nature – to say nothing of (1-3). This indicates that this particular mutualistic-symbiotic relationship could not have evolved by numerous successive steps. All the parts are needed, otherwise the entire system breaks down completely. For these reasons, I believe that the mutualism between acacia ants and acacia trees is irreducibly complex."

Comment: There is no way around the author's argument. This cannot appear in a stepwise fashion, to be evaluated by nature at each new stage of development. It had to appear all at once with all of the critical factors and influences active simultaneously.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 10:29 (2058 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

How about this instead?
1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.

Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities. What is your theory?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 15:10 (2058 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

dhw: How about this instead?
1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.

Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities. What is your theory?

You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Wednesday, August 01, 2018, 12:50 (2057 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

dhw: How about this instead?
1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.
Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities. What is your theory?

David: You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you. Please now tell us your own just-so story. Could it be that your God stepped in personally to produce the ant repellent, or that he provided the very first cells with a programme for acacia ant repellent to be passed down through hundreds of millions of years, along with the programmes for every other undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 01, 2018, 20:09 (2056 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

dhw: How about this instead?
1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.
Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities. What is your theory?

David: You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you. Please now tell us your own just-so story. Could it be that your God stepped in personally to produce the ant repellent, or that he provided the very first cells with a programme for acacia ant repellent to be passed down through hundreds of millions of years, along with the programmes for every other undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?

We don't know that the Acacias solved the problem by themselves and all you've said is the problem got solved, so God is a possibility and natural evolution is not.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 09:37 (2056 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A symbiotic arrangement between trees ants is irreducibly complex and defies a evolutionary explanation:
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/acacia-ants-and-acacia-trees-an-irreducibly-compl...

dhw: How about this instead?
1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.
Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities. What is your theory?

DAVID: You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you. Please now tell us your own just-so story. Could it be that your God stepped in personally to produce the ant repellent, or that he provided the very first cells with a programme for acacia ant repellent to be passed down through hundreds of millions of years, along with the programmes for every other undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?

DAVID: We don't know that the Acacias solved the problem by themselves and all you've said is the problem got solved, so God is a possibility and natural evolution is not.

Nobody “knows”. My hypothesis – explicitly stated (see bold) – is that acacias solved the problem by themselves. That would be natural evolution, the theistic version of which would be that your God endowed cells/cell communities with the autonomous ability to solve problems. However, recalling Tony’s point that autonomy would also involve failure, 99% of species are believed to have gone extinct. The acacias were among those species that succeeded in solving their problem. I do not think this is any more “just-so” than the hypothesis that your God dabbled or preprogrammed every success but didn’t dabble in 99% of cases, or even preprogrammed all the failures.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 19:12 (2056 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We don't know that the Acacias solved the problem by themselves and all you've said is the problem got solved, so God is a possibility and natural evolution is not.

dhw: Nobody “knows”. My hypothesis – explicitly stated (see bold) – is that acacias solved the problem by themselves. That would be natural evolution, the theistic version of which would be that your God endowed cells/cell communities with the autonomous ability to solve problems. However, recalling Tony’s point that autonomy would also involve failure, 99% of species are believed to have gone extinct. The acacias were among those species that succeeded in solving their problem. I do not think this is any more “just-so” than the hypothesis that your God dabbled or preprogrammed every success but didn’t dabble in 99% of cases, or even preprogrammed all the failures.

The issue you have avoided is timing. Did the Acacias do it all at once or take time, and if they took time, how did they survive during that evolutionary interval?

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Friday, August 03, 2018, 11:25 (2055 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We don't know that the Acacias solved the problem by themselves and all you've said is the problem got solved, so God is a possibility and natural evolution is not.

dhw: Nobody “knows”. My hypothesis – explicitly stated (see bold) – is that acacias solved the problem by themselves. That would be natural evolution, the theistic version of which would be that your God endowed cells/cell communities with the autonomous ability to solve problems. However, recalling Tony’s point that autonomy would also involve failure, 99% of species are believed to have gone extinct. The acacias were among those species that succeeded in solving their problem. I do not think this is any more “just-so” than the hypothesis that your God dabbled or preprogrammed every success but didn’t dabble in 99% of cases, or even preprogrammed all the failures.

DAVID: The issue you have avoided is timing. Did the Acacias do it all at once or take time, and if they took time, how did they survive during that evolutionary interval?

I answered that question the first time you asked it. See the bold:
dhw: 1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.

dhw: Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities.

DAVID: You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you.

You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, August 03, 2018, 18:26 (2055 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: The issue you have avoided is timing. Did the Acacias do it all at once or take time, and if they took time, how did they survive during that evolutionary interval?

dhw: I answered that question the first time you asked it. See the bold:
dhw: 1) Ants like the yummy nectar, and fight off their rivals.
2) Acacia happy, but find there’s a problem at reproduction time. They fail to reproduce. Some even die off.
3) But others cotton onto the problem and create an ant repellent for their flowers.

dhw: Bacteria do this all the time when faced with new problems. Many of them die off, but some of them work out a solution. Evolution guided by intelligent cell communities.

DAVID: You have totally forgotten the timing issue. Bacteria reproduce every twenty minutes. How long would it take trees to figure out a solution? You are good at making up just so stories.

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you.

dhw: You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias.

You are right. It took time. The time interval cannot be glibly ignored. So the Acacias survived, which means the problem of providing ant protection occurred, but the issue is how. Did the acacias do it alone or were they helped? The necessary time interval suggests help was provided.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 09:24 (2054 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you.

dhw: You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias.

DAVID: You are right. It took time. The time interval cannot be glibly ignored. So the Acacias survived, which means the problem of providing ant protection occurred, but the issue is how. Did the acacias do it alone or were they helped? The necessary time interval suggests help was provided.

If your God provided help, why was there a time interval? Dithering? Incompetent? Looking for a solution? Couldn’t make up his mind whether to save the trees or not? Enough acacias survived for a solution to be found, and the search for a solution is a far more likely explanation of a time interval than preprogramming or intervention by your God.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 15:14 (2054 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My reference to bacteria was to show that even the simplest organisms solve new problems. The acacias solved the problem in the end, before it was too late. I have no idea how long it took, and nor have you.

dhw: You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias.

DAVID: You are right. It took time. The time interval cannot be glibly ignored. So the Acacias survived, which means the problem of providing ant protection occurred, but the issue is how. Did the acacias do it alone or were they helped? The necessary time interval suggests help was provided.

dhw: If your God provided help, why was there a time interval? Dithering? Incompetent? Looking for a solution? Couldn’t make up his mind whether to save the trees or not? Enough acacias survived for a solution to be found, and the search for a solution is a far more likely explanation of a time interval than preprogramming or intervention by your God.

The length of time necessary for a change to survival mode is the entire issue in thinking about this. The obvious view is the change had to be immediate for survival , thus the support for design. This is the point you miss.

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by dhw, Sunday, August 05, 2018, 11:55 (2053 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are right. It took time. The time interval cannot be glibly ignored. So the Acacias survived, which means the problem of providing ant protection occurred, but the issue is how. Did the acacias do it alone or were they helped? The necessary time interval suggests help was provided.

dhw: If your God provided help, why was there a time interval? Dithering? Incompetent? Looking for a solution? Couldn’t make up his mind whether to save the trees or not? Enough acacias survived for a solution to be found, and the search for a solution is a far more likely explanation of a time interval than preprogramming or intervention by your God.

DAVID: The length of time necessary for a change to survival mode is the entire issue in thinking about this. The obvious view is the change had to be immediate for survival, thus the support for design. This is the point you miss.

According to your earlier post (now bolded), it took time and the time interval cannot be glibly ignored, and the necessary time interval suggests help was provided. Now apparently it didn’t take time but was immediate. No wonder I missed your point. So what is your theory now? Your God saw that some acacias died, and immediately rushed to the rescue to provide the flowers with anti-ant protection? Or was this part of the 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme, in which he programmed the first cells to pass on anti-ant-protection-for-acacias, along with every other undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?
I stand by my original statement: "You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias."

Natures wonders: trees induce ants to protect them;symbiosis

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 05, 2018, 18:55 (2053 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are right. It took time. The time interval cannot be glibly ignored. So the Acacias survived, which means the problem of providing ant protection occurred, but the issue is how. Did the acacias do it alone or were they helped? The necessary time interval suggests help was provided.

dhw: If your God provided help, why was there a time interval? Dithering? Incompetent? Looking for a solution? Couldn’t make up his mind whether to save the trees or not? Enough acacias survived for a solution to be found, and the search for a solution is a far more likely explanation of a time interval than preprogramming or intervention by your God.

DAVID: The length of time necessary for a change to survival mode is the entire issue in thinking about this. The obvious view is the change had to be immediate for survival, thus the support for design. This is the point you miss.

dhw: According to your earlier post (now bolded), it took time and the time interval cannot be glibly ignored, and the necessary time interval suggests help was provided. Now apparently it didn’t take time but was immediate. No wonder I missed your point. So what is your theory now? Your God saw that some acacias died, and immediately rushed to the rescue to provide the flowers with anti-ant protection? Or was this part of the 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme, in which he programmed the first cells to pass on anti-ant-protection-for-acacias, along with every other undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life?
I stand by my original statement: "You seem to think that every bacterium and every tree is identical. There are thousands of cases in which a new disease strikes. Sometimes it wipes out whole species. But sometimes individuals find a solution and survive. It usually takes time. Neither you nor I know how long it took the acacias."

You missed the nuance of my original point. The time interval needed was critical in that it had to be immediate. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. As for how, perhaps an immediate dabble.

Natures wonders: acacia trees induce ants to protect them

by David Turell @, Friday, February 15, 2019, 19:59 (1858 days ago) @ David Turell

Another form of symbiosis. The trees feed the ants:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190215082337.htm

"Researchers find that the ants of the acacia tree are tipped off to the presence of herbivores by vibrations that run throughout the trees when an animal gets too close or begins to chew. As a result, the insects begin patrolling the acacia's branches more actively. Remarkably, the researchers show, the ants don't react when the trees' movements are caused only by the wind.

"Acacia trees are a prominent feature of the East African savannah. They're also a classic example of the long-standing and complex relationships between plants and insects, in this case acacia ants. The acacias provide food in the form of nectar and accommodation in hollow thorns for the ants. In return, the ants defend the acacias against nibbling elephants, giraffes, or other animals that would eat them.

"Now, researchers reporting in the journal Current Biology on February 14 find that the ants are tipped off to the presence of herbivores by vibrations that run throughout the trees when an animal gets too close or begins to chew. As a result, the insects begin patrolling the acacia's branches more actively. Remarkably, the researchers show, the ants don't react when the trees' movements are caused only by the wind.

"'The vibrations that occur when a mammal plucks a leaf are so powerful that they spread across the whole tree and are perceived by the ants," says Felix Hager of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. "As a result, the ants are alerted within a fraction of a second and promptly orient toward the attacker."

***

"Hager and Krausa thought that vibrations might be a more immediate and reliable information source for the ants. To test this, the researchers first measured vibrations in acacia induced by the wind and a by browsing goat. Then, they devised a mechanical device calibrated so as to reproduce the movement associated with a chewing, four-legged mammal.

"Their studies show that acacia ants respond to vibrations associated with a simulated herbivore, but not to the wind. They could respond to vibrations originating at some distance away. In almost every case, the ants also responded by heading toward the source of those vibrations. In other words, not only did they feel the vibrations, but they could tell based on them which way to go.

"'If an ant detects vibrations due to an elephant nibbling at its tree, it needs to find the attacker as soon as possible and decide in which direction to go," Krausa says. "We were impressed by the ants. Spread all over the tree, they made the right decision and walked toward the vibration source to fight back against the attacker almost every time.'"

Comment: As usual ants are amazing. The arrangement is a great a deal for both sides. Ant bites are a serious deterrent and they are simply protecting their food source. It is easy to see how the ants understand vibrations are in the forms of wave fronts, while wind motion is not. Not hard to understand this adaptation.

Natures wonders: penguin dads incubate eggs four months

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 17, 2019, 21:00 (1856 days ago) @ David Turell

It is amazing how the do it:

https://www.livescience.com/64765-how-penguins-keep-eggs-warm.html?utm_source=ls-newsle...

As if life weren't already tough enough in the mostly frigid Antarctic landscape they inhabit, these birds also have to breed in the dead of winter, when they must shield their eggs from snow and roaring winds, lest the eggs turn into ice cubes.

***

The emperor is actually the only penguin species that follows the risky strategy of breeding solely in the winter, which they do in huge colonies of several thousand birds. While the female birds head out to sea for months to replenish themselves with fish after each one lays an enormous egg, the males stay behind and each incubate an egg as temperatures grow increasingly frigid on the flat sheet ice where they live.

***

The reason for their wintertime breeding comes down to some very tight scheduling constraints. When several thousand hatchlings arrive in a penguin colony, they require tons of fish, squid and krill as sustenance. But that's available only in the springtime, when the vast stretches of frozen sea that separate emperor penguins from the ocean's edge melt and break apart.

And because incubating an egg takes around four months, "that means starting it in the winter, so the chick is then timed to hatch when maximum resources are available close by in the ocean," said Philip Trathan, head of conservation biology at the British Antarctic Survey. "If [penguins] were trekking over 200 kilometers [124 miles] of sea ice every foraging trip, they just wouldn't have time to do it," he told Live Science.

***

For starters, the birds are almost completely covered in a dense layer of feathers that's several centimeters thick, which insulates their own bodies and their young. Like many penguin species, an emperor is also equipped with a flap of naked skin on its abdomen, called the "brood pouch," that protects the egg. A bird artfully balances an egg on its feet, presses it up against this bare skin and then covers the egg over with a fleecy fold of belly plumage that completely insulates the offspring from the frozen world outside.

Direct contact with the skin heats the egg via blood vessels that lie just beneath the surface, said Dominic McCafferty, a thermal ecologist at Glasgow University in Scotland. The brood pouch also has a biological bonus. "The skin itself is very rich in temperature-sensing neurons that pick up the temperature of [the egg]," McCafferty told Live Science. That attunes emperor dads to the well-being of their chicks, alerting them when eggs need a little extra coverage to keep them cozy.

But all of this relies on the father penguin being able to maintain his own insulation for the benefit of himself and his young. "One of the several adaptations that the emperor penguins have in particular is this ability to not lose heat to the surrounding environment," said Michelle LaRue, a lecturer in Gateway Antarctica in the department of geography at University of Canterbury in New Zealand, who specializes in the population dynamics of Antarctic species. Part of that is ensuring that they have as little contact with the ice as possible.

To accomplish that, the birds lift their feet off the ice, lean back into their heels and steady themselves with their tail tips. "They have this kind of like two-foot-tail tripod, so that the only things touching the ice are their heels and their tail — which I think is incredible," LaRue told Live Science. "They kind of look like they're in a rocking chair!" They adopt this posture for months on end, for the protection of their chicks. "They're incredibly resilient. I'm in awe of the way they make a living," LaRue added.

Thermal imaging studies show that the birds' bodies lose only tiny amounts of heat, mainly through the beak, eyes and feet. Their feathers are basically an incredibly sophisticated down jacket, which "keeps the center warm but allows very little heat to transfer through the feathers out to the surface," said McCafferty, who studies temperature regulation in these birds. In fact, he's shown in his research that the surface of the birds' feathers are actually cool — which suggests that they're conducting hardly any heat to the outside world; it's all trapped within.

***

For extra heat insurance during the long months on the ice, the father birds use one last tactic: group hugs. Emperor penguins are famed for creating enormous huddles, wherein hundreds of birds jam together in a constantly circulating mass to ensure collective warmth. The underlying dynamics of these great groups are so complex that many biologists are still trying to understand how the gatherings work, McCafferty said.

But scientists do know why the birds do it. "Their sheer body heat is able to elevate the temperature of the air within the huddle," McCafferty said, adding that a group of French scientists has recorded air temperatures of more than 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius) above the huddle.

Comment: How did they adapt with so many different ways to keep warm? How did the y learn to be tripods? Possibly stepwise, but only if they entered that climate by swimming across the ocean. Or Antarctica was warm and gradually changed with them living there. Or their very complex changes were designed.

Natures wonders: onboard virus protects bacteria

by David Turell @, Monday, April 01, 2019, 17:18 (1814 days ago) @ David Turell

The trick is immune cells attack the virus but not the bacteria:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00991-4?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

"The virus, known as a phage, infects the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacterium, which frequently resists antibiotic treatment. The phage prompts the immune system into going after it instead of its microbe host, researchers report1 on 28 March in Science. The bacterium and the phage, called Pf, exist in a symbiotic relationship that scientists suspect is more widespread in the microbial world than previously believed. The finding could help to explain why the immune system tolerates helpful bacteria, such as those in the gut, and could lead to better treatments for infections.

"Although some phages kill their bacterial hosts, others live happily inside the microbes without killing them. Researchers have long suspected that this coexistence means that the viruses are advantageous for the bacteria in some way.

***

"The researchers found that 68% of the P. aeruginosa infections contained the Pf virus. When Bollyky and his colleagues transferred these phage-infected bacteria into open wounds on mice, they found that it took fewer bacteria to start an infection and that the rodents were more likely to die of their wounds than when the scientists used P. aeruginosa without Pf.

"The bacteria attracted immune cells called phagocytes, which eat bacteria but avoid viruses. When the phagocytes attacked wounds infected with P. aeruginosa and Pf, they soon left after eating only a few bacteria. The phagocytes that had ingested the infected bacteria then sent signals attracting immune cells that only attack viruses to the area.

***
"Breck Duerkop, a microbiologist at the University of Colorado in Aurora, calls the finding “astounding”. He says that researchers will now be forced to think more broadly about the microbiome — the collection of bacteria in the human body. “I think it adds a layer of complexity to host–microbiome interactions that was largely overlooked.'”

Comment: If it doesn't hurt you, use it.

Natures wonders: banyan tree wasp symbiosis

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 11, 2020, 23:51 (1254 days ago) @ David Turell

Some banyan trees need to be pollinated. They have wasps doing it:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/plants/the-banyan-tree-looks-odd-for-a-reason/?utm_so...

"Perhaps less well known is that it, like others in the Ficus species, has co-evolved with the wasp that pollinates it. The size and shape of wasps correspond exactly to those of the fig fruits, and each fig species creates a unique perfume to attract that wasp.

***

"Unlike F. microcarpa, which produces aerial roots and bears male and female flowers on the same tree, F. hispida produces distinct male and female trees and no aerial roots.

“'When we sequenced the trees’ genomes, we found more segmental duplications in the genome of the banyan tree than in F. hispida, the fig without the aerial roots,” Ming says. “Those duplicated regions account for about 27% of the genome.”

"The duplications were found to increase the number of genes involved in the synthesis and transport of auxins, a class of hormones that promote plant growth. Duplicated regions also contained genes involved in plant immunity, nutrition and the production of volatile organic compounds that signal pollinators.

“'The levels of auxin in the aerial roots are five times higher than in the leaves of trees with or without aerial roots,” Ming says, adding that the elevated auxin levels appear to have triggered aerial root production. The duplicated regions also include genes that code for a light receptor that accelerates auxin production.

"When they turned to the fig wasp, and compared it with related wasps, the researchers observed that it was retaining and preserving genes for odourant receptors that detect the same smelly compounds the fig trees produce – a likely signal of co-evolution.

"They also report discovering a Y chromosome-specific gene that is expressed only in male plants of F. hispida and three other fig species that produce separate male and female plants, a condition known as dioecy.

“'This gene had been duplicated twice in the dioecious genomes, giving the plants three copies of the gene. But Ficus species that have male and female flowers together on one plant have only one copy of this gene,” Ming says. “This strongly suggests that this gene is a dominant factor affecting sex determination.'”

Comment: As a fruit-bearing tree it adds to the food supply. I see it as designed.

Natures wonders: glass eels migrate with magnetism

by David Turell @, Friday, October 18, 2019, 20:09 (1613 days ago) @ David Turell

A followup study by the same lab:

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-uncovers-magnetic-memory-european-glass.html

"A new study led by researchers at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and at the Institute of Marine Research in Norway found that European glass eels use their magnetic sense to "imprint" a memory of the direction of water currents in the estuary where they become juveniles. This is the first direct evidence that a species of fish uses its internal magnetic compass to form a memory of current direction.

"'It's an important step forward in understanding the migratory behavior of the commercially important European eel and in expanding our knowledge of the orientation mechanisms that fish use to migrate," said Alessandro Cresci, a Ph.D. student at the UM Rosenstiel School and first author of the paper. "This research should provide awareness that tiny young eels can accomplish incredible tasks to migrate."

***


"The research team collected over 200 glass eels from various estuaries in the archipelago of Austevoll, Norway flowing in different directions: north, south, southeast or northwest. The fish were then placed in a magnetic laboratory, the "MagLab," where magnetic north was rotated to observe their magnetic orientation . In each case the eels oriented towards the magnetic direction of the prevailing tidal current occurring at their recruitment estuary at the time of the tests.

"The findings show that glass eels use their magnetic compass to memorize the magnetic direction of tidal flows in their recruitment estuary, which may help them orient in moving water during migration."

Comment: More evidence about the use of our magnetic field, which is created by our iron-nickel core, in our special planet for life to appear and survive. protected from the nasty cosmic rays that are out here. God protects what He creates.

Natures wonders: glass eels migrate with magnetism

by dhw, Saturday, October 19, 2019, 10:36 (1613 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More evidence about the use of our magnetic field, which is created by our iron-nickel core, in our special planet for life to appear and survive. protected from the nasty cosmic rays that are out here. God protects what He creates.

Just to restore the balance, you have omitted the fact that if he exists, he also created the nasty things that are out there, not to mention the nasty things that are in here!

Natures wonders: glass eels migrate with magnetism

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 19, 2019, 19:39 (1613 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More evidence about the use of our magnetic field, which is created by our iron-nickel core, in our special planet for life to appear and survive. protected from the nasty cosmic rays that are out here. God protects what He creates.

dhw: Just to restore the balance, you have omitted the fact that if he exists, he also created the nasty things that are out there, not to mention the nasty things that are in here!

Theodicy again. I think it is a challenge for our consciousness to solve by recognizing the problems created. God didn't just create us. He tested us.

Natures wonders: fungus controls cicada sex activity

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 22, 2018, 18:45 (2217 days ago) @ David Turell

Another fungus controls prey for its own purposes. We've seen ants controlled by fungus before. Convergence in evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-invasion-body-snatching-fungus.html

"UConn researchers recently documented in Nature Scientific Reports a gory and fascinating relationship between periodical cicadas and a fungus that infects them, hijacks their behavior, and causes a scene straight out of a zombie movie.

***

"The story starts with the cicadas' emergence, when around 2 to 5 percent are infected with spores of a fungus called Massospora cicadina. Though the fungus infects both male and female cicadas, the researchers discovered that early in the emergence, the infection - at this point called a Stage I infection - causes curious behavioral changes in males where, in addition to their normal mating behaviors, they will exhibit wing flicking that is typically seen only in female cicadas.

"The infected male cicadas put on a ruse, much like the Sirens of Greek myths; they flick their wings like a female, and lure in healthy unsuspecting males, who get close enough to be exposed to the spores, leading to their doom. The diseased males will also attempt to copulate with the uninfected females, exposing them to even more spores.

"The infection results in the insect's abdomen becoming distended as it fills with powdery, white fungal spores eventually to the point of bursting open or falling off altogether. When the abdomen falls off, the genitalia are lost with it - but that doesn't stop the cicadas from their eager quest to copulate.

"Cicadas infected by the spores passed around by the initially infected cicadas exhibit what is called a Stage II infection, following the same infection cycle as that seen in Stage I infections, in some cases acting normally despite the lack of genitalia and large portions of their abdomens, and spewing spores wherever they go.

"The fungus's job is complete, the spores are spread and ready to infect future generations.

"Cooley says the research into similar infections by parasites or fungi has been observed in other species, for instance in beetles, fruit flies, and even mammals, and has led to a growing body of literature over the past 10 years or so.

"Of the cicada infections, Cooley says, "This phenomenon is the ultimate evolutionary arms race, where the host loses because they are rendered sterile or evolutionarily irrelevant by the fungus in order to spread the spores."

"He anticipates that this area of research will continue to heat up in coming years, as more details of these arms races are uncovered."

Comment: It is amazing how fungi do this. I suspect this developed in one type of fungus and was spread by horizontal transfer of genes.

Natures wonders: assassin bugs many poisons

by David Turell @, Monday, February 26, 2018, 14:04 (2213 days ago) @ David Turell

These bugs produce more than one toxin, each with a purpose:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/when-it-comes-to-venom-assassin-bugs-are-double-trouble

"The name of the bugs – which covers about 300 species clustered into the family Reduviidae – already implies that they are not to be trifled with. New research led by molecular bioscientist Andrew Walker from the University of Queensland, however, has revealed that they are far, far more unpleasant than previously thought.

"In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, Walker and his colleagues use imaging data to show that the assassin bug has not one but three distinct venom glands. More, it produces two entirely separate types of venom – one to conquer prey, and the other to repel predators.

“'We discovered that assassin bugs actually make two different venoms, each containing a unique cocktail of over 100 different toxins,” Walker says.

"The way an assassin bug feeds is the stuff of B-grade science fiction. Using its trademark strong proboscis – otherwise known as a rostrum – the bug impales its prey and then injects venom-laced saliva. This serves two gruesome purposes: first, it paralyses the victim, and then it liquefies its internal organs, allowing the assassin bug to suck it all out.

***

"It’s long been noted that handling a bug in a way that makes it uneasy is a foolish thing to do. An assassin bug bite produces intense, localised pain and, eventually, a small patch of dead tissue.

"Until Walker’s team went to work, it was assumed that the discomfort arose because the bug injected the same venom it uses to Magimix its food. It turns out the assumption was incorrect.

"The researchers discovered that the bugs produce two quite different venoms and apply either depending on the situation.

"The hunting venom is produced in one spot, an area dubbed the anterior main gland. The defensive alternative is produced behind it, in the posterior main gland. Both glands, plus a third auxiliary one, converge on a structure called the hilus, described as a set of muscle-controlled mixing chambers.

***

"The researchers say that as far as is known, the capacity to produce two venoms with different functions is an evolutionary adaptation not found in any other animal."

Comment: What is always the issue about powerful poisons produced by animals is how was it evolved? What must be produced is the poison, or in this case poisons, and also self-protection for the producer. Can't be step-wise, but developed together. Not by chance.

Natures wonders: ants build bridges by individual action

by David Turell @, Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44 (2209 days ago) @ David Turell

The bridges depend on the individual automatically responding to their position:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

"Army ants form colonies of millions yet have no permanent home. They march through the jungle each night in search of new foraging ground. Along the way they perform logistical feats that would make a four-star general proud, including building bridges with their own bodies.

"An individual army ant is practically blind and has a minuscule brain that couldn’t begin to fathom their elaborate collective movement. “There is no leader, no architect ant saying ‘we need to build here,’” said Simon Garnier, director of the Swarm Lab at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and co-author of a new study that predicts when an army ant colony will decide to build a bridge.

"Garnier’s study helps to explain not only how unorganized ants build bridges, but also how they pull off the even more complex task of determining which bridges are worth building at all.

"To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back. At this point, two simple rules kick in.

"The first tells the ant that when it feels other ants walking on its back, it should freeze.

“'As long as someone walks over you, you stay put,” Garnier said.

"This same process repeats in the other ants: They step over the first ant, but — uh-oh — the gap is still there, so the next ant in line slows, gets trampled and freezes in place. In this way, the ants build a bridge long enough to span whatever gap is in front of them. The trailing ants in the colony then walk over it.

"There’s more to it than that, though. Bridges involve trade-offs. Imagine a colony of ants comes to a V-shaped gap in its path. The colony doesn’t want to go all the way around the gap — that would take too long — but it also doesn’t build a bridge across the widest part of the gap that would minimize how far the colony has to travel. The fact that army ants don’t always build the distance-minimizing bridge suggests there’s some other factor in their unconscious calculation.

***

"As individual ants run the “bridging” algorithm, they have a sensitivity to being stampeded. When traffic over their backs is above a certain level, they hold in place, but when it dips below some threshold — perhaps because too many other ants are now occupied in bridge-building themselves — the ant unfreezes and rejoins the march.

"This new paper grew out of experiments conducted with army ants in the Panamanian jungle in 2014. Based on those observations, the researchers have created a model that quantifies ants’ sensitivity to foot traffic and predicts when a colony will bridge an obstacle and when it will decide, in a sense, that it’s better to go around.

“'We’re trying to figure out if we can predict how much shortcutting ants will do given a geometry of their environment,” Garnier said.

"Evolution has seemingly equipped army ants with just the right algorithm for on-the-go bridge building. Researchers working to build swarms of simple robots are still searching for the instructions that will allow their cheap machines to perform similar feats. One challenge they have to contend with is that nature makes ants more reliably, and at lower cost, than humans can fabricate swarm-bots, whose batteries tend to die. A second is that it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.

“'We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University."

Comment: Each ant follows a built-in algorithm, but there could be a degree of group think not yet uncovered.

Natures wonders: turtle ants amazing gut bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 07, 2018, 14:03 (2204 days ago) @ David Turell

Their nutrition depends on these guys, who appreciate the protection:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/in-poo-to-you-turtle-ants-transfer-critical-microbe-...

"In a behaviour that finds a broad comparison with human tradition, a genus known as turtle ants, or cephalotes, pass on possessions from older individuals directly to younger ones.

"In a mechanism that does not, however, find a human analogue, they do so through their anuses.

"They have been doing this, researchers estimate in a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, for around 46 million years, during which time they have evolved in ways that mark them out from most other ant species in the world.

"And these changes – which include the loss of the large mandibles and stinging abilities that give most ants their fearsome reputation – are all because of their long tradition of inheritance.

"The content of a turtle ant’s faecal transplant comprises a community of bacteria, without which the recipient insect would very likely starve. And the microbes themselves, denied safe haven in a cephalote gut, would also perish.

***

"Many species of ant hunt aggressively for nutrient sources, swarming over territory and, if necessary, engaging in pitched battles against rival colonies, rival species, and even completely different and much larger animals.

"Turtle ants, in contrast, are peaceful foragers, chowing down on nectar, pollen and fungi in forest canopies, as well as eating bird urine and mammal poo. All these sources, the scientists realised, shared one characteristic. They were poor sources of nitrogen, either because they contained very little of the chemical, or, as in the case of the excreta, contained a lot of it, but not in a form the ants could use.

"This is where the gut bacteria come in. The ants’ microbiome contains species that are finely evolved to access and digest nitrogen in a way that makes it available to its hosts.

"The fact that they can subsist on such diets and have moved away from aggressively competing for more optimal food resources with other ants is almost certainly a function of their investment in symbioses with gut bacteria,” says Russell.

"And while the ants have evolved in ways that make them much less predatory than other members of their family, there is little role for karma in the insect world. Without the active defences of strong jaws and powerful acid, cephalotes risk becoming juicy low-risk prey for more aggressive species.

"In response to such threats, over many millions of years, the ants have developed a very thick defensive exoskeleton – a structure that requires a considerable amount of nitrogen in order to be produced and maintained.

“'That armour may be possible due to the large contributions gut microbes make to their nitrogen budgets,” Russell said.

"And, just as the actions of the bacteria protect the ants, so too do the ants return the favour. The researchers discovered that they have evolved a kind of fine mesh screen across their lower digestive tract, thought to prevent foreign invaders contained in food from reaching the symbionts."

Comment: Another amazing cooperative behavior. Seems to be an acquired arrangement.

Natures wonders: foraminifera, amazing amoebas

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 07, 2018, 22:18 (2203 days ago) @ David Turell

These are aquatic amoebas with shells:

"Amid the chilly waters off Antarctica lives an ancient, aquatic amoeba called Astrammina rara Barely big enough to be seen by naked eye, this creature consists of just a single cell encased within a hard shell. But that shell makes it remarkable. Using tiny, tentacle-like protrusions called pseudopodia, the amoeba builds its home by cementing together bits of sediment carefully plucked from the seafloor. Even stranger, it will only use grains of a very specific color, size and shape.

"This discerning critter is a member of the group foraminifera — amoebas that live inside shells called “tests” — and it is not the only one to show extraordinary architectural skills. Just this year researchers reported the discovery of a new kind of foraminifer that uses the shells of a second, smaller species to construct its test. The amoeba apparently selects the shells of that species even though plenty of other kinds of construction materials are available, and it arranges them in a very particular pattern.

“'This mode of construction ... seems to require either an extraordinarily selective trial-and-error process at the site of cementation or an active sensory and decision-making system within the cell,” the researchers write.

***

"Not only do some forams build their own shells, many are fierce hunters, capable of snatching multicellular prey from the water column using their pseudopodia. Still others harbor algae companions, which live inside their shells and provide energy through photosynthesis. This symbiosis has allowed some forams to become positively huge; the ancient Egyptians used one extra-large group, called Nummulites, as coins. Meanwhile, humans can only marvel at the powerful organic cement they use to hold their shells together; some scientists are studying this substance in hopes of improving our own building materials.

"Charles Darwin apparently felt as Lam and I do. He was so taken with forams' engineering ability that, in an 1872 letter to his friend W.B. Carpenter, he called it “almost the most wonderful fact I ever heard of.” (This from the man who witnessed so much of life's diversity he was inspired to revolutionize the field of biology.) “One cannot believe that they have mental power enough to do so, and how any structure or kind of viscidity can lead to this result passes all understanding.”

"With due respect to Mr. Darwin, “mental power” is probably the wrong phrase to use in talking about foraminifera. With just a single cell to speak of, forams don't have a nervous system with which to make decisions — though their behaviors are complex, the mechanisms that govern them are necessarily instinctual. A foram architect is not “smart” in the same manner as a human one.

***

"But, to my mind, forams are no less brilliant for their brainlessness. Like slime molds that map out metro systems, plants that form memories and ants that learned to farm, their abilities have been hard-won through generations of evolutionary trial and error. Rather than individual intelligence, they reflect a kind of general wisdom of biology: the ability of natural selection to produce creatures that are beautiful, bizarre, and uniquely equipped to fill their place in the world."

Comment: From today's Washington Post. How do they do this without brains? Did they learn this through trial and error as the author says? Their activity requires the use of information. They are not explained just like slime mold. God could have been involved.

Natures wonders: orangutans use pain killer plants

by David Turell @, Friday, April 06, 2018, 23:32 (2173 days ago) @ David Turell

They make a paste and rub it on their skin:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/orangutans-use-plant-extracts-to-treat-pain/...

"During more than 20,000 hours of formal observation, Morrogh-Bernard and her colleagues watched 10 orangutans occasionally chew a particular plant (which is not part of their diet) into a foamy lather and then rub it into their fur. The apes spent up to 45 minutes at a time massaging the concoction onto their upper arms or legs. The researchers believe this behavior is the first known example of a nonhuman animal using a topical analgesic.

"Local people use the same plant—Dracaena cantleyi, an unremarkable-looking shrub with stalked leaves—to treat aches and pains. Morrogh-Bernard’s co-authors at the Czech Academy of Sciences, Palacký University Olomouc and the Medical University of Vienna studied its chemistry. They added extracts from it to human cells that had been grown in a dish and had been artificially stimulated to produce cytokines, an immune system response that causes inflammation and discomfort. The plant extract reduced the production of several types of cytokines, the scientists reported in a study published last November in Scientific Reports.

"The results suggest that orangutans use the plant to reduce inflammation and treat pain, says Jacobus de Roode, a biologist at Emory University, who was not involved in the study. Such findings could help identify plants and chemicals that might be useful for human medications, de Roode says.

In creatures such as insects, the ability to self-medicate is almost certainly innate; woolly bear caterpillars infected with parasitic flies seek out and eat plant substances that are toxic to the flies. But more complex animals may learn such tricks after an initial discovery by one member of their group. For example, an orangutan may have rubbed the plant on its skin to try to treat parasites and realized that it also had a pleasant pain-killing effect, says Michael Huffman, a primatologist at Kyoto University, who was not involved in the new research. That behavior may then have been passed on to other orangutans. Because this type of self-medication is seen only in south-central Borneo, Morrogh-Bernard says, it was probably learned locally.

Comment: It would appear that it is a local practice. But the above comment about woolly bears suggests their behavior is instinctual.

Natures wonders: orangutans use pain killer plants

by dhw, Saturday, April 07, 2018, 12:44 (2173 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: In creatures such as insects, the ability to self-medicate is almost certainly innate; woolly bear caterpillars infected with parasitic flies seek out and eat plant substances that are toxic to the flies. But more complex animals may learn such tricks after an initial discovery by one member of their group. […] That behavior may then have been passed on to other orangutans.

DAVID’S comment: […] the above comment about woolly bears suggests their behavior is instinctual.

Everything has to have a beginning. How did the woolly bear caterpillar first learn to self-medicate? Your comment and that of the researchers simply reeks of “large organisms chauvinism”.

Natures wonders: orangutans use pain killer plants

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 07, 2018, 16:00 (2173 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: In creatures such as insects, the ability to self-medicate is almost certainly innate; woolly bear caterpillars infected with parasitic flies seek out and eat plant substances that are toxic to the flies. But more complex animals may learn such tricks after an initial discovery by one member of their group. […] That behavior may then have been passed on to other orangutans.

DAVID’S comment: […] the above comment about woolly bears suggests their behavior is instinctual.

dhw: Everything has to have a beginning. How did the woolly bear caterpillar first learn to self-medicate? Your comment and that of the researchers simply reeks of “large organisms chauvinism”.

I simply agreed that the orangutan usage was a local event, like the hundredth monkey story in the Pacific islands, and the woolly bear was instinct. Insects do develop instincts don't they. You just like to deploy Shapiro's quote.

Natures wonders: orangutans use pain killer plants

by dhw, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 11:08 (2172 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: In creatures such as insects, the ability to self-medicate is almost certainly innate; woolly bear caterpillars infected with parasitic flies seek out and eat plant substances that are toxic to the flies. But more complex animals may learn such tricks after an initial discovery by one member of their group. […] That behavior may then have been passed on to other orangutans.

DAVID’S comment: […] the above comment about woolly bears suggests their behavior is instinctual.

dhw: Everything has to have a beginning. How did the woolly bear caterpillar first learn to self-medicate? Your comment and that of the researchers simply reeks of “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: I simply agreed that the orangutan usage was a local event, like the hundredth monkey story in the Pacific islands, and the woolly bear was instinct. Insects do develop instincts don't they. You just like to deploy Shapiro's quote.

The authors believe that the more complex animal must have made the discovery and passed it on, whereas the knowledge was “innate” in the less complex insect. The latter ties in with your belief that smaller organisms have been preprogrammed by your God, and only larger organisms can make discoveries and use their own intelligence. Why shouldn’t the process of self-medication have begun with an individual woolly bear making the discovery and passing it on? All instinctive behaviour must have an origin, but you and the authors assume that only large organisms can work things out for themselves. I quote Shapiro because there is no other explanation for the refusal to consider even the possibility that small organisms might be intelligent.

Natures wonders: exploding ant defenders

by David Turell @, Friday, April 20, 2018, 15:03 (2160 days ago) @ dhw

To protect the nest a caste of ants explode to cover the invader with goo:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-turn-into-suicide-bombers

"Scientists have discovered a new species of ant that boasts a remarkable defence mechanism. When threatened, it explodes, covering intruders with sticky, toxic liquid.

"The species, formally known as Colobopsis explodens and nicknamed Yellow Goo, is not the first type of ant found to deploy the unusual but highly effective defence, but it is the first to be fully classified since 1935. It is described in the journal ZooKeys.

"Exploding ants live in the rainforests of south-east Asia, and were first noted in 1916. Differentiating species has proved highly challenging, in part because the insects live in dense forest canopies where access is difficult, so until now they have all be lumped into a single, undifferentiated genus.

"In 2014, researchers from Thailand, Brunei and Austria gathered together for the first ever interdisciplinary conference dedicated to the ants. By comparing notes, the scientists tentatively identified 15 species within the genus, and the slow, painstaking work of describing them began.

"C. explodens is the first to see the light of day, in paper written by a team head by Alexey Kopchinskiy from the Technische Universitat Wien in Austria, and Alice Laciny of Vienna’s Natural History Museum.

"The researchers report that not every member of the species goes bang. The behaviour is limited to a single caste, called minor workers, which the authors describe as “particularly prone to self-sacrifice”.

"Other castes within the species also exhibit unusual behaviours, however. Major workers, for instance, have disproportionately large heads, which they use to plug nest entrances in order to barricade against invaders."

Comment: the only way this only have evolved naturally is by a chance genome change in the queen. Doesn't seem likely. dhw will ask why God would bother.

Natures wonders: exploding ant defenders

by dhw, Saturday, April 21, 2018, 10:15 (2159 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: To protect the nest a caste of ants explode to cover the invader with goo:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-turn-into-suicide-bombers

DAVID’s comment: the only way this can have evolved naturally is by a chance genome change in the queen. Doesn't seem likely. dhw will ask why God would bother.

Thank you for yet another great example of ants' amazing inventiveness. We simply don’t know how such innovations originate, but perhaps it all ties in with the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which here would mean that each innovation is the product of plural intelligences combining to produce a new idea. Possibly, though, the queen is the superintelligence that supplies the new ideas. I would only ask you why God would bother if you insisted that he must have preprogrammed or dabbled all this, and had done so as part of his great plan to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If your God exists, I would see these wonders as the result of his giving organisms free rein to use their intelligence, thus producing marvel after marvel of ingenuity. Thank you again for all the research you do into these matters.

Natures wonders: exploding ant defenders

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 21, 2018, 15:08 (2159 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To protect the nest a caste of ants explode to cover the invader with goo:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-turn-into-suicide-bombers

DAVID’s comment: the only way this can have evolved naturally is by a chance genome change in the queen. Doesn't seem likely. dhw will ask why God would bother.

dhw: Thank you for yet another great example of ants' amazing inventiveness. We simply don’t know how such innovations originate, but perhaps it all ties in with the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which here would mean that each innovation is the product of plural intelligences combining to produce a new idea. Possibly, though, the queen is the superintelligence that supplies the new ideas. I would only ask you why God would bother if you insisted that he must have preprogrammed or dabbled all this, and had done so as part of his great plan to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. If your God exists, I would see these wonders as the result of his giving organisms free rein to use their intelligence, thus producing marvel after marvel of ingenuity. Thank you again for all the research you do into these matters.

You responded as expected, but I'm just as puzzled. Most of a colonies ants communicate through their body surface chemicals, n o thought here. The queen controls the genetics, so she is a source of the change, unless God stepped in like Nobel with TNT.

Natures wonders: exploding ant defenders

by dhw, Sunday, April 22, 2018, 13:12 (2158 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: If your God exists, I would see these wonders as the result of his giving organisms free rein to use their intelligence, thus producing marvel after marvel of ingenuity. Thank you again for all the research you do into these matters.

DAVID: You responded as expected, but I'm just as puzzled. Most of a colonies ants communicate through their body surface chemicals, n o thought here. The queen controls the genetics, so she is a source of the change, unless God stepped in like Nobel with TNT.

So when you communicate by setting your materials in motion, there is no thought? You always focus on the means of communication, which of course involves materials of some kind, and you ignore the fact that WHAT is communicated requires thought. As regards the changes:

QUOTE: “The researchers report that not every member of the species goes bang. The behaviour is limited to a single caste, called minor workers, which the authors describe as “particularly prone to self-sacrifice”.
Other castes within the species also exhibit unusual behaviours, however. Major workers, for instance, have disproportionately large heads, which they use to plug nest entrances in order to barricade against invaders
.”

I’d like to know at what stage the workers diversify. Do they all have the yellow goo, but only a few become martyrs? Are there martyrs and big-heads in the same colony? We know that colonies can have more than one queen, and sometimes there are “foreign” ants that have been captured. Do queens lay a mixed bag of eggs? These questions are surely answerable, and perhaps, David, you can enlighten us. But the answers still won’t tell us how the explosive/big heads techniques originated. Chance mutations that were useful, deliberate planning by a clever queen or by the combined intelligences of the colony, your God “stepping in”?

Natures wonders: exploding ant defenders

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 22, 2018, 15:12 (2158 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: If your God exists, I would see these wonders as the result of his giving organisms free rein to use their intelligence, thus producing marvel after marvel of ingenuity. Thank you again for all the research you do into these matters.

DAVID: You responded as expected, but I'm just as puzzled. Most of a colonies ants communicate through their body surface chemicals, n o thought here. The queen controls the genetics, so she is a source of the change, unless God stepped in like Nobel with TNT.

dhw: So when you communicate by setting your materials in motion, there is no thought? You always focus on the means of communication, which of course involves materials of some kind, and you ignore the fact that WHAT is communicated requires thought.

I refer you back to Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44 on this site where the article demonstrates the automaticity of individual ants in bridge building.

dhw: As regards the changes:

QUOTE: “The researchers report that not every member of the species goes bang. The behaviour is limited to a single caste, called minor workers, which the authors describe as “particularly prone to self-sacrifice”.
Other castes within the species also exhibit unusual behaviours, however. Major workers, for instance, have disproportionately large heads, which they use to plug nest entrances in order to barricade against invaders
.”

I’d like to know at what stage the workers diversify. Do they all have the yellow goo, but only a few become martyrs? Are there martyrs and big-heads in the same colony? We know that colonies can have more than one queen, and sometimes there are “foreign” ants that have been captured. Do queens lay a mixed bag of eggs? These questions are surely answerable, and perhaps, David, you can enlighten us. But the answers still won’t tell us how the explosive/big heads techniques originated. Chance mutations that were useful, deliberate planning by a clever queen or by the combined intelligences of the colony, your God “stepping in”?

E.O. Wilson may know.

Natures wonders: cicadan inter species sex

by David Turell @, Monday, April 23, 2018, 17:57 (2157 days ago) @ David Turell

Cicadas have either 13 or 17 year cycle but it seems they get together every 221 years:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/against-the-odds-cicada-teens-meet-and-mate-1

"Members of the cicada genus Magicicada are known as “periodical”, because of their mathematically precise life history pattern. Depending on their lineage, the insects spend the best art of either 13 or 17 years underground, as larvae, before transforming into adults and emerging, en masse, in their hundreds of thousands, suddenly filling the air with their loud and buzzing mating calls.

"Six of the seven species in the genus are classified as “pairs” – closely related but, in any given location, with one operating on a 13-year cycle and the other taking 17. (The seventh species, more distantly related, operates on a 13-year plan.) Members of each cycle are called a cohort, or brood.

"In each area of their eastern US distribution, only one cohort emerges at any time.
The next brood scheduled for emergence is the species Magicicada septendecim. Each cycle is numbered and named by avid cicada-watchers, and this one has been dubbed Brood VII, or the Onondaga Brood, due to its location in territory within the Native American Onondaga Nation in upstate New York.

"This synchronisation of life cycles is thought to have evolved as a predator avoidance strategy, with a mass emergence of cicadas creating a glut of prey, so ensuring the survival of at least a few to start the next generation.

"The other outcome, however, is that members of one brood are extremely unlikely to ever come into contact with members of another. Indeed, brute mathematics predict that a 13-year cohort and a 17-year cohort in the same area will only emerge simultaneously once in more than two centuries.

"However, a study published in the journal Communications Biology reports that genetic hybridisation has occurred between two closely related 13 and 17 year cohorts belonging to the same species pair – despite the fact that their paths shouldn’t have crossed.

***

"Although the three groups differ widely in appearance and calls, the 13 year and 17 year species within each are virtually indistinguishable. The emergence time is the only differentiating feature.

"Despite its statistical unlikeliness, Sota and colleagues found “substantial gene flow” had occurred between the 13 and 17 year broods within each species group. They suggest that this may have occurred when the cycles coincided and two broods emerged at once – an event that happens every 221 years.

"Matings could also occur during occasional off-schedule emergences, when disorganised cicadas, known as “stragglers”, pop up late, or early.

"Despite the gene flow, however, periodical cicadas have been able to maintain their distinct life cycles for up to 200,000 years.

***

“'The genetic background of the life cycle divergence in periodical cicadas remains unclear,” they conclude, “and future sequencing of the full genomes of these species is needed to further understand how these different life cycles are maintained over evolutionary time.'”

Comment: Hiding out for 13 or 17 years is not really explained. But canoodling when they do meet is certainly reasonable.

Natures wonders: ant colonies allow parasites

by David Turell @, Monday, April 23, 2018, 19:04 (2157 days ago) @ David Turell

These ants follow the Arab proverb, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", even if the parasite ants eat some larvae and some of the fungus harvest:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-freeloader-baby-eating-ants-colony.html

"But new research shows there's likely a useful tradeoff to calmly accepting these parasite ants into the fold: They have weaponry that's effective against their host ants and a more menacing intruder ant.

"Rachelle Adams, an ant expert at The Ohio State University, wanted to better understand the dynamics of the symbiotic relationship between parasitic Megalomyrmex symmetochus ants and Sericomyrmex amabilis hosts.

***

"Instead, the host/parasite relationship appears to be built on mutual protection from a more fearsome foe, said Adams, an assistant professor of evolution, ecology and organismal biology.

"The parasitic ants possess a volatile alkaloid-based venom that the host ants detect from a distance. The parasite ants' potent chemical weaponry is known to work against a more-lethal invader ant.

"'It's likely a scenario where the enemy of your enemy is your friend," she said.

"'When confronted with a parasitic ant, the farmer ant will at first lunge at the intruder, but then instead of biting, she'll pull away and bow her head down, in a submissive response."

"There are more than 250 species of these fungus-farming ants in the United States and in Central and South America, she said. The ants studied in this research live in Panama.

"'These fungus farmers start little farms and care for the fungus garden by feeding it and protecting it from pathogens," Adams said.

"The crops are bountiful – more than what the host colony needs – so when the parasites invade it doesn't cause a tremendous amount of stress to either the fungus or ants, she said.

"And while they do eat some of the ants' protein-rich brood, they don't kill the queen and the host colony remains healthy.

"Going forward, Adams hopes to discover whether or not this parasite-tolerance behavior is transmitted from parent to offspring colonies. Not all Sericomyrmex amabilis colonies live with parasites in their midst. Scientists estimate that about three-quarters of colonies host parasites."

Comment: Seems like a beneficial naturally developed arrangement.

Natures wonders: butterfly plant relationships

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 18:10 (2156 days ago) @ David Turell

Just as the Monarch butterfly feasts on specific milkweed, an Australian butterfly chooses a specific vine:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/a-very-hungry-caterpillar

"The Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondi) is a species that is found across north-east Australia, though habitat loss means that its range is growing more limited. Adults of the species are normally found only in or near rainforest but on rare occasions they have been spotted in drier conditions.

"The butterfly lays its eggs almost exclusively on a particular kind of vine – known, for this reason, as Richmond birdwing butterfly vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa) – which has leaves that are toxic to most predators. When hatched, the caterpillars need a lot to eat: each one can require the equivalent of a 10-year-old vine to fatten itself up enough to wrap itself in a cocoon and transform into an adult butterfly."

Comment: The vine protects the young larvae. Perhaps this is a pattern God uses in evolution for butterflies. Think about it. Did the adult butterflies, when they first used the plant, know it was safe for their larvae. or was this all planned in advance? Hard to imagine how this evolved by chance.

Natures wonders: ants use fungus to trap large insects

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 01:08 (2155 days ago) @ David Turell

Much like a torture rack iti sbuilt on trees with multiple holes:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167060-ants-build-a-medieval-torture-rack-to-catc...

"These ants have transformed the characteristic ant zeal for teamwork into something macabre. Azteca brevis ants build and set a trap not unlike a medieval torture device, which is used to cooperatively capture and rip apart insect prey.

"Lead author Markus Schmidt first came across Azteca brevis ants in Costa Rica’s Piedras Blancas National Park in 1999. He saw the ants constructing unusual, porous nests on tree trunks. But he could not find any research explaining what these structures were for.

"After months of observations and experiments in the rainforest, Schmidt and his colleague Alain Dejean of the University of Toulouse in France discovered that A. brevis ants were engaging in an ingenious ambush hunting strategy.

"The millimetres-long ants build a network of galleries and tunnels, reinforced with fungus, in the tree trunk. The end result is a Swiss cheese-like contraption, dotted with holes just wide enough for a worker ant’s head. Schmidt calls it a “carton nest”.

"The ants lurk in the holes, jaws agape, waiting for a large grasshopper or leafcutter ant (Atta spp.) to step onto the trap. When one does, an ant will clamp onto a leg and start pulling. At this point, the victim is doomed.

“'By trying to set itself free, the Atta ant would then step in yet another hole where the same process was repeated, until the legs and antennae of the Atta were all fixed and the intruder was spread-eagled on the carton nest,” says Schmidt.

"After pinning the insect down, the A. brevis ants carve it up on the spot. The trap allows workers to efficiently kill insects nearly fifty times heavier than themselves.

"Dejean has also seen an unrelated ant species (Allomerus decemarticulatus) in French Guiana using a similar hunting method. This suggests that the strategy has evolved at least twice, independently.

“'[The trap] is quite unique and so far limited to the very specific lifestyle and ecological niche of these two arboreal ants,” says Schmidt.

"Farmers in Costa Rica are increasingly using fungicide in the ants’ native range. This may imperil the species by killing the fungus used to reinforce the trap tunnels and galleries."

Comment: Ants continue to amaze.I can't imagine this developed step wise. The design is intricate. Each ant's actions must be automatic as shown in other previously reported studies. Saltation?

Natures wonders: bees use odor of death to clean hive

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 20:53 (2154 days ago) @ David Turell

There is av method bees use to keep the hive as pure as possible:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scent-of-death-honeybees-use-odors-to-clean-...


'A dozen years ago beekeepers started reporting that frightening numbers of their honeybees (Apis mellifera) were mysteriously dying. Scientists have since discovered multiple reasons, but “diseases are by far the main cause of problems with honeybee health right now,” says Leonard Foster, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of British Columbia. The insects are afflicted by scourges ranging from varroosis (caused by mites) to the bacterial disease American foulbrood. Now a new study reveals how the smell of dead honeybees could be used to help identify and breed healthier colonies.

"Scientists have long known honeybees remove dead or diseased individuals from among their young, or “brood,” to restrict the spread of pathogens through a colony. British Columbia researcher and study lead author Alison McAfee, along with Foster and other colleagues, wanted to better understand why some colonies are more fastidious about this cleanup than others are. They selected two chemicals naturally produced by honeybees, oleic acid and beta-ocimene, whose odors they thought might act as cleanup signals. Many insects release oleic acid at death, and honeybee larvae release beta-ocimene to signal their need for food. Young honeybees emit both compounds when they die.

"The researchers performed a series of tests to determine if these odors were connected to hygienic behavior. In one experiment, they added oleic acid and beta-ocimene to a live brood developing in comb cells, in an attempt to trick worker bees into thinking the brood was dead. The workers removed more brood members from cells doused with a blend of both chemicals, compared with insects exposed to only one of the odors or to a control chemical, the team reported in April in Scientific Reports. The researchers think that beta-ocimene alerted workers to attend to the brood and that oleic acid triggered them to remove the “dead.”

"The team also found a link between the odors and the genetics that drive honeybees’ hygienic behavior. Because some bees appear to respond more strongly to “death” smells by cleaning, these findings may help scientists develop a better way to breed more hygienic bees. “The fact that they have a mechanism by which the bees can identify these smells—and they actually get a plausible mechanism with their genetics—is really exciting,” says Jay Evans, a research scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who was not involved in the study. “If validated, there could be a way to measure that trait, so that beekeepers could select a bee breed that’s hygienic based on genetics.'”

Comment: An important instinct undoubtedly controlled in the genome with teh bees acting automatically.

Natures wonders: desert ants use magnetic field

by David Turell @, Friday, April 27, 2018, 22:59 (2152 days ago) @ David Turell

Foragers do orient their way back to the nest using the magnetic field:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-reveal-ants-geomagnetic-field.html

"Desert ants (Cataglyphis) spend the first weeks of their lives exclusively in the nest. For around four weeks, they nurse the queen and the brood, dig tunnels, build chambers or tidy up. At some point, they leave the nest to start their outdoor career, working as foragers until death.

"Before an ant sets out to forage, it has to calibrate its navigational system. For this purpose, the insects exhibit a peculiar behaviour lasting two to three days: They perform so-called "learning walks" to explore the vicinity of the nest entrance and frequently turn about their vertical body axes while doing so. High-speed video recordings show that the ants stop repeatedly during these pirouetting motions. What is special about the longest of these stopping phases is that at this moment, the ants always look back toward the nest entrance, even though they are unable to see the tiny hole in the ground.

"Researchers from the Biocenter of the University of Würzburg have now made the surprising discovery that the desert ant uses the Earth's magnetic field as an orientation cue during these calibration trips. This ability had been previously unknown for desert ants.

***

"'While they are foraging for food, desert ants venture several hundred metres away from their nest, pursuing a sinusoidal path that includes larger loops. Once they have found food, they return to the nest entrance in a straight line," says Wolfgang Rössler, describing the ants' astonishing navigational abilities. The researchers had previously known that the ants rely on the position of the sun and landmarks as orientational cues and integrate this information with the steps traveled.

"Recent research results have shown, however, that the desert ant also looks back to the nest entrance during its learning walks in the absence of solar information or landscape cues. "This sparked the idea that the insects might navigate using the Earth's magnetic field as a cue, as some birds do," Pauline Fleischmann says.

"To confirm their hypothesis, the researchers traveled to the south of Greece, where Cataglyphis ants are native. They took a 1.5-m-high pair of Helmholtz coils with them. A defined current passed through the coils creates an almost homogeneous, precisely known magnetic field between the coils. This enabled the researchers to study the behaviour of the desert ants during their learning walks in their natural habitat under controlled conditions.

"The result was unambiguous: When the scientists changed the orientation of the magnetic field, the desert ants no longer looked towards the real nest entrance but toward a predictable new location—the fictive nest entrance. "Their path integration provides them with a new vector to the nest based on the information of the magnetic field," Wolfgang Rössler explains. The scientists admit that they were surprised by this finding. They say that although individual ant species are known to respond to changes in the magnetic field under certain conditions, the necessity and distinct influence on navigation in Cataglyphis ants was unexpected.

"With this result, the researchers raise further questions. For instance, when do desert ants use their magnetic sense? It might well be that they rely on it during the first weeks of their life underground. After all, a navigational aid can be quite useful in total darkness. But this is only a hypothesis at this point.

"The second question the scientists want to tackle is how and whether the ants switch between the different navigational cues of the position of the sun, landmarks and the magnetic field. Experienced foragers are already known to perform re-learning walks when they are forced to do so, for example, by changing the environment at the nest entrance. It is unclear, however, whether they also rely on magnetic field cues in this case or whether they use their solar compass as during the foraging trips.

"And ultimately, there is the overarching question of where the magnetic field sensor is located and how it works. According to Wolfgang Rössler, this question takes you deep into the field of orientational and navigational research in insects. How does the comparably small ant brain manage to store navigational information on the position of the sun, the magnetic field and landmarks, and integrate this information with distance data from their step counter?"

Comment: This is part of a pattern in which many animals are found to use the Earth's magnetic field usually with an iron containing protein.

Natures wonders: lung worm controls frogs' poop

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 03, 2018, 21:18 (2146 days ago) @ David Turell

These controls allow the larvae to survive until the next life cycle:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2018/04/28/lungworms-maipulate-cane-toa...

"it’s not surprising that scientists recently discovered lungworms alter the behavior of their cane toad hosts to ensure things are most comfortable for them. But what is surprising, or at least a little unnerving, is what they actually do: the worms makes their hosts poop differently.

"The question of whether the parasites were manipulating toads arose after Patt Finnerty noticed that infected toads acted a little differently in other lab trials he was conducing. Further investigation revealed significant differences in behavior between infected and uninfected toads, particularly when it comes to their bowel movements.

"The parasite in question is the lungworm Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala, a nematode that primarily infects cane toads (Rhinella marina). It came to the attention of scientists because its those toads—normally native to the Americas—have become invasive pests in places like Australia after they were introduced in 1935.

***

"That lifecycle involves a two-generation process with both parasitic and free-living stages. As the name implies, the parasitic lungworms live in their hosts lungs as adults feeding on blood (1). The eggs they lay there are essentially coughed up and swallowed, and hatch in the toad’s digestive tract (2). As larvae, they hang out in feces, which they consume (3), and a little after the frog defecates, they molt to become free-living adult worms (4), which find one another and mate. The female worm gets the short end of the parenting stick at this point, as she retains her fertilized eggs until after they hatch (5). The offspring develop inside her until they kill her as they burst free (6). They then wait in the soil (7) until the opportunity presents itself to burrow into the next unfortunate toad that stops by (8), starting the cycle anew.

***

"The researchers also noticed that infected toads defecated more often, and seemingly aimed for their water containers rather than the dry newspaper floor of their cages. When they weighed these poops out, the average wet mass of the infected animals’ feces was higher than that of the dewormed ones, but the dry mass was the same—infected poops were just about 15% moister. And that was especially intriguing, because when they put the lungworm larvae through the gauntlet, they found that over 15 times as many survived after three days if the soil was moist rather than dry.

"The same story emerged from the field data. Infected wild toads tended to poop closer to bodies of water, and on moister soils. And when the weather was dry, the infected toads stuck much closer to water.

“'We found that toads with lungworms behaved much differently than uninfected toads is several regards,” explained Greg Brown, a research fellow at the University of Sydney and co-author on the paper. “Most notably, infected toads tended to stay closer to water and poo in moister areas.”

“'These are the conditions that increase survival of the larval worms in the poo and increase their likelihood of encountering a new host.”

***

"then the results open a, well, can of worms, so to speak, because they are evidence that parasitic manipulation of hosts may be more subtle than scientists thought—and more common. “Lots of parasite larvae are transmitted to the environment through feces, so maybe parasite ability to manipulate host pooing is widespread,” said Brown. “It seems like a logical way for the parasite to increase the likelihood of its offspring surviving and infecting another host.”

"But if the worms are really manipulating their hosts, then more questions arise—like, how are the worms causing these behavioral changes? The researchers couldn’t say for sure, but they’re betting the worms tweak circulating cellular signals like neurotransmitters or hormones to get the toads to deposit moist, frequent poops near water. Learning exactly how they exert their control could help scientists better understand the toads’ physiology, or maybe even point to novel ways of getting rid of them.

"Controlling an invasive species by controlling its bowels—now wouldn’t that be something."

Comment: It seems reasonable that chemical influences from the are used for this control of the frog's body.

Natures wonders: dolphins strange adaptations

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 06, 2018, 16:17 (2144 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Sunday, May 06, 2018, 16:24

Like whales, to enter the water, enormous adaptations had to occur:

http://nautil.us//blog/what-is-it-like-to-be-a-dolphin?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_camp...

"We diverged from dolphins and whales (collectively called cetaceans) only about 65 million years ago, about as far removed as any two mammals can be. (Cetaceans’ closest living relative is the hippo, from whom they diverged about 55 million years ago.)

"So in order to understand a dolphin’s experience, assume you know nothing, basically. You’ll naturally start to empathize—or at least project. That’s natural. Humans can’t really help it. We do it even when we’re getting it wrong. So try to empty your mind. Sit back, relax, and imagine you’re weightless. Gravity doesn’t affect you like it does those land critters. You move in all directions—up, down, left right, in and out of water—all the time. And unlike them, your respiration isn’t automatic, like a heartbeat or a reflex: To take a breath, you have to make the conscious choice to find the edge of the water, your home, every five minutes or so. And because of that: You never sleep. Not really. One half of your brain is active all the time, even when you rest; you literally sleep with one eye open.

"You have good eyesight, both in and out of the water, which is rare in the animal kingdom. You might see color but maybe not—it’s complicated. You lack olfactory nerves, so you don’t have a sense of smell (your air-to-nostril time is exclusively for breathing). The jury’s still out as to what and how you taste.

"You do have excellent hearing: Your auditory nerve has several times as many fibers as humans, and with each fiber measuring about two times thicker, you can hear a range of frequency seven times wider than a human’s. You can even “see through” things, using sonar: Different materials return sound differently, so you can find the fish hiding in the sand, or the shark lurking in the kelp forest. It might even be as detailed as those sonograms humans show off of their unborn children. In fact you can “see” a human fetus inside its mother’s womb (probably). (Maybe you recognize it as a mammal fetus and swim in to get a closer look, causing humans to start a whole “dolphin midwifery” thing, which—just—they need to stop.) It’s possible that your senses of hearing and touch are intertwined: Your jaw, for instance, acts kind of like a tuning fork, helping sound waves up into your “ear”.

"Even though your skin is 10-20 times thicker than terrestrial animals, it’s extremely sensitive. It’s just stupid with nerve endings, especially around the fins, genital region (like humans, sort of), and the rostrum (your snout). You use it to root for food, but most often to touch other dolphins. You use touch to talk. You vocalize, sure, with whistles, screams, chirps, but you use your body, too—for instance, the meaning of petting via pectoral fins may even transcend species.

"Love and friendship are human words that mean nothing to you. But if you see a dolphin you haven’t seen in awhile, you remember them—even decades later. And when someone in your family dies, you notice. And partnerships certainly abound in your world: Females form “alliances” to take care of young, which includes defending against male alliances, whose primary function often involves helping each other fight for the right to mate with females, even perhaps killing the offspring of males from competing alliances. But the rules within these alliances are extremely complicated, the source of articles upon articles trying to decipher their structure. Maybe, some humans say, your emotional intelligence is through the roof.

"Maybe you didn’t evolve a prefrontal cortex (which is the part of the brain humans use to help them regulate their behavior and make decisions). Maybe instead your brain developed a structure called the paralimbic cortex, which could be similar, only everything that goes on there is much more tied to emotion. It’s also a controversial possibility that you have way more of certain type of brain tissue (“association cortex”) that helps sort through sensory input and emotions, and social goings on.

***

"You and your pod-mates have “signature whistles,” patterns that are consistently associated with individuals, used to broadcast your identity, perhaps, like a name.

***

"there are 36 species of dolphin, depending on how you count them. All of them, though, live with 360 degrees of sensory information 24 hours a day, two types of sight, a dozen types of sounds, and more feels than we can imagine. "

Comment: This article covers a tiny portion of the physiologic changes to make a dolphin. They have many other adaptations related to birth and nursing under water, as well as changes in control of salt, since they live in salt water and receive excessive amounts of sodium. Like whales they are a weird result of evolution.

Natures wonders: cuckoo bees invade bee hives

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 09, 2018, 00:13 (2141 days ago) @ David Turell

They use other bees work to lives their own lives:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-species-stealthy-cuckoo-bees.html

Cuckoo bees sneakily lay their eggs in the nests of other bee species, after which their newly hatched prodigies kill the host egg or larva, and then feed on the stored pollen. The host, a solitary bee, never knows anything is awry. Nine new species of these clandestine bees have been found hiding in collections and museums across North America by York University PhD Candidate Thomas Onuferko, as well as another six unpublished in a decades old academic thesis.

More closely resembling wasps in appearance, cuckoo bees lack the typical fuzzy look usually attributed to bees as they don't need those hairs to collect pollen for their young. Although not much is known about them, cuckoo bees are named after cuckoo birds which exhibit the same cleptoparasitic behaviour.

Comment: Did they lose their fuzz before or after they discovered this way of parasitism? There aare many ways to earn a living.

Natures wonders: cuckoo catfish don't raise their kids

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 09, 2018, 17:21 (2141 days ago) @ David Turell

They use another fish to be brood mothers:

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/54514/title/Image-of-the-Day--Ho...


"Cuckoo catfish (Synodontis multipunctatus) have a cunning reproductive strategy. Rather than expend the energy required to care for eggs themselves, they sneak their developing offspring into the mouths of cichlids, who raise them as their own.

"Familiarity with the catfish may help the cichlids avoid being their unwilling babysitters. Radim Blažek and colleagues report last week (May 2) in Science Advances that cichlids that coevolved with the parasitic catfish rejected the eggs more often than cichlids that hadn’t. Even though the behavior led to the savvy cichlids sometimes rejecting their own eggs, they still were more successful in raising their own offspring than cichlids who accepted the catfish eggs were. "

Comment: Another neat trick learned by evolving organisms.

Natures wonders: mucus mesh ocean grazers

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 09, 2018, 17:44 (2141 days ago) @ David Turell

Just when you thought the bush of life couldn't get any crazier, it has:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/meet-the-ocean-creatures-that-use-a-mesh-of-mucus-to...

"But the ocean has its own suite of grazers, with very different — even bizarre — body forms and feeding techniques. Instead of teeth, one group of these invertebrates uses sheets of mucus to consume huge quantities of tiny plant-like particles. In our new paper, my colleagues and I suggest a new categorization for this overlooked group: “mucous-mesh grazers,” in recognition of their unusual feeding strategy.

"Unlike the mucus in our noses, which appears amorphous and blobby, the mucous sheets of these ocean grazers can be structured into ornate meshes and nets. These mucous sheets can function like a filter to ensnare food as small as bacteria. The grazers themselves are mammoth in comparison: up to 10,000 times bigger than their food. If people ate food that small, you’d be picking salt and sugar grains off your dinner plate.

***

"Mucous-mesh grazers include salps, pyrosomes, doliolids, pteropods and appendicularians. They are typically centimeters in length, roughly spanning the size of your fingernail to the size of your hand. Some form colonies comprised of many individuals in long chains that can be much longer. These creatures are large and watery compared to their hard-bodied planktonic counterparts. If you stepped on one, it would squish, not crunch. A mostly water body enables them to grow large quickly.

"Mucous-mesh grazers are free floating and suited to the open ocean. They live far from shore, where food is scarce and often small. The tiny holes and fibers of their mucous meshes enable them to capture microscopic particles, which they subsequently swallow, sometimes along with the mucus.

"Unlike spiders that spin their feeding webs, these grazers have a special organ, called an endostyle, that secretes their mucous mesh. Depending on the grazer, the mucous mesh can be located either inside or outside the body. One group, for example, secretes a mucous bubble big enough for the animal to live inside like a house. Another group, nicknamed sea butterflies, secrete mucous webs that attach to their wing-shaped feet. These mucous webs range in size from an inch to over 6 feet.

***

"Picky eating by mucous-mesh grazers may have profound implications for biogeochemical cycles, particularly in light of shifting ocean conditions. Environmental factors like ocean temperature, availability of nutrients and the type and amount of prey present influence when and where mucous grazers appear, how long they stick around and their impact on ocean food webs.

"A more tropical species of mucous-grazing pyrosomes (Pyrosoma atlanticum) provides a case study. Typical in warmer waters as far north as Southern California, they confounded scientists and fishermen alike when they appeared off the Oregon coast in 2014.

"No one knows why the pyrosomes appeared, but ocean temperatures warmed around the same time. Like other mucous-mesh grazers, the fine pyrosome filter allows them to graze on the smaller particles that are associated with warmer, less nutrient-rich surface water – prey too small for most other animals to catch. Along with other researchers along the West Coast, my lab is actively working to understand why the pyrosomes appeared, how they might affect the marine ecosystem, and if they will persist."

Comment: Mucus is a common product among organisms. This is a neat adaptation.

Natures wonders: aphid host plant manipulation

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 22:16 (2057 days ago) @ David Turell

Aphids can change the composition of the plant sap they eat:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180731092057.htm

"They have found out that aphids are able to influence the quality of their food, and that this may enable them to construct a niche on their own host plants.

***

"There are hundreds of different aphid species. They all feed on plant sap, known as phloem sap. The nutritional value of the phloem sap is determined by the sugar concentration and the concentration and composition of amino acids. Previously it was not known how the quality of plant sap changes in different plant parts after aphid infestation, how this change in quality influences the development of aphids, and how, in turn, the aphids can change the composition of the plant sap.

"Müller and her team are the first to confirm that aphid infestation actually does change the composition of the plant sap depending on which aphid species is infesting which specific part of the plant. For example, infestation of the stem close to the bud with a certain aphid species changes the composition of sugar and organic acids in the sap. In contrast, infestation of the old leaves with another aphid species increases the concentration of amino acids. And a further phenomenon can also be ascertained: 'We were able to observe that the aphid species that developed best on the stem close to the bud and the other species that proliferated best on the old leaves each specifically increased the quality of the plant sap of the corresponding plant part,' says Ruth Jakobs, a research assistant at the Faculty of Biology. Hence, aphids construct their own niche in such a way that they are able to profit from it. 'We can assume that aphids behave in a similar way to, for example, beavers that settle in the dams they have constructed themselves,' says Müller.

"The biologists gained their findings by placing aphids on different parts of common tansy plants -- the stem close to the bud, a young leaf, and an old leaf -- and determining the growth of the populations of these insects at these locations. In addition, the biologists collected the plant sap and analysed its chemical composition."

Comment: How the aphids accomplish this is not yet known.

Natures wonders: desert ants navigation aides

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 19:47 (244 days ago) @ David Turell

The ants build them:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230531150134.htm

"'The desert ant Cataglyphis fortis stands out due its remarkable ability to successfully navigate and forage in even the harshest environments, making it an excellent subject for studying the intricacies of navigation. With an innate navigation mechanism called path integration, these ants use both a sun compass and a step counter to measure the distances they cover. In addition, they possess the ability to learn and utilize visible and olfactory cues. We believe that this extremely harsh habitat has led, during evolution, to a navigation system of unsurpassed precision," said Marilia Freire, the study's lead author, summarizing what is known so far about the amazing orientation skills of these small animals.

***

"For their experiments, the researchers followed the ants with a GPS device. This allowed them to track the ants on their way to the saltpan and back home. "We observed that desert ants are capable of traveling much greater distances than previously reported. The farthest distance a single animal traveled was more than two kilometers. However, we also observed an unexpectedly high mortality rate. About 20% of foraging ants do not find their way back home after extremely long runs and died in front of our eyes, which explains the enormous selection pressure for even better orientation," says Marilia Freire.

***

"In ant nests, labor is divided. Ants that go foraging are usually older and more experienced nest members, while younger ants are busy building. Therefore, there must be some kind of information flow between the two groups. The researchers do not yet know exactly how this is achieved. "One possibility would be that ants in the nest somehow notice that fewer foragers return home, and as a result, hill-building activities at the nest entrance are increased," says Marilia Freire.

***

"Markus Knaden has been studying desert ants for 25 years and is still amazed by their fascinating abilities: "The animals can learn visual and olfactory cues despite their small brains. In addition, they are able to decide which information is useful for their navigation and which is not. All this was already known. However, the fact that they even build their own landmarks for orientation and only choose to invest in this work when other environmental cues are missing is quite surprising.'"

Comment: since individual ants must make decisions, and individual ants are known to react automatically in ant swarms, it is currently unknown whether these reactions are automatic or spontaneous. Both are possible.

Natures wonders: how ants handle obstacles in their way

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 10, 2018, 19:22 (2140 days ago) @ David Turell

It turns out they have two methods and each individual ant plays its own role:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-food-carrying-ants-problem-obstacles.html

"Ants working together to carry a large piece of food get around obstacles by switching between two types of motion: one that favors squeezing the morsel through a hole and another to seek a path around the barrier.

***

"Ron and colleagues built a mathematical model that simulates ants' behavior when facing a rigid barrier with a narrow hole. The simulations suggest that ants randomly switch between two modes of motion, one in which they dwell near the hole, providing a chance to pass food through it, and another in which sideways motions allow them to seek their way around the obstacle. Switching between modes ensures the ants do not get stuck in a single mode without finding a solution.

"The model also predicts that the size of the food-carrying ant group, which reflects the size of the food item, determines which mode of motion will dominate. Small groups with smaller items will spend more time near the hole, while larger groups perform more sideways motions to get around the barrier. When encountering the obstacle each ant continues to behave according to the rules that govern their free, unhindered motion. Nevertheless, when encountering the obstacle these same rules give rise to the coexistence of the two observed motions that allow them to overcome the obstacle. In other words, the problem is "solved" by the collective without any of the individuals realizing the exact nature of the problem. (my bold)

"Study co-author Ofer Feinerman then led the testing of these model predictions in experiments with real ants carrying cargo that ranged from 1 cm to 4 cm in diameter. When the ants encountered a rigid barrier with a narrow hole, they did indeed switch between the two types of motion predicted by the model. Smaller groups carrying smaller items spent more time near the hole, as predicted."

Comment: Each ant follows his individual built-in rules, but the group as a whole is able to solve the problem

Natures wonders: water wheel insect trap mechanism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 02:02 (2134 days ago) @ David Turell

Another plant beside the Venus fly trap catches insects, and by a different mechansim:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180515105654.htm

"The midrib of the leaf (which has been transformed into a snap trap) bends slightly downwards in a flash, the trap halves fold in, and the water flea can no longer escape -- as part of an interdisciplinary team Anna Westermeier, Dr. Simon Poppinga and Prof. Dr. Thomas Speck from the Plant Biomechanics Group at the Botanic Garden of the University of Freiburg have discovered how this snapping mechanism, with which the carnivorous waterwheel (Aldrovanda vesiculosa) catches its prey, works in detail.

***

"The Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) and the far less known aquatic waterwheel are the only carnivorous plants with snap traps. While intensive research on the Venus flytrap has been going on for a long time, the ten times faster underwater snap traps of the waterwheel have so far been little studied. The team led by the Freiburg biologists has now deciphered the underlying movement principle using experiments and computer simulations. The researchers found that the waterwheel snaps shut its trap, which is only three millimetres in size, by actively changing the internal pressure in the cells of the leaf, which leads to the midrib bending, and also by releasing internal prestress, which apparently results in an acceleration effect. The Venus flytrap, on the other hand, employs a hydraulic mechanism to change the curvature of its leaf halves which results in rapid trap closure. Although both plants share many similarities, the mechanics of the traps differ considerably. This finding may not only help understanding the development of snap traps from an evolutionary perspective, but also the adaptation to different habitats -- in a terrestrial habitat with the Venus flytrap, under water with the waterwheel."

Comment: These plants demonstrate a very complex evolution. Not only must they work out the mechanics of a trap, they must develop a digesting enzyme to dissolve the insect, and at the same time develop a protection for itself from the enzyme. This is irreducible complexity, for which evolutionary theory has no explanation, since it all must be developed in one step to solve call the problems presented by the process or trapping and eating. Not by chance.

Natures wonders: ants take reasonable detours

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 20, 2018, 19:43 (2130 days ago) @ David Turell

Matabele ants take detours to actually travel faster:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180518102736.htm

"Termites are the African Matabele ants' (Megaponera analis) favourite dish. Proceeding in long files of 200 to 600, they raid termites at their foraging sites and haul the prey back to their nest where they are ultimately eaten.

"Before starting their raids, the ants send out scouts to look for the termites' foraging sites. Once they have spotted them, the scout ants return to the nest to mobilize their comrades. On their way back to the nest, the scouts show astonishing navigational abilities: They take the quickest route rather than the shortest.

"If the direct way back passes through an area densely grown with grass, for example, the scouts prefer taking detours through open terrain which enables them to double their pace -- and this is worth it: They travel much faster although they are not taking the shortest route. This reduces their time back to the nest by 35 percent on average as Erik T. Frank, Philipp Hönle, and Karl Eduard Linsenmair from Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU) in Bavaria, Germany, discovered.

"'Other ant species are known to rely on various navigational aids to determine the shortest way back to the nest from a foraging site," Erik Franks says. The navigational skills of the Matabele ants seem to be even more complex, a finding the researchers want to explore in greater detail now.

"Moreover, the JMU scientists were surprised that the decision which way to take is made by individual ants and not collectively. "We have thus provided the first proof of time optimized path integration by individuals in the ant kingdom," says Frank who is currently conducting postdoc research at the University of Lausanne."

Comment: Once again, as in ant bridge construction, it is done by individual ant choices or responses. The evidence does not show group think.

Natures wonders: ants take reasonable detours

by dhw, Monday, May 21, 2018, 14:16 (2129 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Moreover, the JMU scientists were surprised that the decision which way to take is made by individual ants and not collectively. "We have thus provided the first proof of time optimized path integration by individuals in the ant kingdom," says Frank who is currently conducting postdoc research at the University of Lausanne."

DAVID’s comment: Once again, as in ant bridge construction, it is done by individual ant choices or responses. The evidence does not show group think.

It shows that individual ants are intelligent. Ant bridge construction, like the construction of an ant city, requires the cooperation of the whole community. As in human society, some actions are individual (individual think) and some actions are communal (group think). All these actions confirm the autonomous intelligence of the organisms involved.

Natures wonders: European stork migration patterns

by David Turell @, Friday, May 25, 2018, 00:26 (2125 days ago) @ dhw

Some less adept fliers stay in Europe. The most proficient fliers go to Africa:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-storks-migrate-africa-autumn.html

"Andrea Flack and Wolfgang Fiedler have been visiting storks' nests on the western shore of Lake Constance. The aerial ladder of the fire brigade raises them to the stork nests at lofty heights so that they can strap small tracking devices onto the backs of the nestlings. The aim is to follow Louis and 60 other young storks on their migration. The instruments, which weigh less than 60 grams, record the GPS coordinates of the birds' locations. They also measure the animals' movements using accelerometers. This allows the researchers to determine whether and how the birds are moving.

***

'Never before have researchers tracked a group flight of storks as meticulously as Louis and his peers. The scientists of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the University of Konstanz have now published the results of Louis' and his peers' voyage. The data from the thousand-kilometre stage show how a bird's flight performance, social behaviour and global migratory route are interlinked.

"Thanks to a sophisticated analysis of the GPS data, the scientists have found that there are leader birds within groups of migrating storks. They lead the group to areas with favourable thermals, where the birds are literally sucked up by the rising warm air. This allows them to glide farther and avoid active flapping flight to save energy.

***

'Detailed analysis of the high-resolution GPS data shows that the flight paths of the leader birds are more irregular. "They are the ones who locate the thermals and search out the most favourable areas within them. "As a result, they have to adjust their flight paths repeatedly," explains Máté Nagy, who analyzed the data from the trackers. The follower birds benefit from the leaders' explorations and can soar upward in more regular trajectories.

"'When travelling to the next thermal, follower birds are a bit slower and lose altitude faster. To avoid falling behind the group, they must flap their wings more and leave the thermals before reaching the top."

"However, a stork's flying skill is not only linked to its position within the group. How much it flaps its wings also predicts where it will spend the winter. Animals that flap their wings a lot do not fly as far as those that flap less. Louis, for example, is a rather mediocre flyer. For him, it is better to spend the winter in southern Spain, especially since he can find enough food at the landfill site there.

"The situation is entirely different for Redrunner, another individual of the 27 tagged storks. He is one of the leaders of his group, and, therefore, manages to minimize his wing beats. He overwinters in North Africa. While Louis covered more than 1000 kilometres on his 2014 journey, Redrunner covered nearly 4000 kilometres. "The flight characteristics are so central to the birds' position within the group that we can predict just after a few minutes of migration flight whether it will spend the winter in Europe or fly on to West Africa," explains Andrea Flack.

"This is the first time that humans have been able to observe the group behaviour of storks on their journey across Europe to Africa in such detail. The collected data show that storks fly in socially structured groups, which are largely determined by the flying skills of the group members. "A stork's route and destination depend, among other things, on how efficiently it can fly," says Martin Wikelski, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and Honorary Professor at the University of Konstanz."

Comment: In this case migration is by study of terrain and flying efficiency.

Natures wonders: amazing amoebas and slime mold

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 12, 2019, 19:17 (1892 days ago) @ David Turell

They have amazing abilities that appear intelligent:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a25686417/amoeba-math/

"A group of researchers from Tokyo’s Keio University set out to use an amoeba to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, a famous problem in computer science. The problem works like this: imagine you’re a traveling salesman flying from city to city selling your wares. You’re concerned about maximizing your efficiency to make as much money as possible, so you want to find the shortest path that will let you hit every city on your route.

"There’s no simple mathematical formula to find the most efficient route for our salesman. Instead, the only way to solve the problem is to calculate the length of each route and see which one is the shortest.

"What’s worse, performing this calculation gets exponentially harder the more cities are added to the route. With four cities, there are only three different routes to consider. But with six cities, there are 360 different routes that need to be calculated. If you’ve got a route with ten or more cities the number of possible routes is in the millions.

"This makes the traveling salesman problem one of a broad class of problems computer scientists call ‘NP hard.’ These are problems that get exponentially difficult very quickly, which also includes problems related to hacking encrypted systems and cryptocurrency mining. For pretty obvious reasons, a lot of people are interested in finding ways to solve these problems as quickly as possible.

"Keio University's solution is different from the typical algorithmic solutions produced by other researchers, because the scientists used an amoeba. Specifically, the Physarum polycephalum slime mold. Physarum polycephalum is a very simple organism that does two things: it moves toward food and it moves away from light. Millions of years of evolution has made Physarum abnormally efficient at both of these things.

"The Keio University researchers used this efficiency to build a device to solve the traveling salesman problem. They set the amoeba in a special chamber filled with channels, and at the end of each channel the researchers placed some food. Instinctively, the amoeba would extend tendrils into the channels to try and get the food. When it does that, however, it triggers lights to go off in other channels. (my bold)

"Keio University's solution is different from the typical algorithmic solutions produced by other researchers, because the scientists used an amoeba. Specifically, the Physarum polycephalum slime mold. Physarum polycephalum is a very simple organism that does two things: it moves toward food and it moves away from light. Millions of years of evolution has made Physarum abnormally efficient at both of these things. (my bold)

"The Keio University researchers used this efficiency to build a device to solve the traveling salesman problem. They set the amoeba in a special chamber filled with channels, and at the end of each channel the researchers placed some food. Instinctively, the amoeba would extend tendrils into the channels to try and get the food. When it does that, however, it triggers lights to go off in other channels.

"Keio University's solution is different from the typical algorithmic solutions produced by other researchers, because the scientists used an amoeba. Specifically, the Physarum polycephalum slime mold. Physarum polycephalum is a very simple organism that does two things: it moves toward food and it moves away from light. Millions of years of evolution has made Physarum abnormally efficient at both of these things.

"This might seem like a roundabout way of calculating the solution to the traveling salesman problem, but the advantage is that the amoeba doesn’t have to calculate every individual path like most computer algorithms do. Instead, the amoeba just reacts passively to the conditions and figures out the best possible arrangement by itself. What this means is that for the amoeba, adding more cities doesn’t increase the amount of time it takes to solve the problem.

"So the amoeba can solve an NP-hard problem faster than any of our computer algorithms. How does this happen? The Keio scientists aren’t sure, exactly.

“'The mechanism by which the amoeba maintains the quality of the approximate solution, that is, the short route length, remains a mystery,” says lead study author Masashi Aono in a press release.

"But if the researchers can figure out just how the amoeba works, they can use this trick for more than just helping out traveling salesmen. It could speed up our ability to solve all kinds of difficult computational problems and change the way we approach security.

"This one small amoeba—and the way it solves difficult problems—might just change the face of computing forever."

Comment: Amazing work by an amoeba/slime mold. This ability has been noted here previously. Note the article says the slime m old reacts automatically (instinctively) The clever mechanism the researchers chose to use was the real problem solver.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 01, 2018, 22:49 (2056 days ago) @ David Turell

That is the conclusion of an ant study carrying objects at an obstruction:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-literature/how-ants-make-collective-decisions-64523?u...

"Ants carrying food to their nests often run into obstacles. To find out how they determine the best way to proceed, researchers first used a mathematical model in which ants on the march confronted a barrier with a small opening in it. The model suggested two possible solutions: squeeze the morsel of food through the hole or go around the blockage. The path the “ants” took depended on the number of ants, which in turn hinged on the size of the cargo.

EX SILICO

"The team tested its model on wild ants in Israel by giving them large, ring-shaped cargos of different sizes smeared with cat food that the ants collectively carried. The researchers placed a clear, plastic wall containing a small hole facing the nest in front of the ants that were hauling the cargo.

MARCHING ORDERS

"The ants at the front of the pack, which were following a pheromone trail toward the opening, tended to pull the cargo, while the ants at the back tended to switch between pulling and lifting the load, helping reduce friction with the ground. The ants at the back based their behavior on the cues they received from fellow ants in the front. “No single ant is actually thinking about it,” says coauthor Nir Gov, a biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. “Basically they are programmed, we think, to reinforce existing motion.”

RITE OF PASSAGE

"The collective forces of the group decide how the food will be moved, the authors suggest. Smaller groups of ants receive weaker cues from their nestmates and spend more time vacillating near the hole, while larger groups more quickly make the collective decision to go around the barrier. In the latter case, the greater number of ants weighing in helps them find a solution faster. Tomer Czaczkes, who studies ant behavior at the University of Regensburg in Germany and was not involved in the study, says the research provides “good suggestions for what the rules the ants might be following are.'”

Comment: Same finding as in bridge building. Individuals follow programmed responses.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 09:43 (2056 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: The ants at the back based their behavior on the cues they received from fellow ants in the front. “No single ant is actually thinking about it,” says coauthor Nir Gov, a biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. “Basically they are programmed, we think, to reinforce existing motion.”

RITE OF PASSAGE
QUOTE: "The collective forces of the group decide how the food will be moved, the authors suggest. Smaller groups of ants receive weaker cues from their nestmates and spend more time vacillating near the hole, while larger groups more quickly make the collective decision to go around the barrier. In the latter case, the greater number of ants weighing in helps them find a solution faster.

David’s comment: Same finding as in bridge building. Individuals follow programmed responses.

We’ve read about similar studies before. The ants in the front make the decision, and the rest follow (= programmed to reinforce existing motion), just like most societies, in which leaders lead and followers follow. The key here is that “collective forces….make the collective decision”, and the larger the force, the quicker the decision. These are the “thinkers”, and this is why ants are my favourite example of how cell communities produce intelligence that exceeds that of the individual. From a materialist point of view, you can apply the same principle to the cell communities that make up the human brain and body. The majority of our body’s cells follow instructions issued by the leaders, and the leaders are those cells whose combined individual intelligences run the show. The dualist’s alternative is, of course, an immaterial soul.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 19:15 (2056 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: The ants at the back based their behavior on the cues they received from fellow ants in the front. “No single ant is actually thinking about it,” says coauthor Nir Gov, a biophysicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. “Basically they are programmed, we think, to reinforce existing motion.”

RITE OF PASSAGE
QUOTE: "The collective forces of the group decide how the food will be moved, the authors suggest. Smaller groups of ants receive weaker cues from their nestmates and spend more time vacillating near the hole, while larger groups more quickly make the collective decision to go around the barrier. In the latter case, the greater number of ants weighing in helps them find a solution faster.

David’s comment: Same finding as in bridge building. Individuals follow programmed responses.

dhw: We’ve read about similar studies before. The ants in the front make the decision, and the rest follow (= programmed to reinforce existing motion), just like most societies, in which leaders lead and followers follow. The key here is that “collective forces….make the collective decision”, and the larger the force, the quicker the decision. These are the “thinkers”, and this is why ants are my favourite example of how cell communities produce intelligence that exceeds that of the individual. From a materialist point of view, you can apply the same principle to the cell communities that make up the human brain and body. The majority of our body’s cells follow instructions issued by the leaders, and the leaders are those cells whose combined individual intelligences run the show. The dualist’s alternative is, of course, an immaterial soul.

You are right. The leader makes a choice of two alternatives, this path or that. Not much thinking involved. Just pick one. May not need any judgement at all. Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Friday, August 03, 2018, 11:31 (2055 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We’ve read about similar studies before. The ants in the front make the decision, and the rest follow (= programmed to reinforce existing motion), just like most societies, in which leaders lead and followers follow. The key here is that “collective forces….make the collective decision”, and the larger the force, the quicker the decision. These are the “thinkers”, and this is why ants are my favourite example of how cell communities produce intelligence that exceeds that of the individual. From a materialist point of view, you can apply the same principle to the cell communities that make up the human brain and body. The majority of our body’s cells follow instructions issued by the leaders, and the leaders are those cells whose combined individual intelligences run the show. The dualist’s alternative is, of course, an immaterial soul.

DAVID: You are right. The leader makes a choice of two alternatives, this path or that. Not much thinking involved. Just pick one. May not need any judgement at all.

Then what on earth was the point of the test? Hundreds of tests have been carried out to show that ants make intelligent decisions.

DAVID: Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

Of course our decisions are more complex. But if our cells make complicated decisions on their own, they are not programmed. The leaders decide, the rest follow.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Friday, August 03, 2018, 18:29 (2055 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We’ve read about similar studies before. The ants in the front make the decision, and the rest follow (= programmed to reinforce existing motion), just like most societies, in which leaders lead and followers follow. The key here is that “collective forces….make the collective decision”, and the larger the force, the quicker the decision. These are the “thinkers”, and this is why ants are my favourite example of how cell communities produce intelligence that exceeds that of the individual. From a materialist point of view, you can apply the same principle to the cell communities that make up the human brain and body. The majority of our body’s cells follow instructions issued by the leaders, and the leaders are those cells whose combined individual intelligences run the show. The dualist’s alternative is, of course, an immaterial soul.

DAVID: You are right. The leader makes a choice of two alternatives, this path or that. Not much thinking involved. Just pick one. May not need any judgement at all.

dhw: Then what on earth was the point of the test? Hundreds of tests have been carried out to show that ants make intelligent decisions.

This study concerned individual actions of the nest when a group is active.


DAVID: Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

dhw: Of course our decisions are more complex. But if our cells make complicated decisions on their own, they are not programmed. The leaders decide, the rest follow.

Our cells are programmed to work together for proper organ function.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 09:26 (2054 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are right. The leader makes a choice of two alternatives, this path or that. Not much thinking involved. Just pick one. May not need any judgement at all.

dhw: Then what on earth was the point of the test? Hundreds of tests have been carried out to show that ants make intelligent decisions.

DAVID: This study concerned individual actions of the nest when a group is active.

There wouldn’t be much to study if there weren’t individual actions and if the group was inactive.

DAVID: Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

dhw: Of course our decisions are more complex. But if our cells make complicated decisions on their own, they are not programmed. The leaders decide, the rest follow.

DAVID: Our cells are programmed to work together for proper organ function.

You say the cells are programmed. The article says the cells make complicated decisions on their own.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 04, 2018, 15:22 (2054 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are right. The leader makes a choice of two alternatives, this path or that. Not much thinking involved. Just pick one. May not need any judgement at all.

dhw: Then what on earth was the point of the test? Hundreds of tests have been carried out to show that ants make intelligent decisions.

DAVID: This study concerned individual actions of the nest when a group is active.

dhw: There wouldn’t be much to study if there weren’t individual actions and if the group was inactive.

DAVID: Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

dhw: Of course our decisions are more complex. But if our cells make complicated decisions on their own, they are not programmed. The leaders decide, the rest follow.

DAVID: Our cells are programmed to work together for proper organ function.

dhw: You say the cells are programmed. The article says the cells make complicated decisions on their own.

The article discusses how groups of ants and individual ants react. It concludes individuals are programmed. No cells anywhere.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Sunday, August 05, 2018, 12:00 (2053 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This study concerned individual actions of the nest when a group is active.

dhw: There wouldn’t be much to study if there weren’t individual actions and if the group was inactive.

DAVID: Our cells make much more complicated decisions on their own, with each cell programmed to choose in concert with his fellows so an organ runs properly.

dhw: Of course our decisions are more complex. But if our cells make complicated decisions on their own, they are not programmed. The leaders decide, the rest follow.

DAVID: Our cells are programmed to work together for proper organ function.

dhw: You say the cells are programmed. The article says the cells make complicated decisions on their own.

DAVID: The article discusses how groups of ants and individual ants react. It concludes individuals are programmed. No cells anywhere.

I used ants as an analogy to how cell communities work. The article tells us how leader groups of ants make collective decisions, and the ants at the back follow. That is how I propose cell communities also work: the “leaders” work out what is to be done, and the rest put the decision into operation. If there is a choice, a collective decision is a decision, it is not automatic behaviour.

Under “cell communication”:

QUOTE: "It's interesting that these bacteria, which are so-called simple, single-cell organisms, are using a fairly sophisticated strategy to solve this community-level problem," said Larkin. "It's sophisticated enough that we humans are using it to extract oil, for example.'"

DAVID: Most likely an automatic electrochemical series of reactions from interior to exterior, passed from contiguous cell to contiguous cell.

Yes, communication entails passing information from interior to exterior by automatic electrochemical means. We humans do it all the time. But one should not confuse the means of communication with the reasons for communicating. Even so-called simple single-cell organisms may need fairly sophisticated strategies of communication because they have fairly sophisticated ideas to communicate as a consequence of their autonomous intelligence!

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 05, 2018, 19:02 (2053 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The article discusses how groups of ants and individual ants react. It concludes individuals are programmed. No cells anywhere.


dhw: I used ants as an analogy to how cell communities work. The article tells us how leader groups of ants make collective decisions, and the ants at the back follow. That is how I propose cell communities also work: the “leaders” work out what is to be done, and the rest put the decision into operation. If there is a choice, a collective decision is a decision, it is not automatic behaviour.

The automatic behavior is in the followers. A leader does make a decision of this way or that way.


dhw: Under “cell communication”:

QUOTE: "It's interesting that these bacteria, which are so-called simple, single-cell organisms, are using a fairly sophisticated strategy to solve this community-level problem," said Larkin. "It's sophisticated enough that we humans are using it to extract oil, for example.'"

DAVID: Most likely an automatic electrochemical series of reactions from interior to exterior, passed from contiguous cell to contiguous cell.

dhw: Yes, communication entails passing information from interior to exterior by automatic electrochemical means. We humans do it all the time. But one should not confuse the means of communication with the reasons for communicating. Even so-called simple single-cell organisms may need fairly sophisticated strategies of communication because they have fairly sophisticated ideas to communicate as a consequence of their autonomous intelligence!

Again it is either or. The hungry cells will die if they don't signal. They fell hungry and send the signal. A binary response to a definite hunger stimulus, no intelligence involved.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Monday, August 06, 2018, 13:33 (2052 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The article discusses how groups of ants and individual ants react. It concludes individuals are programmed. No cells anywhere.

dhw: I used ants as an analogy to how cell communities work. The article tells us how leader groups of ants make collective decisions, and the ants at the back follow. That is how I propose cell communities also work: the “leaders” work out what is to be done, and the rest put the decision into operation. If there is a choice, a collective decision is a decision, it is not automatic behaviour.

DAVID: The automatic behavior is in the followers. A leader does make a decision of this way or that way.

Thank you. It is the decision-making that provides evidence of intelligence – in ants as in cell communities.

QUOTE: "It's interesting that these bacteria, which are so-called simple, single-cell organisms, are using a fairly sophisticated strategy to solve this community-level problem," said Larkin. "It's sophisticated enough that we humans are using it to extract oil, for example.'"

DAVID: Most likely an automatic electrochemical series of reactions from interior to exterior, passed from contiguous cell to contiguous cell.

dhw: Yes, communication entails passing information from interior to exterior by automatic electrochemical means. We humans do it all the time. But one should not confuse the means of communication with the reasons for communicating. Even so-called simple single-cell organisms may need fairly sophisticated strategies of communication because they have fairly sophisticated ideas to communicate as a consequence of their autonomous intelligence!

DAVID: Again it is either or. The hungry cells will die if they don't signal. They fell hungry and send the signal. A binary response to a definite hunger stimulus, no intelligence involved.

There is always a reason for communication. You concentrate on the automatic processes involved in the act of communication, as if they precluded any autonomous thought behind the need for it. The bacteria had a problem. They communicated with each other in order to find a solution to their problem. I suggest that if they didn’t know they had a problem, they would not have communicated with each other.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Monday, August 06, 2018, 15:28 (2052 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Most likely an automatic electrochemical series of reactions from interior to exterior, passed from contiguous cell to contiguous cell.

dhw: Yes, communication entails passing information from interior to exterior by automatic electrochemical means. We humans do it all the time. But one should not confuse the means of communication with the reasons for communicating. Even so-called simple single-cell organisms may need fairly sophisticated strategies of communication because they have fairly sophisticated ideas to communicate as a consequence of their autonomous intelligence!

DAVID: Again it is either or. The hungry cells will die if they don't signal. They fell hungry and send the signal. A binary response to a definite hunger stimulus, no intelligence involved.

dhw: There is always a reason for communication. You concentrate on the automatic processes involved in the act of communication, as if they precluded any autonomous thought behind the need for it. The bacteria had a problem. They communicated with each other in order to find a solution to their problem. I suggest that if they didn’t know they had a problem, they would not have communicated with each other.

They 'knew' they had a problem because, like us, they recognize hunger as an automatic stimulus. Do you think about your automatic responses, or is breathing thoughtful?

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Tuesday, August 07, 2018, 09:39 (2051 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The hungry cells will die if they don't signal. They fell hungry and send the signal. A binary response to a definite hunger stimulus, no intelligence involved.

dhw: There is always a reason for communication. You concentrate on the automatic processes involved in the act of communication, as if they precluded any autonomous thought behind the need for it. The bacteria had a problem. They communicated with each other in order to find a solution to their problem. I suggest that if they didn’t know they had a problem, they would not have communicated with each other.

DAVID: They 'knew' they had a problem because, like us, they recognize hunger as an automatic stimulus. Do you think about your automatic responses, or is breathing thoughtful?

Of course not. You are merely repeating what I said as if it proved your point! When I talk to you, I do not think about vibrating my vocal chords or opening and shutting my mouth or moving my tongue – these are automatic, like the bacteria signals. But I use these automatic movements to convey a message, and the message is the product of my thought. I have a problem, and I tell you about it. The bacteria have a problem and they tell each other about it. How do they know what to signal if they don’t know what they’re signalling about?

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 07, 2018, 17:46 (2051 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The hungry cells will die if they don't signal. They fell hungry and send the signal. A binary response to a definite hunger stimulus, no intelligence involved.

dhw: There is always a reason for communication. You concentrate on the automatic processes involved in the act of communication, as if they precluded any autonomous thought behind the need for it. The bacteria had a problem. They communicated with each other in order to find a solution to their problem. I suggest that if they didn’t know they had a problem, they would not have communicated with each other.

DAVID: They 'knew' they had a problem because, like us, they recognize hunger as an automatic stimulus. Do you think about your automatic responses, or is breathing thoughtful?

dhw: Of course not. You are merely repeating what I said as if it proved your point! When I talk to you, I do not think about vibrating my vocal chords or opening and shutting my mouth or moving my tongue – these are automatic, like the bacteria signals. But I use these automatic movements to convey a message, and the message is the product of my thought. I have a problem, and I tell you about it. The bacteria have a problem and they tell each other about it. How do they know what to signal if they don’t know what they’re signalling about?

I said they knew they had a problem. Their responses don't require thought.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Wednesday, August 08, 2018, 09:36 (2050 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: They 'knew' they had a problem because, like us, they recognize hunger as an automatic stimulus. Do you think about your automatic responses, or is breathing thoughtful?

dhw: Of course not. You are merely repeating what I said as if it proved your point! When I talk to you, I do not think about vibrating my vocal chords or opening and shutting my mouth or moving my tongue – these are automatic, like the bacteria signals. But I use these automatic movements to convey a message, and the message is the product of my thought. I have a problem, and I tell you about it. The bacteria have a problem and they tell each other about it. How do they know what to signal if they don’t know what they’re signalling about?

DAVID: I said they knew they had a problem. Their responses don't require thought.

I’m glad you’ve now omitted the inverted commas round ‘knew’. So an organism knows it has a problem, communicates with its mates to try and solve the problem, but knowing you have a problem and communicating with others in order to find a solution does not require thought. And elsewhere you have dismissed as “hyperbole” the very idea that communication and problem-solving require thought. “No way,” you said. He who thinks he sees all, sees not his own blinkers (new Taunton proverb).

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 08, 2018, 19:50 (2050 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They 'knew' they had a problem because, like us, they recognize hunger as an automatic stimulus. Do you think about your automatic responses, or is breathing thoughtful?

dhw: Of course not. You are merely repeating what I said as if it proved your point! When I talk to you, I do not think about vibrating my vocal chords or opening and shutting my mouth or moving my tongue – these are automatic, like the bacteria signals. But I use these automatic movements to convey a message, and the message is the product of my thought. I have a problem, and I tell you about it. The bacteria have a problem and they tell each other about it. How do they know what to signal if they don’t know what they’re signalling about?

DAVID: I said they knew they had a problem. Their responses don't require thought.

dhw: I’m glad you’ve now omitted the inverted commas round ‘knew’. So an organism knows it has a problem, communicates with its mates to try and solve the problem, but knowing you have a problem and communicating with others in order to find a solution does not require thought. And elsewhere you have dismissed as “hyperbole” the very idea that communication and problem-solving require thought. “No way,” you said. He who thinks he sees all, sees not his own blinkers (new Taunton proverb).

You are right: no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by dhw, Thursday, August 09, 2018, 10:44 (2049 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’m glad you’ve now omitted the inverted commas round ‘knew’. So an organism knows it has a problem, communicates with its mates to try and solve the problem, but knowing you have a problem and communicating with others in order to find a solution does not require thought. And elsewhere you have dismissed as “hyperbole” the very idea that communication and problem-solving require thought. “No way,” you said. He who thinks he sees all, sees not his own blinkers (new Taunton proverb).

DAVID: You are right: no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.

So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.

Natures wonders: ant group actions; individuals programmed

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 09, 2018, 19:18 (2049 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’m glad you’ve now omitted the inverted commas round ‘knew’. So an organism knows it has a problem, communicates with its mates to try and solve the problem, but knowing you have a problem and communicating with others in order to find a solution does not require thought. And elsewhere you have dismissed as “hyperbole” the very idea that communication and problem-solving require thought. “No way,” you said. He who thinks he sees all, sees not his own blinkers (new Taunton proverb).

DAVID: You are right: no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.

dhw: So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.

Quoting Shapiro, whose work I applaud, proves nothing .

Natures wonders: ants forage by individual memory

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 28, 2019, 18:50 (1634 days ago) @ David Turell

We know ants act as a colony by standardized individual actions as in bridge formation. Ant colony memory exhibits the same general mechanism:

https://aeon.co/ideas/an-ant-colony-has-memories-that-its-individual-members-dont-have?...

"Like a brain, an ant colony operates without central control. Each is a set of interacting individuals, either neurons or ants, using simple chemical interactions that in the aggregate generate their behaviour.

***

"Past events can alter the behaviour of both individual ants and ant colonies. Individual carpenter ants offered a sugar treat remembered its location for a few minutes; they were likely to return to where the food had been. Another species, the Sahara Desert ant, meanders around the barren desert, searching for food. It appears that an ant of this species can remember how far it walked, or how many steps it took, since the last time it was at the nest.

"A red wood ant colony remembers its trail system leading to the same trees, year after year, although no single ant does. In the forests of Europe, they forage in high trees to feed on the excretions of aphids that in turn feed on the tree. Their nests are enormous mounds of pine needles situated in the same place for decades, occupied by many generations of colonies. Each ant tends to take the same trail day after day to the same tree. During the long winter, the ants huddle together under the snow. The Finnish myrmecologist Rainer Rosengren showed that when the ants emerge in the spring, an older ant goes out with a young one along the older ant’s habitual trail. The older ant dies and the younger ant adopts that trail as its own, thus leading the colony to remember, or reproduce, the previous year’s trails.

"Foraging in a harvester ant colony requires some individual ant memory. The ants search for scattered seeds and do not use pheromone signals; if an ant finds a seed, there is no point recruiting others because there are not likely to be other seeds nearby. The foragers travel a trail that can extend up to 20 metres from the nest. Each ant leaves the trail and goes off on its own to search for food. It searches until it finds a seed, then goes back to the trail, maybe using the angle of the sunlight as a guide, to return to the nest, following the stream of outgoing foragers. Once back at the nest, a forager drops off its seed, and is stimulated to leave the nest by the rate at which it meets other foragers returning with food. On its next trip, it leaves the trail at about the same place to search again.

"Every morning, the shape of the colony’s foraging area changes, like an amoeba that expands and contracts. No individual ant remembers the colony’s current place in this pattern. On each forager’s first trip, it tends to go out beyond the rest of the other ants travelling in the same direction. The result is in effect a wave that reaches further as the day progresses. Gradually the wave recedes, as the ants making short trips to sites near the nest seem to be the last to give up.

"From day to day, the colony’s behaviour changes, and what happens on one day affects the next. I conducted a series of perturbation experiments....After just a few days repeating the experiment, the colonies continued to behave as they did while they were disturbed, even after the perturbations stopped. Ants had switched tasks and positions in the nest, and so the patterns of encounter took a while to shift back to the undisturbed state. No individual ant remembered anything but, in some sense, the colony did.

***

"...the larger the magnitude of the disturbance, the more likely older colonies were to focus on foraging than on responding to the hassles I had created; while, the worse it got, the more the younger colonies reacted. In short, older, larger colonies grow up to act more wisely than younger smaller ones, even though the older colony does not have older, wiser ants.

"Ants use the rate at which they meet and smell other ants, or the chemicals deposited by other ants, to decide what to do next....It is likely that colony behaviour matures because colony size changes the rates of interaction among ants. In an older, larger colony, each ant has more ants to meet than in a younger, smaller one, and the outcome is a more stable dynamic."

Comment: As with bridges, automatic individual reactions make the whole colony operate as a unit.

Natures wonders: ants camouflage insect traps with feathers

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2019, 21:15 (1589 days ago) @ David Turell

A new discovery in Brazil:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazilian-ants-build-unusual-trap-for-bugs/?...

"Fallen feathers may appear innocuous, but bugs in tropical Brazilian savannas should think twice about approaching them. New research suggests Pheidole oxyops ants sometimes place feathers around their underground nest's single entrance as bait for other creatures, which then tumble in. This behavior is an unusual example of ants using lures or traps rather than actively hunting down their prey.

"Inácio Gomes, an ecologist at the Federal University of Viçosa in Brazil, had never seen any description in scientific studies of ants building traps. He first noticed feathers around ant nest entrances in city parks and on his college campus, and he found two hypotheses in scientific literature: the feathers could collect morning dew in dry areas, or they could act as lures.

"Gomes is lead author on an August study in Ecological Entomology that experimentally tested both ideas. The researchers provided a ready supply of wet cotton balls but found the ants still collected feathers, suggesting they were not being used for water. And the team found that artificial traps with feathers around them captured more wandering arthropods than those without.

"Gomes says that once prey such as mites, springtails or other species of ants fall in, the nest entrance's soft walls make it hard for them to climb out, and the inhabitants quickly subdue them.

"Pheidole oxyops nest entrance is surrounded by feathers. Credit: Ricardo Solar
Fallen feathers may appear innocuous, but bugs in tropical Brazilian savannas should think twice about approaching them. New research suggests Pheidole oxyops ants sometimes place feathers around their underground nest's single entrance as bait for other creatures, which then tumble in. This behavior is an unusual example of ants using lures or traps rather than actively hunting down their prey.

"Helen McCreery, a biologist at Harvard University, who was not involved in Gomes's research, says the study is “really cool” and well done. “It's a very charismatic, conspicuous behavior,” McCreery adds. “There are certainly very few examples of ants acquiring food without leaving their nest.”McCreery wonders why prey are attracted to the feathers in the first place; Gomes suggests smell and shape are potential draws. “In general, soil insects are very curious—that's why pitfall traps are so effective,” Gomes says. Scientists use similar traps to capture wild specimens.

"P. oxyops forage alone or in groups like other ant species—Gomes once saw them take down a praying mantis—but he said they most likely supplement hunting with the feather traps to get through long dry seasons with scarcer prey."

Comment: certainly a learned behavior which is now an instinct.

Natures wonders: epigenetic programming of ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 19:02 (1588 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study shows how different castes of ants are genetically programmed:

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-team-epigenetic-pathway-social-behavior.html

"Similar to humans, the behavior of Florida carpenter ants is not set in stone—their roles, whether it is protecting the colony or foraging for food, are determined by signals from the physical and social environment early in their life. But questions remain about how long they are vulnerable to epigenetic changes and what pathways govern social behavior in ants.

"...researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania discovered that a protein called CoRest, a neural repressor that is also found in humans, plays a central role in determining the social behavior of ants. The results, published today in Molecular Cell, also revealed that worker ants called Majors, known as "brawny" soldiers that protect colonies, can be reprogrammed to perform the foraging role—generally reserved for their sisters, the Minor ants—up to five days after they emerge as an adult ant. However, the reprogramming is ineffective at the 10-day mark, revealing how narrow the window of epigenetic plasticity is in ants.

***

"Ants provide ideal models to study social behavior because each colony is comprised of thousands of individuals—the queen, who carries out all the egg-laying, and all of her highly-related offspring workers—with nearly identical genetic makeup, much like human twins. However, the sister workers possess distinct physical traits and behaviors based on caste. For example, Major workers have large heads and powerful mandibles that help protect their colonies, while Minor workers are much smaller and assume the responsibility of searching for food and caring for the brood (developing "baby" ants).

"In a previous revelatory study, published in Science in 2015, researchers in Berger's lab showed it's possible to reprogram, or directly alter, the caste-specific behavior in Major workers by injecting them with a single dose of a histone-altering chemical. Although the size of the ants didn't change, their identities did—the Major workers wandered away from the colony and began to forage for food.

"In this study, researchers injected the same histone-altering chemical, a histone deacetylase inhibitor called trichostatin A (TSA), in ant brains at specific points in early adulthood: zero, five and 10 days after they emerged. They found that many genes that are normally only turned on in the Minor workers were also turned on in the reprogrammed Major workers, and these changes persisted well after the short half-life of the drug. Surprisingly, neither the behavioral reprogramming nor the gene expression similarities occurred in Major workers injected after 5 days of age.

"More importantly, researchers saw that the protein CoRest, which is found widely throughout animals and mammals, was upregulated in the reprogrammed Major workers. They conducted epigenomic profiling, and found that when Major workers are reprogrammed, CoRest repressed enzymes that degrade Juvenile Hormone (JH), a hormone which is naturally elevated in the Minor workers but normally degraded in Major workers. Additionally, researchers found that CoRest represses these genes in natural Minor workers—but not natural Major workers—and that this epigenetic control of JH levels was responsible for the natural behavioral differences between Major and Minor workers. Taken together, the results reveal mirrored patterns in natural Minor foragers and reprogrammed Major workers: high CoRest, high JH levels, and low JH degradation.

"'Given how highly related workers of different castes are to one another, we've always suspected that the epigenome plays a big role in their huge behavioral differences," said the study's lead author Karl M. Glastad, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the Berger lab. "However, this is the first study where the actual mechanism has been identified, from epigenome, through hormonal signaling, and finally to behavior.'"

Comment: No question. Ants are genetically programmed for their individual caste tasks. With God in charge of evolution, He well can be the designer/programmer.

Natures wonders: Rodeo ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 04:50 (1554 days ago) @ David Turell

Riding along to steal:

Only in Texas. One queen rides another while aining a free advantage:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/texan-rodeo-ants-ride-backs-bigger-ants-18097...

"The strategy helps the parasitic riders steal food and childcare from their hosts

"The Lone Star State is home to so-called “rodeo ants” that ride on the backs of other ants. But when these six-legged jockeys mount a bucking bronco, they do far more than simply hitch a ride. Two new rodeo ant species, recently described by University of Texas at Austin entomologists Alex Wild and Jen Schlauch, appear to be parasites, pilfering food from their perches and tricking them into babysitting the rider’s eggs,

"This scam-heavy strategy might afford these rodeo ants—which appear to be queens—the luxury of an unusually solitary lifestyle, reports Clare Wilson at New Scientist. Most ant queens hold dominion over a large colony of workers, who forage for food, guard their home and tend to her majesty’s eggs. Though the queen is typically the only fertile permanent resident of the nest, she depends heavily on her cadre of companions to get by.

"Not so for rodeo ants, which, as far as Wild and his students can tell, appear to ride and live solo. The researchers have so far only uncovered one individual from each of the two newly described species, which have yet to be given formal scientific names. Both were queens, and each conspicuously lacked an entourage.

***

"The riders’ goal, it seems, is to mooch off the resources of their rides. Once ferried back to a typical ant colony, they become unrepentant freeloaders. They’ll raid the food supply, then lay eggs in the hopes of duping local workers into providing free childcare. Each of these hangers-on is “a parasite on the food and labor of the host colony,” Wild tells Wilson.

"A similar modus operandi likely applies to the two newest members of club Rodeo Ant, one of which probably also belongs to the Solenopsis group. Wild uncovered the first in March of 2017, while casually strolling the grounds of Texas’ Brackenridge Field Laboratory. As entomologists are wont to do, Wild flipped a rock on a whim, revealing a colony of large ants. Nothing out of the ordinary for an ant biologist—except for the fact that the colony’s queen appeared to be a double-decker. “I was most surprised to find something on [her] back,” Wild tells Milus.

"Soon after, Wild’s student, Jen Schlauch, uncovered a second species, atop another type of ant. Though there were notable differences between each host-parasite pair, the riders sported features that appeared to match their mounts, including the density of hairs on each ant’s back. Features like this, Milus reports, may play a role in helping these insect interlopers blend into the herd.

"Getting up close and personal with a colony’s queen may also allow the riders to perfume themselves in some of the chemicals she secretes, further disguising them from the rest of the nest, Nigel Franks, an animal behaviorist and ant expert at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom who wasn’t involved in the work, tells Wilson."


Comment: A neat trick for the ants to pull off. Free ride to free care/

Natures wonders: Rodeo ants

by dhw, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 08:55 (1554 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Only in Texas. One queen rides another while gaining a free advantage:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/texan-rodeo-ants-ride-backs-bigger-ants-18097...

QUOTE: "The strategy helps the parasitic riders steal food and childcare from their hosts.”

Fascinating stuff. Thank you. I can’t help regarding this as yet another example of creative thinking by cognitive beings, or do you believe your God preprogrammed this behaviour? I’m never quite sure where you draw the line as regards your God allowing our fellow organisms free rein to work out their own strategies.

Natures wonders: Rodeo ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 14:52 (1554 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Only in Texas. One queen rides another while gaining a free advantage:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/texan-rodeo-ants-ride-backs-bigger-ants-18097...

QUOTE: "The strategy helps the parasitic riders steal food and childcare from their hosts.”

dhw: Fascinating stuff. Thank you. I can’t help regarding this as yet another example of creative thinking by cognitive beings, or do you believe your God preprogrammed this behaviour? I’m never quite sure where you draw the line as regards your God allowing our fellow organisms free rein to work out their own strategies.

I don't know where to draw lines either. Looks like a learned behavior that makes life easier for the little ant cowboys. I use the necessity for design or needed help in thinking about what God might have done.

Natures wonders: fungus changes ants moves with new climate

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 29, 2018, 17:58 (2121 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungus that uses ants for survival changes the ants activity to fit tree leaf changes in changing climate:

https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-made-zombie-ants-even-more-cunning/

"A parasitic fungus, known as Ophiocordyceps, invades an ant’s body, growing through its tissues and soaking up nutrients. Then it somehow orders its host to march out of the nest and up a tree above the colony’s trails. The fungus commands the ant to bite onto the vein of a leaf, then kills the thing and grows as a stalk out of the back of its head, turning it into a showerhead raining spores onto victims down below.

"That’s how it all goes down in South American forests, where Loreto had already spent plenty of time. But the zombie she found on her hike in Japan was different. First of all, the fungus had driven it higher up a tree. And two, it hadn’t bitten onto a leaf, but had wrapped itself around a twig, hanging upside down.

"See, in the tropics, leaves stay on trees all year—but in Japan, they wither and fall. Same goes for zombie ants in the southern United States. By ordering the ant to lock onto a twig, the fungus helps ensure it can stay perched long enough to mature and rain death on more ants. In a study out today in the journal Evolution, Loreto and her colleagues show that divergence between leaf-biting and twig-biting seems to have been a consequence of ancient climate change. So who knows, modern climate change may also do interesting things to the evolution of the parasite.

"Come back in time with me 47 million years to an unrecognizable Germany. It’s much hotter and wetter. As such, evergreen forests grow not only up through Europe, but all the way up to the arctic circle. One day, a zombie ant wanders up a tree and bites onto the vein of a leaf, which conveniently enough gets fossilized. Time goes on. The climate cools, and Germany’s wet forests turn temperate.

"Almost a decade ago, Penn State entomologist David Hughes looked at that fossil leaf and noticed the tell-tale bite marks of a zombie ant. “Given the fossil evidence in Germany, we know leaf biting occurred then,” say Hughes, a coauthor on the paper. “We suspect that it was also present in North America, and as those populations responded to climate change and the cooling temperature, we see a shift from biting leaves to dying on twigs.”

"As vegetation changed from evergreen to deciduous, the fungus found itself in a pickle. But evolution loves a pickle. Ophio adapted independently in Japan and North America to order the ant to seek out twigs, which provided a more reliable, longer-term perch. The fungus grows much slower.

"Loreto and Hughes know this thanks to the work of Kim Fleming, a citizen scientist who discovered zombie ant graveyards on her property in South Carolina. She’s been collecting meticulous data for the researchers, scouring the forest for the zombies and marking them with colored tape. “I made a map for myself so I wouldn't get lost and leave some out,” says Fleming.

"What Fleming helped discover is that while in the tropics the fungus reaches full maturity in one or two months, in temperate climes like hers, the fungus sets up its zombie ant on a twig in June, but doesn’t reach maturity until the next year. In fact, the fungi may actually freeze over the winter. If it were attached to a leaf, it’d tumble to the ground in the fall.

“'So it's almost as if they've decided that nothing is going to happen this year, I'm just going to have to sit around because I don't have time to mature and get spores out,” says Hughes. Plus, the ants hibernate in the winter anyway. Even if the fungus shot spores, there’d be no ants to infect—they’ll all chilling underground in their nest.

"Opting for twigs does come with a downside, though: It’s really tough to get good purchase. Until, that is, the fungus initiates a second behavior, ordering the ant to wrap its limbs around the twig, sometimes crossing the legs on the other side of the twig for extra strength. “The hyphae of the fungus growing out of the legs works as glue on the twig as well,” says Loreto. “Sometimes they would even slide down the twig, but they wouldn't fall.”

"It's hard to imagine how a fungus with no brain could figure this all out, but that's the power of evolution. And it goes further: In June in temperate climes, the forest is still full of both twigs and leaves, yet the fungus directs zombie ants to lock onto twigs exclusively. And in the Amazon, where it’s lush all year round, they only ever lock onto leaves. “How in the name of ... whoever ... does the fungus inside the body know what the difference between the leaf and the twig is?” Hughes asks. It always has both options, yet only ever “chooses” one—the best strategy for its particular surroundings."

Comment: zombie ants and their fungus controllers remain amazing.

Natures wonders: fungus changes ants moves with new climate

by dhw, Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 11:44 (2120 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "It's hard to imagine how a fungus with no brain could figure this all out, but that's the power of evolution. And it goes further: In June in temperate climes, the forest is still full of both twigs and leaves, yet the fungus directs zombie ants to lock onto twigs exclusively. And in the Amazon, where it’s lush all year round, they only ever lock onto leaves. “How in the name of ... whoever ... does the fungus inside the body know what the difference between the leaf and the twig is?” Hughes asks. It always has both options, yet only ever “chooses” one—the best strategy for its particular surroundings."

I don’t know what he means by the “power of evolution”. This amazing ability shows the power of intelligence, and provides yet more evidence that organisms do not need a brain to act intelligently. Perhaps David will say it is evidence of his God programming fungi 3.8 billion years ago, or personally giving them instructions (otherwise, life would not have survived long enough for God to produce the brain of Homo sapiens). But I would suggest that such wonders provide evidence that cells/cellular communities of all kinds have autonomous means (perhaps provided by a God) of working out their own designs and methods of survival.

Natures wonders: fungus changes ants moves with new climate

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 15:25 (2120 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "It's hard to imagine how a fungus with no brain could figure this all out, but that's the power of evolution. And it goes further: In June in temperate climes, the forest is still full of both twigs and leaves, yet the fungus directs zombie ants to lock onto twigs exclusively. And in the Amazon, where it’s lush all year round, they only ever lock onto leaves. “How in the name of ... whoever ... does the fungus inside the body know what the difference between the leaf and the twig is?” Hughes asks. It always has both options, yet only ever “chooses” one—the best strategy for its particular surroundings."

dhw: I don’t know what he means by the “power of evolution”. This amazing ability shows the power of intelligence, and provides yet more evidence that organisms do not need a brain to act intelligently. Perhaps David will say it is evidence of his God programming fungi 3.8 billion years ago, or personally giving them instructions (otherwise, life would not have survived long enough for God to produce the brain of Homo sapiens). But I would suggest that such wonders provide evidence that cells/cellular communities of all kinds have autonomous means (perhaps provided by a God) of working out their own designs and methods of survival.

Thanks for expressing my thoughts. I am happy to simply present it as amazing.

Natures wonders: hermit crabs with blankets, not old shells

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 22:16 (2119 days ago) @ David Turell

This type uses sea anemones as soft blankets:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/blanket-hermit-crabs-use-anemones-as...

"Let other hermit crabs use hard, uncomfortable shells that have to be rotated every 5,000 scuttles. Hermit crabs in the genus Paguropsis and Paguropsina have stumbled on a much better solution: flexible, toxin-secreting, cozy sea anemones that can be pulled up and down like a blanket.

"In the western Pacific and Indian Ocean, they gad about the seafloor making all the other hermit crabs jealous of their fabulous ballistic millinery.

***

"I have many questions about these crabs. Can the anemones wrapped around these crabs live independently? How and when do the anemone and the crab find each other? How effective are anemone-slankets relative to shells? I don't think scientists yet know the answers, given how little seen and studied these animals are.

"Though their cnidarian hinder-covers are certainly their most striking feature, blanket hermit crabs do possess few other notable traits that we can observe. Unlike regulation hermit crabs whose bodies are coiled to fit inside mollusk shells, these crabs are symmetrical. They have also lost the rasps other hermit crabs use to manipulate their shells, but have gained bear-claw or ice-tong-like appendages. With these they can tug their blankets all the way up to cover their heads to help keep the monsters away."

Comment: An alternate adaption seems like a easily explained reason why this happened. The anemones simply had to agree.

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 31, 2018, 18:52 (2119 days ago) @ David Turell

Just get them wet:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2170553-bent-bird-feathers-repair-themselves-when-...

"Splashing around in water doesn’t just get a bird clean – it can also repair broken feathers from the inside.

"Marc Meyers at the University of California, San Diego and his colleagues repeatedly bent vulture feathers nearly in half, soaked them in water, and let them dry out again to test how much a bath can repair a feather, and how that process works.

"They tested two different parts of the feather’s spine: the calamus, which is the hollow base that sits under the skin, and the rachis, which is the rest of the feather’s central shaft. The walls of the feather’s shaft are made of fibres of keratin, the same type of dead tissue that makes up human hair and nails.

"Sandwiched between these fibres are layers of a spongy matrix also made of keratin. The researchers found that when they soaked the feathers in water, it was absorbed by this spongy material. The spongy part expanded, but the fibres did not absorb any water and remained the same length.

"Because the fibres bend elastically, they “remember” their previous straight shape – once the matrix was softened by water, internal pressure from the swollen matrix encouraged the bent fibres to spring taut again.

"Meyers compares it to a long, thin balloon. “If you have an empty balloon, it’s floppy, but when you fill it with air it becomes straight,” he says. In feathers, the water fills the keratin matrix like air in a balloon.

"After two cycles of soaking and drying, the rachis recovered about 82 per cent of its original strength, and the calamus recovered about 78 per cent. After three more cycles, the calamus maintained the same 78 per cent strength, while the rachis degraded to 56 per cent.

"These differences are likely because the centre of the rachis is filled with more of the keratin matrix, while the calamus is hollow. At first, the extra spongy material gives the rachis an extra boost, but as it breaks down after being bent many times, it gets so damaged that it prevents further recovery.

"Meyer says that artificial materials engineered to mimic feathers could be used for self-healing structures, like antennae that repair themselves in the rain."

Comment: A logical need is available. Once again, unless the mechanism was available from the beginning of bird speciation, would birds have survived? Feathers are very fragile. More evidence God controls the appearance of new species.

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by dhw, Friday, June 01, 2018, 07:55 (2118 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: A logical need is available. Once again, unless the mechanism was available from the beginning of bird speciation, would birds have survived? Feathers are very fragile. More evidence God controls the appearance of new species.

Or more evidence of the amazing ways in which organisms develop their own means of survival (through an autonomous mechanism of intelligence which may or may not have been designed by your God). Your final comment obliges me to restore the balance. Thank you for these marvellous articles, but I do wish we could have them without the advertisement at the end!

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by David Turell @, Friday, June 01, 2018, 14:04 (2118 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: A logical need is available. Once again, unless the mechanism was available from the beginning of bird speciation, would birds have survived? Feathers are very fragile. More evidence God controls the appearance of new species.

dhw: Or more evidence of the amazing ways in which organisms develop their own means of survival (through an autonomous mechanism of intelligence which may or may not have been designed by your God). Your final comment obliges me to restore the balance. Thank you for these marvellous articles, but I do wish we could have them without the advertisement at the end!

But I am here in my role as God's advertiser!

Natures wonders: How ticks get B vitamins; symbiosis

by David Turell @, Friday, June 01, 2018, 15:20 (2118 days ago) @ David Turell

They carry bacteria which supply them with those vitamins blood does not have:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-bacteria-square-meal-bloodsucking.html

"How do ticks live solely on blood? A study presented in Current Biology (May 31, 2018) has elucidated the crucial role played by symbiotic bacteria that synthesize B vitamins. These nutrients are scarcely found in the blood ticks ingest but are essential to their life cycle. Thus ticks cannot survive to adulthood or reproduce without their bacterial symbionts. The study conducted by CNRS and CIRAD researchers has also shown that the bacteria inherited their B vitamin synthesis pathways from a pathogenic ancestor whose genome underwent gradual degradation.

***

"Unlike mosquitoes, ticks are strictly hematophagous—that is, they feed exclusively on blood at all stages in their development. But there is a consequence of having such a highly specialized diet. Though blood is rich in some nutrients, it is relatively poor in others, like B vitamins. One hypothesis has offered a solution to the puzzle presented by this unique mode of nutrition: as ticks cannot satisfy vitamin requirements from their blood meals, perhaps bacteria synthesize these compounds for them.

***

"They discovered that a symbiotic bacterium of the genus Francisella is a predominant constituent of the microbial community hosted by the African soft tick (Ornithodoros moubata), a model species. Complete sequencing of the bacterium's genome has confirmed it can produce various B vitamins: biotin (vitamin H), riboflavin (vitamin B2), and folic acid (vitamin Bc). By showing that ticks deprived of the bacterium cease development but resume normal growth upon supplementation with vitamins the microorganism would provide, the researchers demonstrated the role of Francisella in tick nutrition.

***

"Additional analyses made it possible to identify the evolutionary origin of the nutritional symbiosis. Symbiotic Francisella descend from pathogenic bacteria whose genome suffered extensive degradation. This left intact only a subset of their original functional traits, including synthesis of the three mentioned B vitamins. The first appearance of ticks and their later diversification—over 900 species are currently known—were largely conditioned by this symbiosis. The process underscores the important contribution of microorganisms to the ecological diversity of animals and the evolution of new diets."

Comment: When ticks evolved the bacteria must have been present, since all stages of development require their presence.

Natures wonders: insect insulation protects larvae

by David Turell @, Friday, June 01, 2018, 18:04 (2118 days ago) @ David Turell

A sugar cane pest uses a foam system to hold temperatures constant:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-sugarcane-pest-foam.html

"Tiny balls of froth can often be seen near the roots of plants in sugarcane plantations in Brazil during summer. The foam protects nymphs of the root spittlebug Mahanarva fimbriolata, a major pest of crops and pasture throughout the Neotropics.

"Researchers have discovered that Mahanarva fimbriolata produces the foam to protect itself from temperature fluctuations in the external environment.

"The temperature inside the ball of froth is similar to that of the soil and ideal for the insect's development, as it remains constant during the day even as the sun heats the ground.

***

"To determine whether the foam does, indeed, confer thermal protection during this crucial stage of the insect's development before it reaches the adult stage, the researchers conducted field experiments, monitoring temperatures inside and outside of the foam and the soil on a sugarcane plantation in the Piracicaba region of São Paulo State on a warm summer's day when temperatures fluctuated significantly.

"Their analysis showed that while external temperatures ranged from 24.4 degrees C to 29.2 degrees C, the temperature inside the foam remained constant throughout the day at approximately 25 degrees C, which is ideal for the nymph stage and similar to the typical soil temperature.

"'We confirmed that the foam provides thermal protection for the insects during this stage of their development," said Mateus Tonelli, a Ph.D. student in entomology at ESALQ-USP and another co-author of the study.

***

"'We observed that the foam acts as a thermoregulatory mechanism, keeping the temperature around the nymph below 32 degrees C, the temperature that is lethal for the insect. In sum, the foam is a sort of microhabitat or microenvironment in which the temperature is lower than that outside and remains constant regardless of external temperature fluctuations," Tonelli said.

"The researchers also analyzed the chemical composition of the foam to identify the compounds related to bubble production and stability.
They found significant amounts of palmitic acid and stearic acid as well as proteins and carbohydrates. These substances act as surfactants that stabilize the foam by reducing surface tension and modulating bubble size and distribution based on viscosity and elasticity. Interactions between the carbohydrates and proteins create a stable film that stiffens and stabilizes the foam around the insect.

***

"To produce the foam, the spittlebug nymph uses its mouth apparatus to pierce the roots of the sugarcane plant to the xylem, the tissue that transports sap, and suck out the liquid. Part of this liquid blends with other substances present in the insect's Malpighian tubules, its main excretory organ.

"The nymphs produce foam by sucking air into the ventral cavity of the abdomen. This air is mixed with the surfactant molecules and fluid in the Malpighian tubules, forming bubbles in the terminal part of the abdomen.

"'Phylogenetic studies have shown that the spittlebug evolved some 200 million years ago from the cicada, which during the nymph stage, builds an underground tunnel enabling it to live for years in favorable thermal conditions. Its body temperature remains constant without any thermal insulation mechanism. The foam produced by the spittlebug nymph may serve as a 'soil extension' for the insect," Bento said.

"'Unlike the cicada's legs, the spittlebug nymph's front legs are not strong enough to burrow into the soil in order to maintain a constant temperature. The spittlebug nymph has a delicate cuticle, and without the protection afforded by the foam, it would be vulnerable to environmental factors, such as high temperatures and low humidity.'"

Comment: If the nymphs require this protection from birth, they had to know this mechanism from the beginning of the species in evolution. Only design fits.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-sugarcane-pest-foam.html#jCp

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by dhw, Saturday, June 02, 2018, 08:25 (2117 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: A logical need is available. Once again, unless the mechanism was available from the beginning of bird speciation, would birds have survived? Feathers are very fragile. More evidence God controls the appearance of new species.

dhw: Or more evidence of the amazing ways in which organisms develop their own means of survival (through an autonomous mechanism of intelligence which may or may not have been designed by your God). Your final comment obliges me to restore the balance. Thank you for these marvellous articles, but I do wish we could have them without the advertisement at the end!

DAVID: But I am here in my role as God's advertiser!

I know, but then we shall have endless repetition, as I’ll have to ask you over and over again if you really and truly believe that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with computer programmes for every single natural wonder, including the weaverbird’s nest, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, and feather-healing; or he intervened to give the weaverbird, the cuttlefish and the feather-healing birds special tuition in order to keep life going until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And I’ll have to ask if you don’t think it would be simpler (one up for Occam) and more in keeping with the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution if he gave organisms the autonomous intelligence either to work out their own methods of adapting and innovating or to disappear. Do you really want to go through that every time?

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 02, 2018, 14:05 (2117 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: A logical need is available. Once again, unless the mechanism was available from the beginning of bird speciation, would birds have survived? Feathers are very fragile. More evidence God controls the appearance of new species.

dhw: Or more evidence of the amazing ways in which organisms develop their own means of survival (through an autonomous mechanism of intelligence which may or may not have been designed by your God). Your final comment obliges me to restore the balance. Thank you for these marvellous articles, but I do wish we could have them without the advertisement at the end!

DAVID: But I am here in my role as God's advertiser!

dhw: I know, but then we shall have endless repetition, as I’ll have to ask you over and over again if you really and truly believe that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with computer programmes for every single natural wonder, including the weaverbird’s nest, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, and feather-healing; or he intervened to give the weaverbird, the cuttlefish and the feather-healing birds special tuition in order to keep life going until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. And I’ll have to ask if you don’t think it would be simpler (one up for Occam) and more in keeping with the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution if he gave organisms the autonomous intelligence either to work out their own methods of adapting and innovating or to disappear. Do you really want to go through that every time?

Now you have God as Occam's follower. It is logically easier for God to do it Himself than invent a mechanism so the organisms do it. Keeping them simple, rather than more complex.

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by dhw, Sunday, June 03, 2018, 09:23 (2116 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [...] And I’ll have to ask if you don’t think it would be simpler (one up for Occam) and more in keeping with the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution if he gave organisms the autonomous intelligence either to work out their own methods of adapting and innovating or to disappear. Do you really want to go through that every time?

DAVID: Now you have God as Occam's follower. It is logically easier for God to do it Himself than invent a mechanism so the organisms do it. Keeping them simple, rather than more complex.

I don’t follow your logic in claiming that a single invention (autonomous intelligence) is logically less “easy” than billions of personal interventions and specially devised computer programmes to be passed down through thousands of millions of years to produce knotty nests and self-healing feathers and fishy camouflage and parasitic wasps and navigating butterflies, and all of them – extant and extinct – designed to keep life going until your God could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

The same autonomous intelligence argument applies to the arching palate and dropping larynx under “complex speech”.

DAVID: The Bible for me is the book : "The Ape That Spoke" by John McCrone, in which he describes the massive changes in anatomy and all the muscles involved to produced today's clipped speech of words at high speed. How many mutations do you think are needed to drop the larynx and invent the epiglottis at the same time to provide the necessary prevention for choking? Both changes occurred simultaneously in the fossil found, not a chance occurrence. I've described all this in the past.

I have not said it was a chance occurrence, and I am not denying the complexity of the changes. You will certainly not deny that all the changes require the cooperation of the cell communities involved. So just as with the self-healing feathers and the cuttlefish’s camouflage, you say the cooperation had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled. I suggest that the cooperation was engineered by the intelligent cell communities themselves (and their intelligence may have been invented by your God).

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 03, 2018, 18:37 (2116 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: [...] And I’ll have to ask if you don’t think it would be simpler (one up for Occam) and more in keeping with the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution if he gave organisms the autonomous intelligence either to work out their own methods of adapting and innovating or to disappear. Do you really want to go through that every time?

DAVID: Now you have God as Occam's follower. It is logically easier for God to do it Himself than invent a mechanism so the organisms do it. Keeping them simple, rather than more complex.

dhw: I don’t follow your logic in claiming that a single invention (autonomous intelligence) is logically less “easy” than billions of personal interventions and specially devised computer programmes to be passed down through thousands of millions of years to produce knotty nests and self-healing feathers and fishy camouflage and parasitic wasps and navigating butterflies, and all of them – extant and extinct – designed to keep life going until your God could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

If you follow the logic that comes from a goal of humans, it is easier to guide the whole process than design inventive organisms that might veer off courtse unless they have enough guidelines to their inventions.


dhW: The same autonomous intelligence argument applies to the arching palate and dropping larynx under “complex speech”.

DAVID: The Bible for me is the book : "The Ape That Spoke" by John McCrone, in which he describes the massive changes in anatomy and all the muscles involved to produced today's clipped speech of words at high speed. How many mutations do you think are needed to drop the larynx and invent the epiglottis at the same time to provide the necessary prevention for choking? Both changes occurred simultaneously in the fossil found, not a chance occurrence. I've described all this in the past.

dhw: I have not said it was a chance occurrence, and I am not denying the complexity of the changes. You will certainly not deny that all the changes require the cooperation of the cell communities involved. So just as with the self-healing feathers and the cuttlefish’s camouflage, you say the cooperation had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled. I suggest that the cooperation was engineered by the intelligent cell communities themselves (and their intelligence may have been invented by your God).

Why ask for cell cooperation than simply doing it yourself, which is probably God's view since He is in charge.

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by dhw, Monday, June 04, 2018, 13:07 (2115 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: … It is logically easier for God to do it Himself than invent a mechanism so the organisms do it. Keeping them simple, rather than more complex.

dhw: I don’t follow your logic in claiming that a single invention (autonomous intelligence) is logically less “easy” than billions of personal interventions and specially devised computer programmes to be passed down through thousands of millions of years to produce knotty nests and self-healing feathers and fishy camouflage and parasitic wasps and navigating butterflies, and all of them – extant and extinct – designed to keep life going until your God could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: If you follow the logic that comes from a goal of humans, it is easier to guide the whole process than design inventive organisms that might veer off course unless they have enough guidelines to their inventions.

If you follow the logic that comes from a goal of humans, it must seem mighty weird that 99% of species “veered off course”, and we have to have knotty nests and fishy camouflage and migrating monarchs in order to design the brain of Homo sapiens. But even in my free-for-all, your God can always dabble if he wants to.

dhw: The same autonomous intelligence argument applies to the arching palate and dropping larynx under “complex speech”.

DAVID: […] Both changes occurred simultaneously in the fossil found, not a chance occurrence.

dhw: I have not said it was a chance occurrence, and I am not denying the complexity of the changes. You will certainly not deny that all the changes require the cooperation of the cell communities involved. So just as with the self-healing feathers and the cuttlefish’s camouflage, you say the cooperation had to be preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or personally dabbled. I suggest that the cooperation was engineered by the intelligent cell communities themselves (and their intelligence may have been invented by your God).

DAVID: Why ask for cell cooperation than simply doing it yourself, which is probably God's view since He is in charge.

Cell cooperation is essential to all forms of life. If you think billions of computer programmes and personal interventions for each form of cooperation are simpler than a single invention, then so be it.

Natures wonders: repairing broken bird feathers

by David Turell @, Monday, June 04, 2018, 14:12 (2115 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If you follow the logic that comes from a goal of humans, it is easier to guide the whole process than design inventive organisms that might veer off course unless they have enough guidelines to their inventions.

dhw: If you follow the logic that comes from a goal of humans, it must seem mighty weird that 99% of species “veered off course”, and we have to have knotty nests and fishy camouflage and migrating monarchs in order to design the brain of Homo sapiens. But even in my free-for-all, your God can always dabble if he wants to.

Balance of nature supplies the energy for evolution to continue over time.


DAVID: Why ask for cell cooperation than simply doing it yourself, which is probably God's view since He is in charge.

dhw: Cell cooperation is essential to all forms of life. If you think billions of computer programmes and personal interventions for each form of cooperation are simpler than a single invention, then so be it.

Of course cell communities are designed to work together as they evolve.

Natures wonders: seals sleep with half of brain at sea

by David Turell @, Friday, June 08, 2018, 01:30 (2111 days ago) @ David Turell

Not surprising since they breathe air:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2171076-seals-only-sleep-with-half-their-brain-whe...

"One species of seal sleeps in a way that has never been seen in any other animal. Their odd habits may help explain the function of “REM” sleep, the form of sleep in which we have our most vivid dreams.

"REM is short for “rapid eye movement”, because humans in REM sleep move their eyes back and forth even though their eyelids are shut. REM sleep seems to be essential for most mammals’ health. If rats are deprived of REM sleep, they lose weight, suffer hypothermia, and eventually die.

"Cetaceans like whales and dolphins are an exception. They sleep half of their brain at a time, so they can remain vigilant by keeping half the brain awake. Studies have failed to find evidence for REM sleep in cetaceans.

"To see if there were more exceptions, Jerome Siegel of the University of California, Los Angeles and his colleagues studied northern fur seals, which live in the north Pacific. They are semi-aquatic, living mostly on land during the breeding season but spending most of their lives in the sea.

"The team implanted electrodes into the brains of four captive juvenile seals and recorded their brain activity. The seals had access to a dry platform for some of the time, but this was removed for periods of 10 to 14 days to simulate time spent at sea.

"On land, the seals’ sleep consisted of both REM sleep and slow-wave (non-REM) sleep, with 80 minutes of REM sleep a day. In the water, their average amount of REM sleep fell to just 3 minutes a day. That’s less than the rats got during experiments on REM sleep deprivation.

"Unlike any animal studied before, the fur seals spent some time sleeping with their whole brain, and some time sleeping with half the brain like dolphins. The proportion of half-brain sleep increased from 62 per cent on land to 94 per cent in water. They may do this to watch out for predators like sharks and orcas, and to keep their nostrils above water to breathe."

Comment: An other weird adaptation required for sea-going mammals.

Natures wonders: bees feed larvae to make a new queen

by David Turell @, Friday, June 08, 2018, 19:44 (2111 days ago) @ David Turell

When the queen dies, the bees choose new larvae to feed and develop a new queen:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-honeybees-prioritize-well-fed-larvae-emergency.html

New research shows that honeybees prioritize the nutritional status of larvae when selecting for a new emergency queen.

***

" Honeybee colony fitness is dependent on queens, so their production is a vital task. If the current queen dies, emergency queens must be reared. Worker bees then select few larvae from the existing pool to raise new queens. The colony only has about six days after the last egg was laid to begin rearing new queens.

"'It's all about survival," Sagili said. "The bees have to pick the most fit individual to lead the colony. The queen is the most vital individual in the hive. There was some thought in the past that maybe it was 'kinship' or 'nepotism' selection, in which the workers recognize their close relatives [same father and mother] and rear those larvae preferentially to make queens."

***

"Because previous research has shown that worker bees can differentiate hungry larvae from well-fed larvae, the researchers decided to test whether nutritional state was a factor in selecting which larvae to rear as emergency queens.

"They established observation hives in which they artificially deprived one group of larvae of brood food – known as royal jelly – while allowing the other group to be fed, and then measured nurse bee responses to those larvae.

"They also compared two queen-rearing methods – grafting and natural. For each method, they created groups of deprived and non-deprived larvae, placed them in experimental colonies experiencing emergency queen-rearing conditions and then measured how many queens were reared to pupation from each treatment group.

"When experimental colonies were allowed to select deprived or non-deprived larvae for queen rearing under the natural emergency queen rearing method, a significantly higher number of queens were reared from the non-deprived treatment group than from the deprived treatment group.

"There was no significant difference in the percentage of larvae selected for queen rearing between larvae that were genetically related or not related to the nurses.

"'The bees were still selecting larvae for queen rearing mainly based on deprived and non-deprived nutritional states," said Sagili,.. "

Comment: I would think this mechanism was designed at the time bee colonies were developed. You can't have one without the other.

Natures wonders: bees seem to understand zero

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 09, 2018, 04:38 (2110 days ago) @ David Turell

It is a tough concept that humans only picked up recently:

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/study-honeybees-one-of-the-few-animals-to-grasp-the...

"Honeybees have a very simple understanding of the concept of zero, new research suggests.

"The bees eventually learned to associate the prize with cards that had fewer symbols, and most would fly to the sugar water immediately. Then the researchers put the prize on cards with zero symbols.

"The bees chose the blank card about 65 percent of the time, a statistically significant number that suggests they have a basic understanding of the concept of zero—putting them in a small group of animals like primates, dolphins, and parrots.

***

"'When we showed them zero versus six, they did that at a much higher level than zero versus one," Howard told NPR. "So what tells us is that they consider zero as an actual quantity along the number line. They're actually better at doing zero versus six because those two numbers are further apart."

"It might seem like an easy to task to determine that nothing is less than one, but research suggests it’s not quite obvious, even for human children.

"'It's easy for them to count 'one, two, three, four,' but zero, it's nothing, it's not something to count. So it's not the same category," Aurore Avargues-Weber, a CNRS researcher with the University of Toulouse, told NPR.

"The concept of zero is a fairly recent discovery of mankind.

"'What is nothing?" study co-author Adrian Dyer asked Vox. “[It’s a question that seems] a bit simple to us. But the actual ability to do it took a long time to arrive in human culture. And so it’s not straightforward, so understanding how a brain [a bee brain, a human brain, etc.] does it is exciting."

"The brain of a honeybee is vastly simpler than that of a human. To put it in perspective, your brain has about 86 billion neurons while a bee has under 1 million. So, the fact that bees can—on some level—grasp the concepts of zero suggests other animals might be able to do the same. At the very least, it shows that a bee’s modest brain is capable of some surprising feats.

“'Their brains are probably processing information in a very clever [i.e., efficient] way” Dyer said."

Comment: Fascinating. Nothing is not an every day concept.

Natures wonders: bees seem to understand zero

by dhw, Saturday, June 09, 2018, 11:06 (2110 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE:"The brain of a honeybee is vastly simpler than that of a human. To put it in perspective, your brain has about 86 billion neurons while a bee has under 1 million. So, the fact that bees can—on some level—grasp the concepts of zero suggests other animals might be able to do the same. At the very least, it shows that a bee’s modest brain is capable of some surprising feats.
“'Their brains are probably processing information in a very clever [i.e., efficient] way” Dyer said."

The evidence for autonomous organismal intelligence mounts with every one of these natural wonders. Thank you again.

Natures wonders: bees seem to understand zero

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 09, 2018, 14:53 (2110 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE:"The brain of a honeybee is vastly simpler than that of a human. To put it in perspective, your brain has about 86 billion neurons while a bee has under 1 million. So, the fact that bees can—on some level—grasp the concepts of zero suggests other animals might be able to do the same. At the very least, it shows that a bee’s modest brain is capable of some surprising feats.
“'Their brains are probably processing information in a very clever [i.e., efficient] way” Dyer said."

dhw: The evidence for autonomous organismal intelligence mounts with every one of these natural wonders. Thank you again.

Yes, brains can show intelligence. Without a brain intelligent activity requires intelligent information.

Natures wonders: bees seem to understand zero

by dhw, Sunday, June 10, 2018, 10:48 (2109 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE:"The brain of a honeybee is vastly simpler than that of a human. To put it in perspective, your brain has about 86 billion neurons while a bee has under 1 million. So, the fact that bees can—on some level—grasp the concepts of zero suggests other animals might be able to do the same. At the very least, it shows that a bee’s modest brain is capable of some surprising feats.
“'Their brains are probably processing information in a very clever [i.e., efficient] way” Dyer said."

dhw: The evidence for autonomous organismal intelligence mounts with every one of these natural wonders. Thank you again.

DAVID: Yes, brains can show intelligence. Without a brain intelligent activity requires intelligent information.

We are making good progress. It now seems possible that even insects have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own “natural wonders” instead of unknowingly switching on computer programmes designed for them 3.8 billion years ago (“intelligent information”). And who knows, one day you may consider the possibility that bacteria and plants and fungi have some kind of brain equivalent that enables them to do the same.

Natures wonders: bees seem to understand zero

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 10, 2018, 15:11 (2109 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE:"The brain of a honeybee is vastly simpler than that of a human. To put it in perspective, your brain has about 86 billion neurons while a bee has under 1 million. So, the fact that bees can—on some level—grasp the concepts of zero suggests other animals might be able to do the same. At the very least, it shows that a bee’s modest brain is capable of some surprising feats.
“'Their brains are probably processing information in a very clever [i.e., efficient] way” Dyer said."

dhw: The evidence for autonomous organismal intelligence mounts with every one of these natural wonders. Thank you again.

DAVID: Yes, brains can show intelligence. Without a brain intelligent activity requires intelligent information.

dhw: We are making good progress. It now seems possible that even insects have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own “natural wonders” instead of unknowingly switching on computer programmes designed for them 3.8 billion years ago (“intelligent information”). And who knows, one day you may consider the possibility that bacteria and plants and fungi have some kind of brain equivalent that enables them to do the same.

Wishful thinking.

Natures wonders: painted lady butterfly migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 23:35 (2105 days ago) @ David Turell

Over the Sahara fro Eu rope to tropical Africa and back. Much like the Monarchs in North America, but the flight is much longer, 12,000 km.:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180613102004.htm

"Researchers were now able to demonstrate that painted lady butterflies return from the Afrotropical region to recolonise the Mediterranean in early spring, travelling an annual distance of 12,000 km across the Sahara Desert.

***

"In a previously published study, the researchers demonstrated that painted lady butterflies migrate from Europe to tropical Africa by the end of summer, crossing the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert.

"The fate of these migrants and that of their offspring remained unknown. "Our hypothesis was that the species initiates a reverse northward migration towards Europe in spring, thus completing a regular migratory cycle," states Roger Vila, one of the authors.

***

"The results show a major proportion of specimens stay in the Afrotropics during winter and that those recolonising the Mediterranean are most probably their offspring. This scenario closes the loop for the Palearctic-African migratory system of Vanessa cardui and shows that the annual distance travelled by the successive generations may reach about 12,000 km, including crossing of the Sahara Desert twice.

"Whether the Painted Lady does regular migratory circuits similar to those of the monarch butterfly in North America was a matter of scientific debate. This research reveals the parallelisms in such a unique evolutionary adaptation."

Comment: Not surprising that similar species follow the same pattern of development.

Natures wonders: spiders spin fibers to fly distances

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 21:06 (2104 days ago) @ David Turell

The fibers are difficult to see but this study has it all worked out:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2171701-spiders-can-fly-because-they-make-near-inv...

"We’ve finally seen how even relatively large spiders manage to take to the air. Rather than just spinning out just one or two silk fibres to catch the wind, as was thought, they make “paragliders” from dozens of thin fibres.

“'The fibres are very hard to observe with our naked eyes,” says aerodynamic engineer Moonsung Cho of the Technical University of Berlin, Germany. “This is why, until now, we have not been able to explain the flight of ‘ballooning’ spiders.”

"Many kinds of spiders “balloon” with the help of silk fibres that act like paragliders, travelling hundreds of kilometres with the winds. They have been found as high as 4.5 kilometres and are often among the first animals to reach new islands. Some species can also glide or windsurf.

"There’s been no mystery about the ballooning of baby spiderlings, which often take to the air soon after hatching to avoid being eaten by their siblings. But it has been hard to explain how larger spiders fly.

***

"They found that the arachnids are advanced aviators. Before taking off, they anchor themselves to the platform with a safety line. They then raise themselves “on tiptoe” and lift a leg to test the wind.

***

'If the take-off goes well and they climb rapidly, the spiders immediately cut the dragline anchoring them to the platform. But in slow take-offs they sometimes keep the safety line until it is 5 metres long. This means the spiders must keep spinning out the safety line as they take off, as silk cannot stretch this much.

"What Cho cannot yet explain is how, with so many fibres being spun out at the same time, the spiders prevent them becoming entangled. It might be that they are electrostatically charged after all, so the fibres repel each other."

Comment: Another amazing adaptation. Did they learn this by experimentation?

Natures wonders: mantis shrimp repeatedly hammer to eat

by David Turell @, Friday, June 15, 2018, 14:54 (2104 days ago) @ David Turell

It is amazing they pick the weakest area of the shell:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/engineering-excellence-mantis-shrimps-register-shell...

"Mantis shrimps, from the genus Stomatopoda, are famed for the impact force of their tiny club-shaped claws. The speed with which the two halves of a claw come together is the fastest movement of any known animal. One might be forgiven, therefore, for thinking that the crustacean dispatches its mollusc prey with single super-powered strike to crack its shell.
But surprising new research on the hunting behaviour of the mantis shrimp reveals that far from utilising a brute strength one-punch attack, it hits prey shells repeatedly, tens to hundreds of times, targeting very specific locations depending on the species.

***

"Crane and her colleagues were surprised to see the shrimps carefully manipulate prey into position, and then deliver as many as 460 blows on a specific spot on the shell.

"In round shells, the shrimps moved the snails so they could attack the opening. In helical shells, the target was the apex.

"To test which parts of the shell are vulnerable, the researchers created a tiny robot – known as the Ninjabot – that struck with the acceleration and force of a real mantis shrimp. Ninjabot testing revealed that the shrimps targeted the weakest point of the shell – meaning that, at present, the shrimps are slightly ahead in the evolutionary arms race between predator and prey."

Comment: What did shrimp eat before they discovered this approach? Did they know how to do this when they evolved, or did they have a different diet until they discovered this method?

Natures wonders: jumping insects use springs

by David Turell @, Friday, June 15, 2018, 19:22 (2104 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, June 15, 2018, 19:28

They are too small to have muscles:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/too-small-for-big-muscles-tiny-animals-use-springs-20180...

"But small animals face problems that muscle power alone can’t solve. When running, for example, the legs of small animals are in contact with the ground for only very brief moments during each step, which constrains how much energy each stride can release.

"To address this problem, many small animals use flexible structures in their bodies as springs that they can cock and release like an archer’s bow. The spring enables the small animal to store energy slowly and then release it all at once, thus amplifying its power.

***

"The use of springs is not restricted to insects. When a frog crouches, its leg muscles stretch its long Achilles tendon like a spring and store energy in it. The release of that built-up tension propels the frog’s leap, said Christopher Richards, a paleo-robotics researcher at the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who is using a combination of robotics, modeling and anatomy to understand how extinct frogs with diverse pelvic shapes and leg proportions used to jump.

"The latch that the frog uses to release the stored power, however, remains a subject of intense debate: “That’s the million-dollar question,” Richards said. “Nobody has found an anatomical latch in frogs. To my knowledge, nobody has found a latch in a vertebrate animal.”

"The latches have been figured out for only a handful of insect and crustacean systems. Latches are harder to find than springs because the latch mechanism is usually inside the animal’s body, as opposed to the easily accessible springs made of crustaceans’ outer cuticle or insects’ exoskeleton. Unfortunately, dissection destroys the delicate spring-and-latch systems, making it difficult to determine how they work in living organisms, explained Gregory Sutton, a biomechanics researcher and engineer at the University of Bristol. Usually, researchers end up inferring the existence of a latch from the abrupt release of power from an identified spring. “Something has to switch the system from a mode where the muscles are stretching the springs to a mode where the spring is recoiling and powering, powering that huge motion,” Sutton said.

***

"A drawback of springs is that organisms that push spring-and-latch systems to their performance limits have to worry about breakage. Patek noted that for mantis shrimp, the problem of avoiding self-destruction is severe. “They have to get the energy out of their body [and] try not to have it go back in and tear the muscles in the leg,” she said.

***

"These animals have only one set of springs and latches to use in their limbs throughout their lives. Breaking a spring could be deadly.

"One secret to their trick of avoiding breakage appears to be that rubbery protein called resilin, which insects have in their wing hinges and tracheal tubes. Resilin is also found in the cuticular springs, where it is configured in thin layers beneath the chitin. In fact, the layering of chitin and resilin resembles the design of archers’ composite bows from hundreds of years ago....The layering of different materials prevents any tiny cracks from spreading, thus limiting damage and giving the animal a chance to repair those cracks before they become catastrophic.

***

"Breakage becomes more of a problem as organisms get smaller. Consequently, there appears to be a sweet spot in body size — neither too big nor too small — at which animals can make optimal use of latches and springs....the real limitation on fleas’ jumping abilities seems to be that their tiny springs — which are far smaller than the robust ones of mantis shrimp, for example — can tolerate only so much stress. (my bold)

“'It’s very hard to build a spring that is incredibly small without it breaking,” explained Sutton. “That’s why fleas are not actually terribly good jumpers — because their springs just aren’t big enough to handle the forces involved.”

Comment: How did chance evolution find resilin protein and the sweet spot? It had to designed.

Natures wonders: monarch migration more understood

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 19, 2018, 18:56 (2100 days ago) @ David Turell

The latest research has uncovered more of the mechanisms used in travelling so far to one specific spot in Mexico and back to the north:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020855

"Abstract
Studies of the migration of the eastern North American monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) have revealed mechanisms behind its navigation. The main orientation mechanism uses a time-compensated sun compass during both the migration south and the remigration north. Daylight cues, such as the sun itself and polarized light, are processed through both eyes and integrated through intricate circuitry in the brain's central complex, the presumed site of the sun compass. Monarch circadian clocks have a distinct molecular mechanism, and those that reside in the antennae provide time compensation. Recent evidence shows that migrants can also use a light-dependent inclination magnetic compass for orientation in the absence of directional daylight cues. The monarch genome has been sequenced, and genetic strategies using nuclease-based technologies have been developed to edit specific genes. The monarch butterfly has emerged as a model system to study the neural, molecular, and genetic basis of long-distance animal migration.

"The current review emphasizes the rapid pace of advances over the last five years. The following were key discoveries: The monarch time-compensated sun compass is bidirectional, because it is used during both the migration south and the remigration north. Anatomical and electrophysiological approaches have been used to define the central complex as the site of the sun compass.... Monarchs can use a light-dependent, inclination magnetic compass as an additional orientation system during migration. The evolutionary history of the migration has been illuminated.

***

"Migrants may rely on various compass senses, alone or together with a map sense, for navigation during migration. A considerable body of work demonstrates that migrant monarchs possess two compass senses: a time-compensated sun compass and an inclination-based magnetic compass . These compasses allow migrant monarchs to use reliable environmental cues, such as the sun's position in the sky and the inclination angle of the Earth's magnetic field, to fly in the appropriate migratory direction. Migrant monarchs may use these multiple modalities for directionality, such that the compasses complement each other. One compass sense might fine-tune the other, or one compass system might be a backup for a dominant compass sense.

"Monarch butterflies are diurnal and predominantly use daylight cues for orientation during migration using a time-compensated sun compass. Specifically, the sun's azimuthal (horizontal) position in the sky is the dominant source of directional information during both the southward fall migration and the northward spring remigration . When the sun is obscured but some blue sky is visible, skylight polarization patterns resulting from scattered sunlight may be a cue providing directional information. Because the sun's position in the sky constantly shifts throughout the day, migrant monarchs use a circadian clock mechanism to adjust their flight relative to shifting skylight cues, such that their sun compass is time compensated.

***

"A startling discovery of the time-compensated sun compass system was the finding that skylight directional cues sensed by the eyes and relayed to the central complex region are time compensated via circadian clocks located in the antennae, and not in the brain.

***

"The monarch butterfly appears to have originated in North America and had a migratory ancestor, with the migration dating back at least one million years. Approximately 20,000 years ago, after the last glacial maximum, the North American population expanded and the migration extended further northward from Mexico to ultimately fill out its current northern range."

Comment: highly complex article, hard to condense. Epigenetic possibilities are discussed in the development of the controlling genetics. And we should remember, they metamorphasize through four generations and still carry the same genetic information.

Natures wonders: getting young birds to leave the nest

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 21, 2018, 15:52 (2098 days ago) @ David Turell

When to fledge creates a tussle between parents and their brood, just as in humans:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/parent-birds-don-t-like-the-kids-hanging-around

"When is the best time to leave the nest? That’s the dilemma encountered by birds the world over.

"Staying home longer helps juvenile birds grow their wings and improve their chances of fleeing from predators, but each day that nesting continues increases the risk of the whole brood being eaten.

***

"The researchers found that in species with younger fledging ages, flight performance in the young birds was poorer and predation rates were high.

"In order to test their results experimentally, Martin and his colleagues erected enclosures around the nests of grey-headed juncos (Juncos hyemalis). The enclosures allowed the parents to come and go to feed the young, but when the young fledged naturally, they were protected from predators for a further three days.

"The survival of enclosed young was substantially higher than those who had fledged at the normal age in unprotected nests. The mass of the young birds in both groups was similar, but the wing length much longer in the enclosed group.

"So why aren’t selection pressures for songbirds favouring a later nest departure? Earlier studies show that each day that the nest is occupied substantially increases the risk of nest predation. When nestlings leave the nest earlier than they would like, at least some survive. The survival of some of the young, rather than the loss of the entire brood, benefits the parents and their investment in breeding.

"Songbird parents try to coax their young out of the nest by offering food in an effort to get them to leave. And this pressure goes both ways, as the nestlings exert considerable control over the parents with their begging behaviour in the form of incessant cries.

"The team found that this push-pull of different generations is “yielding a compromise between parents and offspring that balances risk of mortality in versus out of the nest'”.

Comment: we can see the same problem in modern helicopter parents and children.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 21, 2018, 18:41 (2098 days ago) @ David Turell

And some of it is in color:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-zebrafish-degree-uv-vision-stripes-google.html

"The study of the colour vision system of zebrafish larvae, published today in Current Biology, reveals they use their near 360 degree view of their world to detect threatening silhouettes above them in black-and-white but can seek out the almost transparent single-cell organisms they feed on by detecting the scattering of light in UV.

***

"'By measuring the activity of thousands of neurons in the live animal while presenting visual stimuli, we established that different parts of their retinas, looking at different parts of the visual world, do different things. This multi-faceted view makes perfect sense for zebrafish as that's how colour is distributed in their natural habitat. In their natural visual world, most colour information is on the ground and the horizon but above them the objects of most interest are dark silhouettes, so colour vision here is rather pointless."

***

"The study is the first in-depth physiological description of any vertebrate's retinal setup for colour vision that uses "4 input colours" which includes a large proportion of non-mammal species such as most birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. By comparison humans only use three and mice, dogs and horses only two.

"The study found that zebrafish, who during larval and juvenile life stages live mostly in shallow, low current pockets on the sides of streams and rice paddies, only seem to use their colour vision repertoire for looking down and along the horizon, use colour-blind circuits for looking straight up and extremely sensitive ultraviolet vision for looking forward and upwards.

"The zebrafish has made a supreme evolutionary effort to develop this superior vision, with about half of all its neurons inside the eyes making up nearly a quarter of their total body volume and requiring substantial metabolic investment. Similar ratios on a human being would mean eyes around the size of a large grapefruit which would require an optic nerve the width of an arm.

"Dr. Baden said: "Clearly, animals like zebrafish use specialised strategies to better navigate their natural environment by adjusting their eyes to look out for different things in different parts of their visual field. In contrast, technology has not really caught up with these types of ideas. For example, most standard camera systems still "blindly" use the same type of light detection and compression across an entire image even if half the image shows bright blue sky and the other half the overgrown and shadowed ground.'"

Comment: this is a protective vision system that is likely to have been invented by design when the zebrafish first appeared in evolution. More design.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by dhw, Friday, June 22, 2018, 13:23 (2097 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: this is a protective vision system that is likely to have been invented by design when the zebrafish first appeared in evolution. More design.

Thank you for another wonderful wonder. Just in case there are any readers out there sharing my delight at all these wonders, the word “design” need not be taken to mean divine preprogramming or dabbling. Even though I share David’s scepticism as regards the super-efficiency of random mutations, I propose that these variations are intelligently designed by the cell communities of the organisms themselves, in response to the needs or opportunities arising out of environmental conditions. I leave open the question of how cells first acquired this adaptive and innovative intelligence.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by David Turell @, Friday, June 22, 2018, 18:36 (2097 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: this is a protective vision system that is likely to have been invented by design when the zebrafish first appeared in evolution. More design.

dhw: Thank you for another wonderful wonder. Just in case there are any readers out there sharing my delight at all these wonders, the word “design” need not be taken to mean divine preprogramming or dabbling. Even though I share David’s scepticism as regards the super-efficiency of random mutations, I propose that these variations are intelligently designed by the cell communities of the organisms themselves, in response to the needs or opportunities arising out of environmental conditions. I leave open the question of how cells first acquired this adaptive and innovative intelligence.

If zebrafish needed this type of vision to survive (Darwin style) why shouldn't they have been designed this way when they first appeared?

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by dhw, Saturday, June 23, 2018, 10:35 (2096 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: this is a protective vision system that is likely to have been invented by design when the zebrafish first appeared in evolution. More design.

dhw: Thank you for another wonderful wonder. Just in case there are any readers out there sharing my delight at all these wonders, the word “design” need not be taken to mean divine preprogramming or dabbling. Even though I share David’s scepticism as regards the super-efficiency of random mutations, I propose that these variations are intelligently designed by the cell communities of the organisms themselves, in response to the needs or opportunities arising out of environmental conditions. I leave open the question of how cells first acquired this adaptive and innovative intelligence.

DAVID: If zebrafish needed this type of vision to survive (Darwin style) why shouldn't they have been designed this way when they first appeared?

Why do you always slink back to Darwin when you know perfectly well that I regard evolutionary advances as being geared to survival and/or improvement! If a new type of eye gives an organism an advantage (improvement), the innovation will become permanent. That is why I always specify as above that cell communities respond to the needs (= survival) or opportunities (= improvement) arising out of environmental conditions. If improvement was not part of the formula, we would have stuck at bacterial level.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 23, 2018, 15:34 (2096 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: this is a protective vision system that is likely to have been invented by design when the zebrafish first appeared in evolution. More design.

dhw: Thank you for another wonderful wonder. Just in case there are any readers out there sharing my delight at all these wonders, the word “design” need not be taken to mean divine preprogramming or dabbling. Even though I share David’s scepticism as regards the super-efficiency of random mutations, I propose that these variations are intelligently designed by the cell communities of the organisms themselves, in response to the needs or opportunities arising out of environmental conditions. I leave open the question of how cells first acquired this adaptive and innovative intelligence.

DAVID: If zebrafish needed this type of vision to survive (Darwin style) why shouldn't they have been designed this way when they first appeared?

dhw: Why do you always slink back to Darwin when you know perfectly well that I regard evolutionary advances as being geared to survival and/or improvement! If a new type of eye gives an organism an advantage (improvement), the innovation will become permanent. That is why I always specify as above that cell communities respond to the needs (= survival) or opportunities (= improvement) arising out of environmental conditions. If improvement was not part of the formula, we would have stuck at bacterial level.

Your insistence on the theory of survival is the competition Darwin's theory required. Your thinking is still primarily Darwinist.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by dhw, Sunday, June 24, 2018, 15:53 (2095 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If zebrafish needed this type of vision to survive (Darwin style) why shouldn't they have been designed this way when they first appeared?

dhw: Why do you always slink back to Darwin when you know perfectly well that I regard evolutionary advances as being geared to survival and/or improvement! If a new type of eye gives an organism an advantage (improvement), the innovation will become permanent. That is why I always specify as above that cell communities respond to the needs (= survival) or opportunities (= improvement) arising out of environmental conditions. If improvement was not part of the formula, we would have stuck at bacterial level.

DAVID: Your insistence on the theory of survival is the competition Darwin's theory required. Your thinking is still primarily Darwinist.

It doesn’t matter two hoots whether my thinking is Darwinist or not! You make it sound as if the very word is a guarantee of wrongness! You asked why this type of vision didn’t appear straight away if it was needed for survival. My answer is that it wasn’t NEEDED for survival, but was an improvement on earlier forms of vision, and so no doubt IMPROVED the zebrafish’s chances of survival. Do you really think survival and improvement play no role in evolution? And in passing, what is your theory? Why didn’t your God design this type of vision when the zebrafish first appeared?

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 24, 2018, 19:07 (2095 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If zebrafish needed this type of vision to survive (Darwin style) why shouldn't they have been designed this way when they first appeared?

dhw: Why do you always slink back to Darwin when you know perfectly well that I regard evolutionary advances as being geared to survival and/or improvement! If a new type of eye gives an organism an advantage (improvement), the innovation will become permanent. That is why I always specify as above that cell communities respond to the needs (= survival) or opportunities (= improvement) arising out of environmental conditions. If improvement was not part of the formula, we would have stuck at bacterial level.

DAVID: Your insistence on the theory of survival is the competition Darwin's theory required. Your thinking is still primarily Darwinist.

dhw: It doesn’t matter two hoots whether my thinking is Darwinist or not! You make it sound as if the very word is a guarantee of wrongness! You asked why this type of vision didn’t appear straight away if it was needed for survival. My answer is that it wasn’t NEEDED for survival, but was an improvement on earlier forms of vision, and so no doubt IMPROVED the zebrafish’s chances of survival. Do you really think survival and improvement play no role in evolution? And in passing, what is your theory? Why didn’t your God design this type of vision when the zebrafish first appeared?

I think they were designed this way from their beginning. I still don't buy that survival of the fittest drives evolution. but I agree with you that your 'improvement' or my 'complexity' are the driving forces that took evolution past bacteria.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by dhw, Monday, June 25, 2018, 13:58 (2094 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your insistence on the theory of survival is the competition Darwin's theory required. Your thinking is still primarily Darwinist.

dhw: It doesn’t matter two hoots whether my thinking is Darwinist or not! You make it sound as if the very word is a guarantee of wrongness! You asked why this type of vision didn’t appear straight away if it was needed for survival. My answer is that it wasn’t NEEDED for survival, but was an improvement on earlier forms of vision, and so no doubt IMPROVED the zebrafish’s chances of survival. Do you really think survival and improvement play no role in evolution? And in passing, what is your theory? Why didn’t your God design this type of vision when the zebrafish first appeared?

DAVID: I think they were designed this way from their beginning. I still don't buy that survival of the fittest drives evolution. but I agree with you that your 'improvement' or my 'complexity' are the driving forces that took evolution past bacteria.

So it's separate creation and not evolution for zebrafish.
I have never proposed that “survival of the fittest” is the only force that drives evolution, I have always coupled survival with improvement, and since you introduced me to Lynn Margulis’s work, I have been an avid supporter of her theory that cooperation is every bit as important a factor as competition in the onward development of evolution. There is therefore no need for you to keep attacking Darwin when you are discussing evolution with me.

Natures wonders: zebrafish 360 degree vision

by David Turell @, Monday, June 25, 2018, 15:25 (2094 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your insistence on the theory of survival is the competition Darwin's theory required. Your thinking is still primarily Darwinist.

dhw: It doesn’t matter two hoots whether my thinking is Darwinist or not! You make it sound as if the very word is a guarantee of wrongness! You asked why this type of vision didn’t appear straight away if it was needed for survival. My answer is that it wasn’t NEEDED for survival, but was an improvement on earlier forms of vision, and so no doubt IMPROVED the zebrafish’s chances of survival. Do you really think survival and improvement play no role in evolution? And in passing, what is your theory? Why didn’t your God design this type of vision when the zebrafish first appeared?

DAVID: I think they were designed this way from their beginning. I still don't buy that survival of the fittest drives evolution. but I agree with you that your 'improvement' or my 'complexity' are the driving forces that took evolution past bacteria.

dhw: So it's separate creation and not evolution for zebrafish.
I have never proposed that “survival of the fittest” is the only force that drives evolution, I have always coupled survival with improvement, and since you introduced me to Lynn Margulis’s work, I have been an avid supporter of her theory that cooperation is every bit as important a factor as competition in the onward development of evolution. There is therefore no need for you to keep attacking Darwin when you are discussing evolution with me.

Happy to educate you and everyone else who follows. Then we all can develop our own interpretations, some of which will be correct.

Natures wonders: plankton depth perception

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 27, 2018, 18:45 (2092 days ago) @ David Turell

A rudimentary visual system is studied:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-eyes-itphotoreceptors-marine-plankton-depth.html

"The eyes of some marine-dwelling creatures have evolved to act like a "depth gauge", allowing these creatures to swim in the open ocean at a certain depth .

***

"The researchers studied the larvae of the marine ragworm, Platynereis dumerilii. The larvae of Platynereis are free-swimming plankton. Each has a transparent brain and six small, pigmented eyes which contain rhabdomeric photoreceptors . These enable the larvae to detect and swim towards light sources. Yet the larval brain also contains ciliary photoreceptors, the role of which was previously unknown.

"The new research has revealed that ultraviolet light activates these ciliary photoreceptors, whereas cyan, or blue-green light inhibits them. Shining ultraviolet light onto Platynereis larvae makes the larvae swim downwards. By contrast, cyan light activates the rhabdomeric pigmented eyes and makes the larvae swim upwards.

"In the ocean, ultraviolet light is most intense near the surface, while cyan light reaches greater depths. Ciliary photoreceptors are therefore shown to help Platynereis avoid harmful ultraviolet radiation near the surface. Though if the larvae swim too deep, cyan light inhibits the ciliary photoreceptors and activates the rhabdomeric pigmented eyes. This makes the larvae swim upwards again.

"The research team also used high-powered electron microscopy to show that the neural circuits containing ciliary photoreceptors exchange messages with circuits containing rhabdomeric photoreceptors—suggesting the two work together to form a 'depth gauge'.

"By enabling the larvae to swim at a preferred depth, the depth gauge influences where the worms end up as adults.

"Professor Gaspar Jekely, from Exeter's Living Systems Institute said: "The idea that marine animals could use light to estimate their depth has already been proposed by theoretician, but to our knowledge this is the first time that such a mechanism has been experimentally studied."

"Csaba Verasztó, one of the first authors of the study added: "Detecting different types of light with different photoreceptor cells in marine plankton may have been the ancestral framework for light detection in animals."

"The depth gauge in Platynereis larvae represents an important new mechanism to influence the distribution of marine animals. Its discovery should also stimulate new ideas about the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors."

Comment: Since a 'certain depth' is important to the life of the plankton, it would appear they were designed this way from the beginning of their existence.

Natures wonders: migrating mpths use magnetic field

by David Turell @, Friday, June 29, 2018, 14:20 (2090 days ago) @ David Turell

They fly at night so the field i s their only guide:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/moth-species-uses-magnetism-to-migrate

"Monarch butterflies and bogong moths are the only insects known to undertake migratory journeys to specific sites year after year.

"An Australian species, bogong moths (Agrotis infusa) flee the harsh conditions of the arid plains by migrating long distances to spend summer in cool caves of the continent’s alpine region. The butterflies (Danaus plexippus) use an internal sun compass for their journey, but the bogongs moths can’t do that because they fly at night.

"How millions of the adult moths find their way across 1000 kilometres or more of country in darkness, then back again at the end of summer, was unknown – until now. New research published in the journal Current Biology reveals that, like migratory birds, they use the Earth’s magnetic field and visual landmarks to navigate this journey.

***

"The team discovered that when a natural Earth-strength magnetic field and visual landmarks were presented together, the moths flew in a predictable flight direction. When the two were presented in conflict, they became disorientated after a few minutes.

"The findings led the researchers to conclude that bogong moths rely on a magnetic sense as well as sight. The researchers suspect that the magnetic sense is used to determine the general direction of flight, and then calibrated periodically with a visual feature such as the moon, particular stars or a mountain.

***

"The ability of birds to sense the Earth’s magnetic field has long been established. Recent research suggests that the detection of magnetic fields is associated with sensory receptor molecules known as cryptochromes in the retina of a bird’s eye. This work is straying into new fields of quantum biology, but so far, no specific mechanism has been found."

Comment: More convergent evolution.The Earth's magnetic field plays a major role.

Natures wonders: flying and swimming efficiency excellent

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 01, 2018, 23:20 (2087 days ago) @ David Turell

Study shows and swimming and flying are extremely efficient results of evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-evolution-efficient-airfoils.html

"Swimming and flying animals are optimally adapted for cruising through their environments, producing thrust via propulsors—wings for birds and caudal fins for fish. Over millions of years, the morphology of these animals evolved for maximally efficient cruising, and about 30 years ago, researchers proposed that most swimmers cruise within a narrow range of Strouhal numbers—these are dimensionless numbers describing oscillating flow. And more recently, researchers determined that flying animals cruise in the same range of Strouhal numbers.

"Specifically, for swimming and flying animals, the Strouhal number is defined as St=f / U*A, where f is the oscillation frequency, U is the flow rate, and A is the oscillation amplitude. And the narrow range of Strouhal numbers in which swimming and flying animals cruise is 0.2 < St < 0.4.

***

"Since drag can never be completely eliminated, perfect efficiency is not possible. But the animals selected as the fittest have evolved to a narrow range of highly efficient parameters.

"A swimming animal at a constant velocity creates thrust with its caudal fin, and experiences drag produced by two sources: its body, and the "offset" drag caused by the propulsor frontal area projected over its range of motion.

"For flying animals, the physics are somewhat different since their propulsors need to resist gravity in addition to providing thrust. However, the need to produce lift doesn't affect the physics of propulsion and drag when the animal is at a steady cruising speed.

"In previous studies, researchers suggested that large-amplitude motions set the Strouhal number for efficient cruising. The authors of the current study argue that the amplitude sets the total efficiency without dictating the optimal Strouhal number. Instead, the authors write, "the offset drag is crucial in determining the low Strouhal behavior and setting the particular Strouhal at which peak efficiency occurs."

"Drag turns out to be key. Based on their analysis, the researchers conclude that the range of Strouhal numbers that defines highly efficient cruising for swimming and flying animals is largely determined by the fluid drag on fins and wings. "In other words," the authors conclude, "energetic considerations set the kinematics of the propulsor to the most efficient one, and the net thrust of the propulsor at peak efficiency balances the drag of the body to set the cruising speed.'"

Comment: Nature's designs help humans make optimal deigns also. For example, Olympic swim suits are based on shark skin.

Natures wonders: flying and swimming efficiency excellent

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 02, 2018, 04:36 (2087 days ago) @ David Turell

Study shows and swimming and flying are extremely efficient results of evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-evolution-efficient-airfoils.html

"Swimming and flying animals are optimally adapted for cruising through their environments, producing thrust via propulsors—wings for birds and caudal fins for fish. Over millions of years, the morphology of these animals evolved for maximally efficient cruising, and about 30 years ago, researchers proposed that most swimmers cruise within a narrow range of Strouhal numbers—these are dimensionless numbers describing oscillating flow. And more recently, researchers determined that flying animals cruise in the same range of Strouhal numbers.

"Specifically, for swimming and flying animals, the Strouhal number is defined as St=f / U*A, where f is the oscillation frequency, U is the flow rate, and A is the oscillation amplitude. And the narrow range of Strouhal numbers in which swimming and flying animals cruise is 0.2 < St < 0.4.

***

This to me is the most telling part, not the fantasy that follows. A narrow range maximum efficiency band that just happens to be "evolved" by the vast majority of unrelated species, including all of the many, many, many body modifications that would be required to allow this range of movement among all body types. I mean, if the albatross has the same range as a minnow, what are the chances?

Please. It's almost insulting. Even if I don't bring theology into it, their argument just defies good bloody logic. It violates the tenets of their own theory. Random mutations, variation, special divergence, not to mention that this narrow band is shared between creatures in entirely different environments. There is no evolutionary logic that can rectify that.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: flying and swimming efficiency excellent

by dhw, Monday, July 02, 2018, 13:55 (2087 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVUD: Study shows and swimming and flying are extremely efficient results of evolution:
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-evolution-efficient-airfoils.html

QUOTES: "Swimming and flying animals are optimally adapted for cruising through their environments, producing thrust via propulsors—wings for birds and caudal fins for fish. Over millions of years, the morphology of these animals evolved for maximally efficient cruising, and about 30 years ago, researchers proposed that most swimmers cruise within a narrow range of Strouhal numbers—these are dimensionless numbers describing oscillating flow. And more recently, researchers determined that flying animals cruise in the same range of Strouhal numbers.
"Specifically, for swimming and flying animals, the Strouhal number is defined as St=f / U*A, where f is the oscillation frequency, U is the flow rate, and A is the oscillation amplitude. And the narrow range of Strouhal numbers in which swimming and flying animals cruise is 0.2 < St < 0.4.

***
TONY: This to me is the most telling part, not the fantasy that follows. A narrow range maximum efficiency band that just happens to be "evolved" by the vast majority of unrelated species, including all of the many, many, many body modifications that would be required to allow this range of movement among all body types. I mean, if the albatross has the same range as a minnow, what are the chances?
Please. It's almost insulting. Even if I don't bring theology into it, their argument just defies good bloody logic. It violates the tenets of their own theory. Random mutations, variation, special divergence, not to mention that this narrow band is shared between creatures in entirely different environments. There is no evolutionary logic that can rectify that.

For the sake of argument, let’s bring theology back into it. Are you suggesting that your God individually designed every single variation in every single species? If not, then would you accept that he endowed each species with a mechanism for variation? And if so, would you consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that this same mechanism for variation might have enabled different organisms in different environments over millions and millions of years to have developed their own variations to such an extent that they turned into what we would classify as different species (e.g. through fins changing to limbs changing to wings)? And if that is within the bounds of possibility, does it not allow for evolution as the process which your God may have used to produce the great bush of life as we know it?
xxxxxxx

I have only just seen your "Alternative to Evolution", and am out of time now. Thank you for posting it, and I'll look forward to studying it, though I'm not sure how far my non-technical brain (soul?) will take me!

Natures wonders: flying and swimming efficiency excellent

by David Turell @, Monday, July 02, 2018, 14:51 (2087 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Study shows and swimming and flying are extremely efficient results of evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-evolution-efficient-airfoils.html

"Swimming and flying animals are optimally adapted for cruising through their environments, producing thrust via propulsors—wings for birds and caudal fins for fish. Over millions of years, the morphology of these animals evolved for maximally efficient cruising, and about 30 years ago, researchers proposed that most swimmers cruise within a narrow range of Strouhal numbers—these are dimensionless numbers describing oscillating flow. And more recently, researchers determined that flying animals cruise in the same range of Strouhal numbers.

"Specifically, for swimming and flying animals, the Strouhal number is defined as St=f / U*A, where f is the oscillation frequency, U is the flow rate, and A is the oscillation amplitude. And the narrow range of Strouhal numbers in which swimming and flying animals cruise is 0.2 < St < 0.4.

***


Tony: This to me is the most telling part, not the fantasy that follows. A narrow range maximum efficiency band that just happens to be "evolved" by the vast majority of unrelated species, including all of the many, many, many body modifications that would be required to allow this range of movement among all body types. I mean, if the albatross has the same range as a minnow, what are the chances?

Please. It's almost insulting. Even if I don't bring theology into it, their argument just defies good bloody logic. It violates the tenets of their own theory. Random mutations, variation, special divergence, not to mention that this narrow band is shared between creatures in entirely different environments. There is no evolutionary logic that can rectify that.

Only design can fit your point.

Natures wonders: using antifreeze in frozen climates

by David Turell @, Monday, July 09, 2018, 20:58 (2079 days ago) @ David Turell

Many animals do this, but this study is in an insect:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-antifreeze-proteins-ice-cold.html


"How do insects survive harsh northern winters? Unlike mammals, they don't have thick coats of fur to keep warm. But they do have antifreeze. Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) prevent ice from forming and spreading inside their bodies.

"The existence of these AFPs has been known for decades, but the mechanisms governing this unique survival technique have proven difficult to determine.

"AFPs prevent water from freezing by surrounding and quickly binding to small ice crystals, where water has already managed to order itself into an ice lattice. Left unattended, these crystals would otherwise act as seeds and continue to spread their ordering to neighboring water molecules. The prevailing hypothesis for how AFPs stop this mechanism has been the preordering of an ice-like layer of water near the site of the protein that binds to the ice surface.

***

"Focusing on the AFP of the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor(TmAFP), the study aimed to test this hypothesis through theoretical methods at different resolutions of space and time. Molinero specializes in simulating ice at larger scales and applied this expertise to a system with TmAFP in water approaching an ice surface. With this setup, she and her doctoral student Arpa Hudait observed the protein slowly tumbling above the ice surface. They discovered that to latch on to the ice, all TmAFP requires is to be parallel to the surface.

"Importantly, however, this anchoring did not require any prior ordering of the water into an ice-like structure. "The slow movement of the protein to be parallel to the ice surface is followed immediately by a fast reorientation of the nearby water to bind the protein to the ice," Hudait says. In insects like the mealworm beetle, this binding of many AFPs to developing ice crystals prevents further crystallization of ice in their bodies."

Comment: Arctic fish have been shown to have the same mechanism. We do know how this evolved: were the insects i a climate that gradually cooled or did they speciate with this ability in one step?

Natures wonders: bees roast attacking hornet to death

by David Turell @, Monday, July 16, 2018, 20:34 (2072 days ago) @ David Turell

The form a ball around the hornet and flap their wings:

https://www.jjext.com/bees-work-together-order-roast-predatory-hornets-death

Anybody who has ever sustained a bee sting knows first hand that bees are not defenseless insects. It is hard to imagine any insect getting the best of a bee. Not only are bees relatively clever for insects, but they are also well equipped with defense capabilities. Bees are often predators to insects, and not the other way around. However, if there was only one type of insect that could be a threat to bees, it would definitely be another stinging insect, such as wasps or yellow jackets. Hornets pose a serious threat to bees, as they also possess a stinger that deals out a toxin that is more painful to humans that a bee sting. Sometimes hornets will succeed at killing a bee. However, bees have a secret to killing hornets, and it involves cooking them alive in a high heat environment. This may be hard to believe, but when a bee, or several bees feel threatened by a menacing hornet, they can band together in order to generate heat that reaches deadly temperatures.

Most of the time when bees feel threatened they can use their handy stingers as a method of attack or defense. However, a bee’s stinger is ineffective when combating hornets, as hornes possess a hard exoskeleton that cannot be penetrated by a bee’s stinger. Luckily bees can work together in order to outwit hornets in times when defense against the insects becomes necessary. When under threat from a hornet, Japanese honey bees will hover in the air in a formation that resembles a sphere. The bees then use their vibrating flight muscles to generate heat. The rapid flapping quickly heats up the center of the spherical bee formation to one hundred and sixteen degrees fahrenheit, which is hot enough to kill the threatening hornet. This defensive behavior was only discovered by researchers as recently as 2005. The defensive and spherical formations are referred to by experts as “bee balls”.

Comment: How did bees figure this out? Probably learned by swarming the invader. Stingers don't work.

Natures wonders:angler fish bioluminescent bacteria evloving

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 22:08 (2070 days ago) @ David Turell

The bacteria that light the fish's light bulb are symbiotic with lost genes:

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-bacteria-deep-sea-fish-evolution-symbiosis.html

"You may recognize the anglerfish from its dramatic appearance in the hit animated film Finding Nemo, as it was very nearly the demise of clownfish Marlin and blue-tang fish Dory. It lives most of its life in total darkness more than 1,000 meters below the ocean surface. Female anglerfish sport a glowing lure on top of their foreheads, basically a pole with a light bulb on its end, where bioluminescent bacteria live. The light-emitting lure attracts both prey and potential mates to the fish.

"Despite its recent fame, little is known about anglerfish and their symbiotic relationship with these brilliant bacteria, because the fish are difficult to acquire and study.

***

"The researchers report their findings in a new study, published in the journal mBio. The analysis revealed that the bacteria have lost some of the genes that are needed to live freely in the water. That's because the fish and bacteria developed a tight, mutually beneficial relationship, where the bacteria generate light while the fish supplies nutrients to the microbe.

"'What's particularly interesting about this specific example is that we see evidence that this evolution is still underway, even though the fish themselves evolved about 100 million years ago," said Tory Hendry, assistant professor of microbiology at Cornell University and the paper's lead author. "The bacteria are still losing genes, and it's unclear why."

"Most of the known symbiotic relationships between organisms and bacteria are between either a host and free-living bacteria that don't evolve to maintain a symbiosis, or a host and intracellular bacteria that live inside the host's cells and undergo huge reductions in their genomes through evolution.

"The bacteria inside the bulb in anglerfish represents a third type of symbiosis, where preliminary data suggest these bacteria may move from the anglerfish bulb to the water. "It's a new paradigm in our understanding of symbiosis in general; this is a third type of situation where the bacteria are not actually stuck with their host but they are undergoing evolution," Hendry said.

"Genetic sequencing showed that the genomes of these anglerfish bioluminescent bacteria are 50 percent reduced compared with their free-swimming relatives. The bacteria have lost most of the genes associated with making amino acids and breaking down nutrients other than glucose, suggesting the fish may be supplying the bacteria with nutrients and amino acids.

"At the same time, the bacteria have retained some genes that are useful in water outside the host. They have full pathways to make a flagellum, a corkscrew tail for moving in water. The bacteria had lost most of the genes involved in sensing chemical cues in the environment that may lead to food or other useful compounds, though a few remained, leaving a subset of chemicals they still respond to. "They were pared down to something they cared about," Hendry said. "

Comment: Simple rule. The more the organism lives in the host, the less DNA is needed to survive.

Natures wonders: fruit fly inter species communication

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 18:02 (2065 days ago) @ David Turell

Fruit flies can communicate among their species to warn about parasitic wasps:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/fruit-flies-warn-other-species-about-wasp-danger

"Fruit flies can learn the dialects of other fly species after a period of living together, new research published in the journal PLOS Genetics reveals.
Like a mixed flock of songbirds sounding the alarm when there is a predatory hawk overhead, fruit flies of different species alert one another when there is a shared threat of parasitoid wasps.

"The wasps prey on flies by using a needle-sharp ovipositor to insert their eggs into fly eggs, and the young wasps then feed on the developing flies. Previous studies on fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) have shown that when female flies are aware of parasitoid wasps, they respond by developing fewer eggs, thus risking less young to wasp attack.

"The flies also communicate this information to other females using a series of wing movements. Having received the alarm, other flies develop fewer eggs, even if the wasp is unseen. This behaviour offers researchers an opportunity to study interspecies communication, using Drosophila as a model system.

"The research team, led by Balint Z. Kacsoh of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, used wild strains of D. melanogaster for their study, as these were likely to retain a typical predator response. They housed the flies in small acrylic duplex compartments which allowed visual communication. In the first series of experiments, a number of flies were stationed next to a compartment of wasps, (Leptopilina heterotoma) and then the wasps removed. The exposed flies were then known as teacher flies, who could communicate the threat to a new cohort of flies called naïve student flies. The physiological response (reduced egg development) was measured in the student flies.

"The team repeated this procedure with closely related and distantly related fly species. The findings reveal that the more closely related the species, the more readily they can communicate with one another.

"But even distantly related fly species can learn to communicate with one another if they share the same living space for a period. In the study, flies of different species shared the same compartment for a week, and then the experiment was repeated.

"'We find flies can communicate with one another about an anticipated danger, which is suggestive of a fly ‘language’,” says Kacsoh. “Living together enables the flies to learn new dialects composed of different visual and scent cues.”

"Some species were capable of learning multiple dialects, revealing that the Drosophila have high neural plasticity or capacity for learning."

Comment: since we know bees communicate by dancing, this should not be surprising. Even humans use body language.

Natures wonders: fruit fly inter species communication

by dhw, Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 13:03 (2064 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: 'We find flies can communicate with one another about an anticipated danger, which is suggestive of a fly ‘language’,” says Kacsoh. “Living together enables the flies to learn new dialects composed of different visual and scent cues.”

"Some species were capable of learning multiple dialects, revealing that the Drosophila have high neural plasticity or capacity for learning."

DAVID: since we know bees communicate by dancing, this should not be surprising. Even humans use body language.

I agree with you. The only surprise is that anyone should be surprised that other forms of life have their own language. Does anyone seriously believe that organisms can live together without communication? Or without the intelligence to know what they are communicating?

Natures wonders: fruit fly inter species communication

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 18:25 (2064 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: 'We find flies can communicate with one another about an anticipated danger, which is suggestive of a fly ‘language’,” says Kacsoh. “Living together enables the flies to learn new dialects composed of different visual and scent cues.”

"Some species were capable of learning multiple dialects, revealing that the Drosophila have high neural plasticity or capacity for learning."

DAVID: since we know bees communicate by dancing, this should not be surprising. Even humans use body language.

dhw: I agree with you. The only surprise is that anyone should be surprised that other forms of life have their own language. Does anyone seriously believe that organisms can live together without communication? Or without the intelligence to know what they are communicating?

All animals use body language and analyze ours when we work with them. They also vocalize with meaning. Ask our horses.

Natures wonders: dogs sense owner's emotions

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 20:57 (2063 days ago) @ David Turell

They can read our body language, as well as understanding voice commands:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/dogs-feel-empathy-for-human-suffering

"Not only can dogs perceive changes in human emotional states, but man’s best friend will take it a step further and overcome physical obstacles to go to an owner’s aid.

"Humans and dogs share a strong emotional bond arising from domestication over tens of thousands of years. But despite many popular anecdotes of dog heroism, the scientific evidence for dogs providing actual help to a human in need is mixed.

"By showing that dogs will perform an action to help a person in distress, the new study advances our knowledge of canine empathy and cross-species helping behaviour more generally.

"In a series of tests led by then-undergraduate Emily Sanford of Macalester College, 34 dogs were evaluated for empathetic behaviour using the trapped-other paradigm, an experimental design previously used only in rats.

"Each dog was separated from its owner by a clear door held shut with magnets. Seated behind the door, each owner would either hum a song or pretend to cry.

"The dogs opened the door in both scenarios, but did so to get to their crying owners three times faster than when the owners were humming.

"Heart rate monitors showed that the dogs that opened the door were stressed by the crying, but not too stressed to overcome the obstacle. In contrast, the dogs showing the greatest signs of stress were not able to open the door, suggesting that they were too upset by the crying to act.

"This difference in stress levels between openers and non-openers was not observed when the humans were humming instead of crying. “The dogs that opened the door showed empathy because they had to suppress their personal stress response in order to open,” explains Sanford, now a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University.

"And the dogs that still opened the door even when their owner was humming? Recorded stress levels indicate that opening behaviour appeared to be motivated not by empathy, but rather a mixture of curiosity and desire for social contact.

"Interestingly, there was no observed difference in performance between therapy dogs and non-therapy dogs, nor by breed or age. The outcome may have implications for the criteria used to select and train therapy dogs.

“'It might be beneficial for therapy organizations to consider more traits important for therapeutic improvement, such as empathy, in their testing protocols,” the researchers suggest.

"It is likely that some form of helping behaviour also occurs in other pet species, such as cats and parrots, although further studies are needed to confirm this."

Comment: Not at all surprising considering the bond between dogs and humans.

Natures wonders: queen bee longevity from gut biome

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 02, 2018, 21:57 (2055 days ago) @ David Turell

They have a different set of bacteria living in their guts that seem t o make the difference, since their genetics and those of the workers are the same:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-queen-bees-microbial-fountain-youth.html

"A team of researchers including three graduate students at the University of Arizona discovered that while worker bees and queens can be genetically identical, their vastly different lifespans appear to be connected to different microbes living in their guts.

"The observed differences in gut bacteria populations, called microbiomes, could be a clue in a mystery that has vexed scientists for a long time: In two genetically identical castes, why do worker bees die after mere weeks whereas queens can live years?

***

"A growing body of research suggests that in humans, so-called probiotic bacteria like Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus are associated with health and longevity, whereas bacteria belonging to a group known as Proteobacteria often are associated with unhealthy microbial imbalances. There appears to be a similar trend in worker bees, leading the researchers to hope that bees could be used as model organisms to study the more complex assemblies of microbes that make up the microbiome in mammals, including humans.

***

"In recent years, interest in the roles of gut microbes has surged. Extensive research has been aimed at disentangling the complex metabolic pathways and interactions among the cells in our body and our microbial commensals and the myriad chemical compounds they produce and exchange.

"One such molecule is butyrate, one of many short-chain fatty acids produced by microbial fermentation of dietary fiber. Short-chain fatty acids are known to have important functions ranging from hormone production to the suppression of inflammation and possibly cancer.

"Butyrate is produced in the hindguts of honey bees, via the co-metabolism of bacteria we found to deplete in aging workers and accumulate in aging queens," says Duan Copeland, a co-author and doctoral student in the UA's Department of Microbiology. "Both in honey bees and humans, butyrate is critical to gut health but also affects a broad variety of systemic health issues. It increases immunity and detoxification in bees, and it is known to influence core function in humans, including energy levels and behavior."

"'We assume that the presence of the probiotic bacteria is one component of longer life of the queen," says Patrick Maes, a fifth-year doctoral student in the Department of Entomology and Center for Insect Science at the UA. "The other is her much higher levels of vitellogenin, which remain high throughout her life. In workers, you'll see it peak early, then taper off within a few days."

"Vitellogenin is a nutrient storage molecule always abundant in the fat and blood of queens. More than simple nutrition, it acts as an antioxidant, improves immunity and suppresses inflammation.

***

"'The workers will feed her only royal jelly, which they produce in specialized glands. You can think of royal jelly as a type of super food, the bee's equivalent of breast milk, supporting beneficial bacteria and containing antimicrobial peptides."

"The study suggests that royal jelly, which enhances the growth of queen-specific gut microbes, sets the queen on a trajectory toward a much longer life by shifting her gut microbiome away from that of the common worker bee. Workers, on the other hand, rely mostly on pollen as their staple food.

"Royal jelly, honey and other factors in the hive environment keep unwanted microbes at bay, says Copeland. Bees can acquire their beneficial microbes by coming in contact with food stores, their nest mates and the overall environment in the hive."

Comment: this is a complicated arrangement. How did chance evolution create such an intricate system? Hive life depends on the queen and the caste system of bees. It cannot be created stepwise getting just the right bacteria into her gut and at the same time developing the royal jelly special food. I view this as a multifactorial form of irreducible complexity.

Natures wonders: naked mole rat longevity

by David Turell @, Friday, August 03, 2018, 15:14 (2055 days ago) @ David Turell

They can live over 30 years:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/for-naked-mole-rats-breeding-is-key-to-longevity

"Naked mole-rats that breed live longer than non-breeders of the species, defying the prevailing scientific view on reproduction and ageing.

"According to evolutionary theory, there is an energy trade-off between breeding and maintaining the body’s many tissues. Reproduction uses some of the energy needed to keep the body healthy, and lifespan decreases as a result.

"New research from Germany’s Leibniz Institute on Ageing shows that, at least for the mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber), this isn’t necessarily the case.

***

"Native to the grasslands of tropical East Africa, the naked mole-rat can live for more than 30 years — a lifespan far outpacing those of mice (which average four years) and rats (which rack up five). The present study sought to unravel the genetic mechanisms behind this longevity.

"Employing a technique called comparative transcriptome analysis, Bens and colleagues took tissue samples of 10 different organs from breeding and non-breeding naked mole-rats. By examining the RNA in each tissue type, the team could discern which genes were being transcribed to create specific proteins. Samples were also taken from guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) as a contrasting rodent model.

"The analysis revealed stark differences in how gene expression varied among groups. Breeding naked mole-rats showed higher expression of genes relating to muscle regeneration, which may help slow the physical process of ageing and explain why breeders live longer.

"Even more remarkable, there was no difference in gene expression between male and female non-breeding naked mole-rats. While the guinea pigs showed a high degree of physical and genetic sexual dimorphism — differences between the sexes — the mole rats only showed sex-specific changes after they started reproducing.

"Sexual maturation was also associated with a change in gene expression levels linked to extended life and health span.

"The findings add to the naked mole-rat’s already impressive list of biological achievements: it can survive up to 18 minutes without oxygen, numb itself to pain, and has a gene that halts the development of cancerous tumours."

Comment:A strange branch of life. The relationship to muscle regeneration fits with the human observation that exercise increases longevity.

Natures wonders: injured plants invite birds for protection

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 20:03 (2043 days ago) @ David Turell

The injury draws insects, which attack the plants. The plants emit volatile attractants to birds which can to come and eat the insects:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-scientists-emitting-scent-cues-birds.html

"When plants are in distress or being fed on by insects, they have been known to send out sensory volatile cues that alert organisms in the area—such as birds—that they are in need of help. While research has shown that this occurs in ecosystems such as forests, until now, this phenomenon has never been demonstrated in an agricultural setting.

"Researchers at the University of Delaware have recently found that agricultural plants also send out these signals when under duress from insects, opening new potential avenues for growers to defend their crops while at the same time providing a much-needed food source for birds.

***

"Using a field plot of maize on UD's Newark farm, the researchers attached dispensers using a synthetic odor blend that replicated the volatiles—odor cues given off by plants to indicate they are being attacked such as the smell of freshly cut grass—attached to corn stalks. They also used dispensers using only an organic solvent as a control measure.

"The Play-Doh larvae with orange head pins were then distributed on plants around the volatile dispensers and the organic solvent dispensers with the researchers measuring the bird attacks or pecks on the larvae.

"They found that the imitation larvae located closer to the volatile dispensers had significantly more attacks than those located closer to the organic solvent dispensers.

***

"Hiltpold said the results support growing evidence that foraging birds exploit volatile cues and a more accurate understanding of their behavior will be critical when implementing pest management programs benefiting from ecological services provided by insectivorous birds.

***

"It is a cry for help," said Hiltpold. "The plant is damaged, the plant emits something that recruits help and we're all thinking it's help from other insects but it seems that birds are also using that as a cue to locate a plant or a group of plants. Then what we think is that they use their visual equity to locate the larvae when they're in the vicinity of the plant emitting the volatiles."

"Hiltpold said that their research in the field confirmed this, as they had one larvae located on a volatile dispenser on a plant, and then four larvae distributed on all the plants around the plant with the dispenser.

***

"When they compared the number of pecks to the larvae on the plant with the dispenser to the number of pecks on the larvae on plants around the dispenser, there was no significant difference.

"This means that the bird is coming, smelling the volatiles and when it gets to the vicinity of the plant that is damaged, then it visually searches for the insect," said Hiltpold.

"It is also interesting because birds have long been believed to not be able to smell, but this research indicates that they are smelling the volatiles and then coming in closer to visual locate their prey.

"'Whether or not birds can smell is a big question because they apparently lack some anatomical things to smell the way other vertebrates are smelling," Hiltpold said. "Yet, they seem to have the capability of sensing volatiles but we don't exactly know how they do it yet.'"

Comment: How did the plants learn what would attract birds? Not by chance.

Natures wonders: bees and wasps recognize human faces

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 20:28 (2043 days ago) @ David Turell

Current research shows it:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/are-they-watching-you-the-tiny-brains-of-bees-and-wa...

"...new evidence we published in Frontiers in Psychology shows that insects such as the honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the European wasp (Vespula vulgaris) use visual processing mechanisms that are similar to humans’, which enables reliable face recognition.

"This is despite the tiny size of the insects’ brains. They contain fewer than one million brain cells, compared with the 86,000 million that make up a human brain.

***

"The honeybee is a very accessible animal for understanding visual processing. Individual bees can be trained to learn complex problems in return for collecting a sweet sugary reward. Recently we developed methods for testing wasps in the same way.

"Our existing research shows that honeybees and wasps can learn to recognise human faces.
Other evidence – from a US research group – shows that paper wasps (Polistes fuscatus) can very reliably learn the faces of other paper wasps, and appear to have evolved specialised brain mechanisms for wasp face processing.

***

"Both the bees and wasps were then were given four additional separate tests. The results showed that despite these respective insects having no evolutionary reason for processing human faces, their brains learn reliable recognition by creating holistic representations of the complex images. They put features together to recognise a specific human face.

"We now know that insects’ small brains can reliably recognise at least a limited number of faces. This suggests that in humans, the advantage of our big brain may be the very large number of individuals we can remember.

"This new information helps us understand how very sophisticated face processing expertise may have been possible to evolve in humans and other primates."

Comment: See the article for an illustration of how a bee might see a face.

Natures wonders: endosymbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 20:43 (2043 days ago) @ David Turell

This plant lives within an other plant and only appears externally as flowers for sexual reproduction, which is not fully understood at this time:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/the-mysterious-pilostyles-is-a-plant-within-a-plant

"Pilostyles has taken parasitism to another level as an “endoparasite”: it lives inside its host. Unlike almost all other plants, Pilostyles has abandoned stems, leaves and roots. When not flowering, it lives inside its host, as pale threads of cells within the host’s roots and stems, from which it acquires all its nutrients.

"Only when flowering is Pilostyles visible externally, the flowers erupting from the stems of its host like a weird botanical Alien.

***

"Three species of Pilostyles occur in Australia, all of them in Western Australia. Each has a specific host. Pilostyles hamiltonii only grows in plants in the genus Daviesia, P. collina in the poison-pea genus Gastrolobium and P. coccoidea – described only a few years ago – in Jacksonia.

"Another seven species occur outside Australia, and they also infect shrubby relatives of peas.
Pilostyles flowers are about the size of a match head. They appear on stems after its host has finished its own flowering. Thus, the host plant seems to flower twice in a year, but with completely different flowers.

***

"Much mystery surrounds Pilostyles. Unlike its host plant, Pilostyles plants are either male or female, and the two sexes rarely, if ever, colonise the same host plant. They seem to be able to recognise a host that is already occupied by another Pilostyles plant. The pollen from a male flower must find its way to a female flower located on another host plant.

"Although various insect species have been seen feeding on their flowers, it is uncertain which are effective pollinators and if Pilostyles has specialist pollinators.

"Its fruit rots quickly when it falls to the ground. The tiny seeds are less than 1mm long, and each has an embryo of only eight cells and a very small amount of stored food. How the seeds are distributed, and how they recognise their host species amongst all the other plant species growing nearby is unknown. Other parasitic plants recognise root exudations from their hosts, but this is not proven for Pilostyles.

"Because Pilostyles lives in the dark and doesn’t photosynthesise, it has no apparent need for chloroplasts, the cell structures that synthesise sugars from carbon dioxide, water and sunlight and give other plants their green colouration.

"Chloroplast have their own genomes because they are thought to originate from free-living cyanobacteria that themselves parasitised other cells to become the first plants.

"Surprisingly, Pilostyles still retains remnant choloroplasts with tiny genomes that contain only five or six active genes. These are the smallest chloroplast genomes ever described. In comparison, the chloroplast genome of wheat encodes about 230 genes.

"Several genes in the Pilostyles nuclear genome closely resemble genes of its host, suggestive that the parasite is not only pirating nutrients from its host, but also its genes. This phenomenon is called horizontal gene transfer, and it is relatively common amongst plants that are parasites.

***

"The ancestor of today’s Pilostyles rejected life as a green plant living in sunlight, instead worming its way into the body of another plant. Over evolutionary time, Pilostyles has survived ice ages and tectonic plate movements and now exists as ten described species living on five continents. The mysterious Pilostyles reminds us of the incredible tenacity and adaptability of life."

Comment: Another example of how weird life can be.

Natures wonders: parasite on parasite

by David Turell @, Monday, August 20, 2018, 18:50 (2038 days ago) @ David Turell

A vine attacks a wasp induced gall on a tree, which mummifies the adult wasp:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-parasitic-vine-tangles-gall-wasps.html

"'Galls are like tumors in many ways," Egan said. "The wasps induce them to grow at the site where they lay their eggs, but the galls are part of the tree. The cells there have the same DNA as any other cell in the tree. They've just been reprogrammed to grow and behave in a way that is ultimately harmful to the tree.

***

"Gall-forming wasps are among 13,000 insect species worldwide that use biochemistry to trick trees and other plants into growing their nurseries for them. One species that's native to Texas and Florida is Belonocnema treatae,—also called B. treatae—which lays its eggs only on the underside of newly growing oak leaves. A mix of venom and proteins laid down with the egg coax the tree into growing a smooth sphere of hard brown material around the egg. Encased inside this crypt, the larval wasp feeds on a steady flow of nutrients drawn directly from the tree's vascular network, and emerges when it is mature.

***

"The group gathered all the material it had just sorted and went through all of it again. The biologists found several more samples, and in the months since, Egan, Hood, Zhang and co-author Mattheau Comerford, another Ph.D. student, have found dozens more, including examples of the vines attacking other species of gall-forming wasps. Out of 51 dissected samples of B. treatae galls attacked by love vines, 23 contained a desiccated, mummified adult. In contrast, only two of the 101 galls not attacked by vines contained dead wasps.

"'The attacks are also associated with different gall sizes," Egan said. "We found the vines attached to galls that were slightly larger than average. That means the vine is either only attacking larger galls, or the vine is inducing the galls that it attacks to grow bigger, perhaps to draw more energy from them."

"Egan said the discovery of the new trophic interaction is exciting because it shows an aspect of nature that hadn't previously been noticed and because it's possible that similar interactions happen between many other species.

"'This is the first time anyone has ever discovered a parasitic plant and parasitic gall wasp interacting on a shared host plant," Egan said. "This could be unique, but biologists have catalogued more than 1,300 species of gall-forming wasps and more than 4,000 species of parasitic plants, so this could just be the tip of the iceberg.'"

Comment: More opportunistic behavior. Did the wasp find a way to invent this attack or was it designed? And the same point fits the vine.

Natures wonders: balls of algae float or sink

by David Turell @, Monday, August 20, 2018, 19:01 (2038 days ago) @ David Turell

They are shown to have a biological clock, even thought they are balls of single cells:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-mystery-algae-balls.html

"Scientists from the University of Bristol have uncovered the age-old mystery of why marimo algae balls sink at night and float during the day.

"The balls are a rare form of algae found naturally in lakes in the northern hemisphere, particularly Japan and Iceland.

"In Japan they have such important cultural significance, they are a protected species. They are also very popular with aquarium owners, although, in recent years, their popularity has resulted in a significant decline.

"In a new paper, published today in the journal Current Biology, Bristol biologists have shown that photosynthesis and daily circadian rhythms are responsible for the floating and sinking of the balls.

"When these aquatic plants photosynthesise, they become covered in tiny bubbles of oxygen, which the scientists predicted was the cause of their buoyancy.

"They tested their theory by using a chemical that stops photosynthesis. The chemical stopped bubbles forming, so the marimo did not float.

"The lab then investigated whether the photosynthesising surface of the algae balls had a biological "clock" or circadian rhythm.

"Marimo were kept under dim red light for several days. They discovered that if the marimo were then given bright light at the time that corresponded to the start of the day, they floated much more rapidly than if they were given light at the middle of the day.

"This shows that marimo floating is controlled by their biological clock."

Comment: Our 24-hour day has been encoded into most living organisms. The sinking or floating is not magical, just turning phosynthesis on or off.

Natures wonders: plant root fungal symbiosis

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 20:41 (2029 days ago) @ David Turell

A vast majority of plants join with a fungus on their roots to create better absorption of nutrients, especially phosphorus:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-leaf-molecules-markers-mycorrhizal-associations.html

"In nature, most plants establish mutual relationships with root fungi, so-called mycorrhiza. Mycorrhizal fungi facilitate the plants' nutrient uptake and help them thrive under extreme conditions. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany, discovered that certain leaf metabolites can be used as markers for mycorrhizal associations. The discovery of foliar markers provides scientists with an easy-to-conduct tool to screen large amounts of plants for mycorrhizal associations without having to destroy them. This new tool could contribute to breeding more efficient and stress-tolerant crop varieties for sustainable agriculture.

"The relationship between plants and so-called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is considered to be one of the most important factors for the evolution of terrestrial plants. More than 70 percent of the higher plants establish an association with these fungi, which are believed to be more than 400 million years old. The mutualistic association allows the plant to better absorb nutrients, such as phosphate. Moreover, the symbiosis makes the plants more tolerant of biotic and abiotic stresses, such as insect attack, pathogens and drought.

"For plant breeders, mycorrhizal fungi are very important because global phosphate resources are limited. However, until now analysis of the fungal association was only possible by excavating the plant roots. This is not only time-consuming; it also destroys the plant.
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology and their partners have now found substances that accumulate in the leaves when arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi successfully colonize plant roots. It has been known for a while that these substances, so-called blumenol C derivates, are produced in the roots exclusively after colonization with the mutualistic fungi. However, until now, all attempts to find a reliable and specific leaf marker have failed.

***

:Further experiments confirmed that the observed changes are related to root colonization mycorrhizal fungi. "The blumenols are most likely produced in the roots and then transported to other parts of the plants," Martin Schäfer explains.
Most ecological interactions are highly species-specific. However, the scientists were able to show blumenol accumulation in the leaf tissues of other plant species, including important crop varieties and vegetables. The ubiquity of markers in the shoot across distant plant families is likely due to the long common history of mycorrhizal fungi and plants, suggesting that theses markers play an important role for plants colonized with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi."

Comment: Land plants appeared relatively late during evolution. Animals forms were first. Since plants are stuck in one spot they can't wander around looking for nutrients. This might be a design from God.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 30, 2018, 01:06 (1997 days ago) @ David Turell

The fungus had to lose dangerous attack proteins in order to join in the symbiotic relationship:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180928131357.htm

" Most Amanitas can only survive by closely partnering with plants, providing their roots with minerals and nutrients in exchange for sugars. This symbiosis evolved more than 50 million years ago and helps forest ecosystems thrive.

***

"To get at what separated symbiotic from free-living Amanitas, the researchers sequenced the genomes of three symbiotic Amanita species -- including the fly amanita -- and three close relatives that aren't symbiotic. The genomic sequences allowed them to reconstruct the evolutionary paths that led to the fungi's different adaptations.

"'We went into this thinking we'd find commonalities between the three symbiotic Amanitas," Pringle says.

"But despite their similar lifestyles, symbiotic Amanitas looked vastly different from one another on the genomic level. Some symbiotic species had almost double the number of genes as their similarly symbiotic relatives. The symbiotic mushrooms seemed to take different genomic paths after they first diverged, developing unique ways to tailor their partnership with plants.

"Earlier research on other families of mushrooms had suggested that one defining characteristic of symbiotic lifestyles was the loss of enzymes capable of degrading the cellulose-laden walls of plant cells. These genes are crucial for decomposers eating through leaf litter. But for fungi that associate with plants and must avoid harming their partners, cellulose-digesting enzymes are only a liability. (my bold)


"So when Pringle, Hess and their team looked at this group of digestive enzymes, they were surprised to find that the free-living species Amanita inopinata was missing these genes. Although symbiotic Amanita mushrooms had indeed lost this suite of digestive enzymes, Amanita inopinata's lack of them meant the researchers couldn't link this loss to symbiosis itself.

"Pringle says the unexpected absence of cell wall-digesting genes in Amanita inopinata's genome may actually be a clue pointing to evolution at work. If symbiosis only develops once fungi let go of these digestive enzymes, the researchers reason, then Amanita inopinata may be primed to evolve a closer partnership with plants.

"Not quite symbiotic, perhaps not fully independent, Amanita inopinata seems to be "stuck between two worlds," says Hess, who began the work while a postdoctoral researcher in the Pringle lab and is now a senior scientist at the University of Vienna.

"The evolution of Amanita inopinata -- "the unexpected one," in Latin -- and the other Amanitas also seem to support a developing consensus that symbiosis, once thought to be exceptional, may actually be easy to evolve. The researchers didn't find that Amanita needed to develop a new, complex suite of genes in order to start partnering with plants. Instead, just letting go of a few once-vital genes may be sufficient to forge new relationships in nature."

Comment: Note my bold. This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by dhw, Sunday, September 30, 2018, 11:10 (1997 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: But for fungi that associate with plants and must avoid harming their partners, cellulose-digesting enzymes are only a liability. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance.

I get it: your God preprogrammed the evolution of Amanita inopinata 3.8 billion years ago, or he personally dabbled its mode of symbiosis, because without it life could not have continued until he was able to achieve his prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. (Secondary purposes: to prove himself to us, or to provide a sort of spectacle, but not a dhw sort of spectacle.) And while we’re at it, he also preprogrammed salmonella to “break key molecules in immune signaling pathways”, or popped in to give them a tutorial.

Thanks all the same for the ongoing education.

--

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 30, 2018, 15:18 (1997 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: But for fungi that associate with plants and must avoid harming their partners, cellulose-digesting enzymes are only a liability. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance.

dhw: I get it: your God preprogrammed the evolution of Amanita inopinata 3.8 billion years ago, or he personally dabbled its mode of symbiosis, because without it life could not have continued until he was able to achieve his prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. (Secondary purposes: to prove himself to us, or to provide a sort of spectacle, but not a dhw sort of spectacle.) And while we’re at it, he also preprogrammed salmonella to “break key molecules in immune signaling pathways”, or popped in to give them a tutorial.

Thanks all the same for the ongoing education.

Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by dhw, Monday, October 01, 2018, 13:02 (1996 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance

dhw: I get it: your God preprogrammed the evolution of Amanita inopinata 3.8 billion years ago, or he personally dabbled its mode of symbiosis, because without it life could not have continued until he was able to achieve his prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. (Secondary purposes: to prove himself to us, or to provide a sort of spectacle, but not a dhw sort of spectacle.) And while we’re at it, he also preprogrammed salmonella to “break key molecules in immune signaling pathways”, or popped in to give them a tutorial.
Thanks all the same for the ongoing education.

DAVID; Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by David Turell @, Monday, October 01, 2018, 15:10 (1996 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance

dhw: I get it: your God preprogrammed the evolution of Amanita inopinata 3.8 billion years ago, or he personally dabbled its mode of symbiosis, because without it life could not have continued until he was able to achieve his prime purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. (Secondary purposes: to prove himself to us, or to provide a sort of spectacle, but not a dhw sort of spectacle.) And while we’re at it, he also preprogrammed salmonella to “break key molecules in immune signaling pathways”, or popped in to give them a tutorial.
Thanks all the same for the ongoing education.

DAVID; Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

dhw: My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.

And my response as usual is to what tutorial did the cells attend to learn to be intelligent? Intelligent action has to be designed into them to guide their automatic molecular reactions.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by dhw, Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 13:26 (1995 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID; Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

dhw: My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.

DAVID: And my response as usual is to what tutorial did the cells attend to learn to be intelligent? Intelligent action has to be designed into them to guide their automatic molecular reactions.

No tutorial. My hypothesis (theistic version) is that intelligence was designed into cells so that they could determine their own reactions. One design right from the start (though allowing for the odd dabble), compared to billions of computer programmes and tutorials. I can hear Ockham cheering.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 02, 2018, 16:13 (1995 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID; Thank you for your attention to the educational articles I present, all of which easily show the designs in life that require a thoughtful designer to produce them. Even Dawkins admitted the design, as he denigrated the designer.

dhw: My own point, of course, was to suggest that all these articles suggest organismal intelligence at work – the alternatives to which I have listed above (3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes or private divine tutorials). I find these a colossal strain on my credulity. I'm sure Dawkins does as well, but I do wish he would ask himself what other way organisms could arrive at such complexity without intelligence of their own, regardless of its source.

DAVID: And my response as usual is to what tutorial did the cells attend to learn to be intelligent? Intelligent action has to be designed into them to guide their automatic molecular reactions.

dhw: No tutorial. My hypothesis (theistic version) is that intelligence was designed into cells so that they could determine their own reactions. One design right from the start (though allowing for the odd dabble), compared to billions of computer programmes and tutorials. I can hear Ockham cheering.

And I think baked into bacteria are all the automatic reactions necessary to live, so when multicellularity appeared, those cells had all the tools hey needed to live in cooperation. Evolution is basic pattern built upon previous basic patterns.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 30, 2018, 19:13 (1997 days ago) @ David Turell

The fungus had to lose dangerous attack proteins in order to join in the symbiotic relationship:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180928131357.htm

" Most Amanitas can only survive by closely partnering with plants, providing their roots with minerals and nutrients in exchange for sugars. This symbiosis evolved more than 50 million years ago and helps forest ecosystems thrive.

***

"To get at what separated symbiotic from free-living Amanitas, the researchers sequenced the genomes of three symbiotic Amanita species -- including the fly amanita -- and three close relatives that aren't symbiotic. The genomic sequences allowed them to reconstruct the evolutionary paths that led to the fungi's different adaptations.

"'We went into this thinking we'd find commonalities between the three symbiotic Amanitas," Pringle says.

"But despite their similar lifestyles, symbiotic Amanitas looked vastly different from one another on the genomic level.(MyBold) Some symbiotic species had almost double the number of genes as their similarly symbiotic relatives. The symbiotic mushrooms seemed to take different genomic paths after they first diverged, developing unique ways to tailor their partnership with plants.

"Earlier research on other families of mushrooms had suggested that one defining characteristic of symbiotic lifestyles was the loss of enzymes capable of degrading the cellulose-laden walls of plant cells. These genes are crucial for decomposers eating through leaf litter. But for fungi that associate with plants and must avoid harming their partners, cellulose-digesting enzymes are only a liability.


"So when Pringle, Hess and their team looked at this group of digestive enzymes, they were surprised to find that the free-living species Amanita inopinata was missing these genes. Although symbiotic Amanita mushrooms had indeed lost this suite of digestive enzymes, Amanita inopinata's lack of them meant the researchers couldn't link this loss to symbiosis itself.

"Pringle says the unexpected absence of cell wall-digesting genes in Amanita inopinata's genome may actually be a clue pointing to evolution at work. If symbiosis only develops once fungi let go of these digestive enzymes, the researchers reason, then Amanita inopinata may be primed to evolve a closer partnership with plants.

"Not quite symbiotic, perhaps not fully independent, Amanita inopinata seems to be "stuck between two worlds," says Hess, who began the work while a postdoctoral researcher in the Pringle lab and is now a senior scientist at the University of Vienna.

"The evolution of Amanita inopinata -- "the unexpected one," in Latin -- and the other Amanitas also seem to support a developing consensus that symbiosis, once thought to be exceptional, may actually be easy to evolve. The researchers didn't find that Amanita needed to develop a new, complex suite of genes in order to start partnering with plants. Instead, just letting go of a few once-vital genes may be sufficient to forge new relationships in nature."

Comment: Note my bold. This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance.

So, three fungi with 'vastly different' genomic sequences are classified as the same, thus genes had to be lost. What? With this kind of logic, anything can be evolution. Oh look! My cat turned into a toaster strudel!

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: fungal symbiosis by gene loss

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 30, 2018, 19:43 (1997 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

The fungus had to lose dangerous attack proteins in order to join in the symbiotic relationship:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180928131357.htm

" Most Amanitas can only survive by closely partnering with plants, providing their roots with minerals and nutrients in exchange for sugars. This symbiosis evolved more than 50 million years ago and helps forest ecosystems thrive.

***

"To get at what separated symbiotic from free-living Amanitas, the researchers sequenced the genomes of three symbiotic Amanita species -- including the fly amanita -- and three close relatives that aren't symbiotic. The genomic sequences allowed them to reconstruct the evolutionary paths that led to the fungi's different adaptations.

"'We went into this thinking we'd find commonalities between the three symbiotic Amanitas," Pringle says.

"But despite their similar lifestyles, symbiotic Amanitas looked vastly different from one another on the genomic level.(MyBold) Some symbiotic species had almost double the number of genes as their similarly symbiotic relatives. The symbiotic mushrooms seemed to take different genomic paths after they first diverged, developing unique ways to tailor their partnership with plants.

"Earlier research on other families of mushrooms had suggested that one defining characteristic of symbiotic lifestyles was the loss of enzymes capable of degrading the cellulose-laden walls of plant cells. These genes are crucial for decomposers eating through leaf litter. But for fungi that associate with plants and must avoid harming their partners, cellulose-digesting enzymes are only a liability.


"So when Pringle, Hess and their team looked at this group of digestive enzymes, they were surprised to find that the free-living species Amanita inopinata was missing these genes. Although symbiotic Amanita mushrooms had indeed lost this suite of digestive enzymes, Amanita inopinata's lack of them meant the researchers couldn't link this loss to symbiosis itself.

"Pringle says the unexpected absence of cell wall-digesting genes in Amanita inopinata's genome may actually be a clue pointing to evolution at work. If symbiosis only develops once fungi let go of these digestive enzymes, the researchers reason, then Amanita inopinata may be primed to evolve a closer partnership with plants.

"Not quite symbiotic, perhaps not fully independent, Amanita inopinata seems to be "stuck between two worlds," says Hess, who began the work while a postdoctoral researcher in the Pringle lab and is now a senior scientist at the University of Vienna.

"The evolution of Amanita inopinata -- "the unexpected one," in Latin -- and the other Amanitas also seem to support a developing consensus that symbiosis, once thought to be exceptional, may actually be easy to evolve. The researchers didn't find that Amanita needed to develop a new, complex suite of genes in order to start partnering with plants. Instead, just letting go of a few once-vital genes may be sufficient to forge new relationships in nature."

Comment: Note my bold. This symbiosis could only happen if genes were lost, because they had to be absent. Looks like design to me; not by chance.


Tony: So, three fungi with 'vastly different' genomic sequences are classified as the same, thus genes had to be lost. What? With this kind of logic, anything can be evolution. Oh look! My cat turned into a toaster strudel!

Good point. They may look alike but not even be related. Still life evolved from single cell to complex humans.

Natures wonders: planeria eye regeneration

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2020, 20:34 (1362 days ago) @ David Turell

Almost fully explained by guiding muscle cells:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-muscle-cells-guideposts-regenerative-flatworms.html

"Schmidtea mediterranea's eyes are composed of light-capturing photoreceptor neurons connected to the brain with long, spindly processes called axons. They use their eyes to respond to light to help navigate their environment.

***

"...in 2018, Reddien Lab scientist Lucila Scimone found something surprising in adult planarians: groups of mysterious cells that looked like they might play a role in guiding growing axons. She'd noticed this group of cells because they co-expressed two genes not often seen together and some were conspicuously close to the eyes.

"'I was captivated by these cells," she says. They appeared in very small numbers (a normal worm might have around 5; a large one might have up to 10) in every planarian she examined. They were divided into two distinct groups: some around the flatworms' eyes, and others spaced out along the path to the brain center. When she traced the path of existing axons leading from the planarians' eyes to their brain, they coincided with the positions of these cells without exception.

***

"The researchers also created genetically engineered planarians that had the muscle cells, but no eyes, and then transplanted eyes onto their eyeless heads. Sure enough, the neurons grew as normal, snaking towards the cells and then adjusting their trajectories after encountering them.

***

"These findings combined suggested that the cells were fully independent of the visual system—they did not form because of eyes or photoreceptor neurons, but likely established themselves before the neurons grew—which provided more evidence for the guidepost role.

"The guidepost-like activity of these cells then begged the question: how do the cells themselves know where to be? "We found that there's a pattern of signaling molecules in muscle that is setting where these cells should be," Reddien says. "If we perturb the global positional information of the system, these cells get placed in the wrong positions, and then axons go to the wrong positions—so we think there's a positional information framework that places the cells during regeneration, and that allows them to work as guideposts in the correct locations." (my bold)

"At this point, the researchers don't know exactly how the cells are able to communicate with growing axons to serve as guideposts. They could be releasing some sort of signaling molecule that attracts the axons, or they could be communicating by using trans-membrane proteins.

"'That will be an exciting direction for the future," Reddien says. "We have now identified the transcriptome for the cells, which means we know all the genes that these cells express. That provides us with an intriguing list of genes that can be probed functionally, to try to see which ones are mediating the functions of these cells.'"

Comment: interesting that muscle cells are co-opted for this role which is usually by astrocytes. Note in my bold the use of the word 'information' which always disturbs dhw. A perfectly reasonable usage. Not by chance. Design fits.

Natures wonders: planeria eye regeneration

by dhw, Friday, June 26, 2020, 11:25 (1362 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "If we perturb the global positional information of the system, these cells get placed in the wrong positions, and then axons go to the wrong positions—so we think there's a positional information framework that places the cells during regeneration,BB and that allows them to work as guideposts in the correct locations." (David's bold)

DAVID: interesting that muscle cells are co-opted for this role which is usually by astrocytes. Note in my bold the use of the word 'information' which always disturbs dhw. A perfectly reasonable usage. Not by chance. Design fits.

I have no objection to the word “information” until it is used in such a way that it requires a new definition which writers fail to deliver. A classic example: “Information as the source of life”.

Natures wonders: planeria eye regeneration

by David Turell @, Friday, June 26, 2020, 19:37 (1362 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "If we perturb the global positional information of the system, these cells get placed in the wrong positions, and then axons go to the wrong positions—so we think there's a positional information framework that places the cells during regeneration,BB and that allows them to work as guideposts in the correct locations." (David's bold)

DAVID: interesting that muscle cells are co-opted for this role which is usually by astrocytes. Note in my bold the use of the word 'information' which always disturbs dhw. A perfectly reasonable usage. Not by chance. Design fits.

dhw: I have no objection to the word “information” until it is used in such a way that it requires a new definition which writers fail to deliver. A classic example: “Information as the source of life”.

See today's entry from Stephan Talbot's thoughts about the 'ghost in the machine'. it is information.

Natures wonders: sea slug regeneration

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 20:58 (1106 days ago) @ David Turell

Just a head makes a whole new body:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sea-slug-detached-head-crawl-regenerate-grow-new-body

"Heads of young Elysia cf. marginata sea slugs can pull themselves free from their bodies and just keep crawling around while growing a new body, report ecologists at Nara Women’s University in Japan. Within a few hours, some separated heads start nibbling on algae again, Sayaka Mitoh and Yoichi Yusa report March 8 in Current Biology. And within about 20 days, a third of the young sea slugs they watched had grown their bodies back, heart and all.

***

"The head of a sea slug can take several hours to rip itself loose from its body, so Mitoh and Yusa doubt that de-heading helps when predators attack. Instead, a detachable body could give the sea slug a drastic, but effective, way of dealing with parasites. In a batch of wild-caught E. atroviridis sea slugs, the few that ditched their bodies were parasitized by copepods. So were those that just lost pieces of their body, some of which also regrew.

"On close inspection, the researchers found that sea slugs have a slight groove looped on the back of the head region that seems to work as a break-here zone. The bodies left behind can still move on their own for days or even months. An abandoned body, however, doesn’t regrow its head. The leaf-shaped remnant instead turns pale and weak and eventually dies.

***

"What might help Elysia slugs manage such extreme regrowth is their ability to steal the tiny green sunlight-trapping energy factories called chloroplasts from plants, the researchers muse. Very young slugs don’t have any chloroplasts. “They need to pierce the cell walls of sea algae and sip the contents,” Yusa says. The grazing slugs can keep the chloroplasts alive for weeks or months.

"Biologists debate what the stolen chloroplasts do for their kidnappers besides provide a pretty, green tinge. Yusa, however, has linked the looted chloroplasts to such consequential matters as improved reproduction. If chloroplasts are more than cosmetic, maybe that energy boost is just what a severed head needs to get (more than) ahead."

Comment: What this means is ordinary DNA in the slug has all the information need to reproduce a new slug, not a special reproductive set of cells. Snapping up necessary tools from other organisms is common. That is how we got our mitochondria.

Natures wonders: a new parasite lifecycle

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 19:00 (1096 days ago) @ David Turell

Involving dogs and sand fleas:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2271822-parasites-may-make-dogs-smell-good-to-dise...

"Parasites that cause the disease visceral leishmaniasis, also known as kala-azar, may make dogs smell more attractive to female sandflies, which feed on a dog’s blood and can pick up the parasite and transfer it to humans through a bite.

“'The idea is that it’s a parasite manipulation,” says Gordon Hamilton at Lancaster University in the UK. “The parasite needs to be able to ensure that it is transmitted to the next host. It has to be able to promote itself in some way.”


"Leishmania infantum is one of a family of parasites that cause an infection that is fatal if left untreated. While the parasite is widespread in Europe and North Africa, many infections occur in Brazil, which accounts for 95 per cent of all cases in the Americas, according to the World Health Organization. That may be because sandflies there efficiently spread the parasite, says Hamilton.

"To study how it spreads, Hamilton and Monica Staniek, also at Lancaster University, gathered samples from dogs in Governador Valadares, Brazil, by walking through neighbourhoods and asking dog owners if they could use blood and hair samples from their pets.

***

"Female sandflies feed on blood, while the males don’t. Both sexes were generally attracted to the dog hairs, but 65.7 per cent of the female sandflies were attracted to the infected samples while the males were equally attracted to samples from infected and uninfected dogs.

“'They showed convincingly that infected dogs do attract the sandflies,” says Shaden Kamhawi at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. “But they have yet to identify why, and what is the odour, and what are the receptors in the sandflies that are responding to the odours.”

"Understanding the biological interactions at play could help efforts to control the disease without having to do widespread damage with insecticides that can kill a population of the insects and harm the environment, she says."

Comment: most parasites have a lifecycle through host animals. It is a wonder how they develop. Stepwise does not seem possible since the parasite has to depend on specific hosts to survive. Was this designed by God? And for what purpose? I'm left with pure guesswork.

Natures wonders:angler fish weird sex

by David Turell @, Friday, July 31, 2020, 19:46 (1327 days ago) @ David Turell

The male has lost its immune system to the point it fuses with the female to reproduce:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-anglerfish-deleted-its-immune-system-to-fuse-with-its-m...

"Within the anglerfish family, there are several reproductive methods. The females of some species fuse with one male; others fuse with multiple males; and still another group have only a temporary fusion. After grinding up 31 tissue samples of 10 species, the team conducted genetic tests and found that species that temporarily fuse to their mates lack the genes responsible for the maturation of antibodies. Species that create a permanent attachment to their mates had also lost a set of additional genes that are responsible for the assembly of T cell receptors and antibody genes that are the foundation of the innate immune system in all vertebrates.

***

“'They have gotten rid of everything that is essential for a proper immune response,” says Boehm, whose research focuses on immune systems from several different animal species. “They have no receptors to recognize foreign invaders. They are basically defenseless. A patient like this would never survive and would be dead in no time.'”

Comment: Weird. A very strange finding about a very strange fish.

Natures wonders: giant stone movement

by David Turell @, Friday, July 31, 2020, 20:32 (1326 days ago) @ David Turell

The source of Stonehenge sarsen megaliths found 25 kilometers away"

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/31/eabc0133?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2020-07...

"Abstract
The sources of the stone used to construct Stonehenge around 2500 BCE have been debated for over four centuries. The smaller “bluestones” near the center of the monument have been traced to Wales, but the origins of the sarsen (silcrete) megaliths that form the primary architecture of Stonehenge remain unknown. Here, we use geochemical data to show that 50 of the 52 sarsens at the monument share a consistent chemistry and, by inference, originated from a common source area. We then compare the geochemical signature of a core extracted from Stone 58 at Stonehenge with equivalent data for sarsens from across southern Britain. From this, we identify West Woods, Wiltshire, 25 km north of Stonehenge, as the most probable source area for the majority of sarsens at the monument."

Comment: This is similar to giant stones at and near Cuzco, Peru, the giant figures on Easter Island, the giant stones in the Pyramids of Egypt. How did they do it? Probably on wooden rollers.

Natures wonders: parasitic plant with beautiful flowers

by David Turell @, Friday, July 31, 2020, 20:41 (1326 days ago) @ David Turell

A stripped down version of a plant with gorgeous flowering of male and female plants:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/parasitic-plant-consists-flashy-flowers-creepy-suckers

"...the flowers are intricate, screaming red showpieces. That’s the total opposite of the unshowy rest of the plant. It has no leaves, just grayish, ropelike tissue that probes through soil and ranks in looks somewhere between blah and dried-up dog droppings.

"The mix of flashy sexual parts and super-simplified other structures makes sense for the plant kingdom’s extreme parasites, including the four known Langsdorffia species. Why grow a lot of greenery to feed yourself when you can steal what you need.

“'They’re vampire plants,” says Thorogood, at the University of Oxford Botanic Garden & Arboretum. Langsdorffia’s underground rope sucks all the nutrition it needs from the roots of other plants, such as figs and mimosas. The burrowing freeloaders “challenge our notion of what plants even do,” he says.

***

"The flowers of L. hypogea species pop out of the ground here and there in Central and South America, including Brazil’s savanna, the cerrado. “Imagine the visual impact,” says Santos, of Universidade Federal de Sergipe in São Cristóvão, Brazil. The flowers bloom during the dry season, erupting in loud reds from a thin carpet of other plants’ dead, brown leaves.

"Unlike many flowers from apples to zinnias that sport both male and female parts, an individual L. hypogea plant is either all male or all female. Each of its knobby blooms burst from the soil as skirted masses of tiny same-sex nubbins. To attract the vital go-between pollinators, males ooze nectar among the nubbins. Females release it from their skirt and in a sweet zone at the base of the main bouquet. It’s a banquet in a parched season. Ants, beetles, cockroaches and even birds such as white-napped jays gather to feast."

Comment: Another weird species part of some balanced ecosystem.

Natures wonders: travelling econiche

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 02, 2020, 19:14 (1325 days ago) @ David Turell

Loggerhead turtles travel the world and spread species of life that cannot move on their own:

http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/592/theres-a-world-living-on-every-loggerhead?mc_cid=4f...

"...hitchhikers, known as epibionts, show up on hosts from crabs to crocodiles. But according to a May 2020 paper by Ingels, Valdes, dos Santos and others, loggerheads in particular carry many, many more of them than previously thought—often tens of thousands of individuals each. These represent a diversity of species and life stages, and turn a well-populated turtle into “a little metropolis floating in the ocean,” says Ingels.

***

"Ingels and his colleagues study meiofauna. It's a group characterized chiefly by size: Anyone who falls between the mesh of a one-millimeter sieve—but can't pass through a 32-micron one, with holes one-third as wide as a dollar bill is thick—is a member.

This encompasses "a huge diversity" of animals, from shrimplike amphipods to fork-tailed gastrotricha, says Ingels. "We're talking hundreds of thousands of species, potentially.”

***

"The average turtle, they found, housed tens of thousands of individual hangers-on. (One had nearly 150,000.) And the number of life stages represented, from eggs and juveniles to gravid females and adults, suggested most were living out their whole lives on the loggerheads—eating and mating, dying and being born.

"The findings help to shed light on the question about how particular types of meiofauna—most of whom can't swim—have nonetheless spread across the world. The same species are found "thousands of kilometers apart," Ingels says. "How did they get there?" Many are probably caught up in currents, snarled in sargasso weeds or trapped in floating ice. But "I think we've shown with this paper that turtles play an extraordinary role," says Ingels.

"Evidence is mounting that, once meiofauna are established in a habitat, they help out with nutrient cycling, work with sediments, graze on microbes and provide food for larger creatures, but researchers aren't quite sure how the turtles themselves are affected by the responsibility of ferrying them around. A rich, mucky layer of epibionts may help to camouflage the turtles from sharks and other predators that look down from above. But the drag this load creates might slow the turtles down, and larger hangers-on, like barnacles, are known to damage shells and cause infection.

"The researchers hope that, as we learn more about how loggerheads carry and disperse other creatures, it will inspire more support for their protection. "They are not only cute," says dos Santos. "They have been traveling around with these communities on their backs.'"

Comment: this shows how interconnected the whole vast bush of life actually is and how necessary it all is to each and every branch. dhw doesn't seem to understand it had to be built over time as part of the goal of creating humans.

Natures wonders: using antifreeze and boosting O2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 30, 2020, 21:21 (1449 days ago) @ David Turell

Antarctic fish do this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-fish-is-a-blood-doping-champion/?u...

"Like most fish native to Antarctica, the bald notothen’s blood contains antifreeze proteins that help it withstand extreme cold. Yet these proteins, along with red blood cells (RBCs), can make blood viscous and hard to circulate. Some Antarctic fish compensate by eliminating RBCs altogether, absorbing oxygen directly from the water via gills and skin as they passively await prey. Bald notothens, however, actively swim below surface ice to chase krill and other crustaceans while dodging predators such as penguins and seals. For this behavior, “you need to supply [more] oxygen to the muscles,” says Michael Axelsson, a cardiovascular physiologist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and co-author of the new study,...

"The scientists compared RBC levels in blood collected from bald notothens relaxing in glass tanks with those in blood from fish they “chased” using a plastic tube. Levels were at 9 percent in the resting animals but 27 percent in the exercised ones, leading to a 207 percent spike in the latter’s blood oxygen. “No [other] fish we’ve seen can more than double their RBCs or drop their numbers to such a low level when resting,” Axelsson says. This low level reduces strain on the bald notothens’ heart, he adds. Their spleen stores RBCs, and the researchers found that to eject more into the bloodstream, the organ contracts to weigh 41 percent less.

"The enormous changes in RBC levels initially surprised Gerald Kooyman, a marine biologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who was not involved in the study. He notes, however, that these fish have fewer blood cells to begin with, so tripling the RBC count is less difficult. If a diving Weddell seal pushed its RBC levels from 40 to 90 percent, for instance, its blood would be dangerously hard to pump.

"Yet bald notothens do face trade-offs for their ability. By attaching a probe to each fish’s aorta, the scientists found blood pressure was 12 percent higher and the heart worked 30 percent harder in active ones. The heart can rest during quiet times, but when bald notothens need to exert themselves, Axelsson says, “these fish have to live with the slightly higher consequences of [more] RBCs because they need more oxygen.'”

Comment: this cannot develop by chance under the conditions in which this fish lives. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: using antifreeze and boosting O2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 19:47 (580 days ago) @ David Turell

Another example:

https://www.livescience.com/antifreeze-protein-snailfish-greenland?utm_campaign=368B374...

"Scientists drilling deep into an iceberg off Greenland have discovered a fish with glowing green antifreeze coursing through its veins.

"The juvenile variegated snailfish (Liparis gibbus) contained the "highest expression levels" of antifreeze proteins ever reported, a new study found.

"Similar to how antifreeze helps to regulate the temperature of a car's engine in extreme conditions, certain species have evolved to have similar protection, especially those living in frigid habitats such as the polar waters off Greenland.

***

"'The fact that these different antifreeze proteins have evolved independently in a number of different — and not closely related — fish lineages show[s] how critical they are to the survival of these organisms in these extreme habitats," John Sparks, a curator in the AMNH's Department of Ichthyology and co-author of the study, told Live Science in an email.

"Snailfish produce antifreeze proteins "like any other protein and then excrete them into their bloodstream," Gruber said. However, snailfish appear to be "making antifreeze proteins in the top 1% of all other fish genes."

***

"This mind-boggling level of antifreeze production could help this species adapt to a subzero environment, according to the statement."

Comment: how does natural selection find these necessary complex protein molecules? Not likely. I can 't just grab them off a shelf. Design is a better fit.

Natures wonders: mule deer migration understood

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 24, 2019, 18:41 (1669 days ago) @ David Turell

Mule deer migrate in Western USA each year and they appear to know the geographic routes:

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-migrating-mule-deer-dont.html

"Recent research from the University of Wyoming has found that memory explains much of deer behavior during migration: Mule deer navigate in spring and fall mostly by using their knowledge of past migration routes and seasonal ranges.

"The study found that the location of past years' migratory route and summer range had 2-28 times more influence on a deer's choice of a migration path than environmental factors such as tracking spring green-up, autumn snow depth or topography.

"'These animals appear to have a cognitive map of their migration routes and seasonal ranges, which helps them navigate tens to hundreds of miles between seasonal ranges," says the lead author of the paper, Jerod Merkle, assistant professor and Knobloch Professor in Migration Ecology and Conservation in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at UW.

***

"The UW team found it is not that simple. Without the intrinsic factor of landscape memory to guide deer between seasonal ranges, the long-distance corridors of western Wyoming's Green River Basin, for example—exceeding 300 miles round-trip in some cases—would not exist in their present form.

"'It appears that green-wave surfing helps them determine when to move within a kind of 'map' in their brain," Merkle says. "The timing of spring green-up determines when an animal should migrate, but spatial memory determines where to migrate."

***

"'This is yet another study that makes clear that animals must learn and remember how to make these incredible journeys," say Kauffman, who leads the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, where the research was conducted. "This is critical for conservation, because it tells us that, to conserve a migration corridor, we need to conserve the specific animals who have the knowledge necessary to make the journey."

"The study bolsters the findings of a 2018 paper in the journal Science by a UW-led team that found translocated bighorn sheep and moose with no knowledge of the landscape can take anywhere from several decades to a century to learn how to migrate to vacant habitats.

***

"This suggests that the migratory routes we see today are optimized across generations for green-wave surfing in large landscapes. These learned migration corridors are not readily discoverable by animals if they cannot access the memories established by past generations."

Comment: It is only 300 miles but still amazing that they have maps in their heads. Birds and insects that travel thousands of miles use the magnetic fields, as do salmon.

Natures wonders: mole rats use magnetic field

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 01, 2020, 15:08 (1265 days ago) @ David Turell

Something in their eyes:

NEARLY BLIND MOLE RATS USE THEIR EYES TO DETECT MAGNETIC FIELDS
Certain mammals are able to detect magnetic fields, but where the sense originates from has long remained elusive. Now, the organ that houses magnetic sensors in Ansell’s mole rat (Fukomys anselli) has been identified. This species of mole rat, known for digging long, subterranean tunnels, has poor eyesight and tiny – but structurally intact – eyes. The researchers placed mole rats in a circular arena in which magnetic fields could be used to artificially change the direction of magnetic north. They found that the mole rats with intact eyes always built their nests in the magnetic south-eastern quadrant of the arena. Animals with their eyes removed built their nests in random orientations, suggesting that their magnetic sense had been disrupted. This is the first time that a specific organ housing magnetoreceptors has been identified in mammals. The specific magnetic receptors in the Ansell’s mole rat eye haven’t yet been identified, but the researchers believe they may contain magnetite, a magnetic iron ore.

Comment: the paper is paywalled, but the finding is not surprising

Natures wonders: brood parasites not cuckoos

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 03, 2020, 19:44 (1263 days ago) @ David Turell

In Zambia each species of indigobird and whydah chooses to lay its eggs in the nests of a particular species of grassfinch. Their hosts then incubate the foreign eggs, and feed the young alongside their own when they hatch:

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-birds-mimic-host-nestlings-foster.html

"Grassfinches are unusual in having brightly colored and distinctively patterned nestlings, and nestlings of different grassfinch species have their own unique appearance, begging calls and begging movements. Vidua finches are extremely specialized parasites, with each species mostly exploiting a single host species.

"Nestlings of these 'brood-parasitic' Vidua finches were found to mimic the appearance, sounds and movements of their grassfinch host's chicks, right down to the same elaborately colorful patterns on the inside of their mouths. (my bold)

"'The mimicry is astounding in its intricacy and is highly species-specific," said Dr. Gabriel Jamie, lead author on the paper and a research scientist in the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology, and at the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town.

"He added: "We were able to test for mimicry using statistical models that approximate the vision of birds. Birds process color and pattern differently to humans so it is important to analyze the mimicry from their perspective rather than just relying on human assessments.'"

Comment: The nesting trick and the mimicry can be explained by simply copying but the bolded note about mouth coloring is a design issue and requires God to step in, in my view.

Natures wonders: monarch migration more understood

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 23:39 (271 days ago) @ David Turell

Monarchs with more white on their wings where more successful migrators:

https://phys.org/news/2023-06-monarchs-white-shown-aid-migration.html

"The new study, published in PLOS ONE suggests that the butterflies with more white spots are more successful at reaching their long-distance wintering destination. Although it's not yet clear how the spots aid the species' migration, it's possible that the spots change airflow patterns around their wings.

***

"The monarchs with less black on their wings and more white spots were the ones that made it to their ultimate destination, nearly 3,000 miles away in south and central Mexico.

"'It's the white spots that seem to be the difference maker," Davis said.

"The only other species that came close to having the same proportion of white spots on its wing was its semi-migratory relative, the southern monarch.

***

"The monarchs with less black on their wings and more white spots were the ones that made it to their ultimate destination, nearly 3,000 miles away in south and central Mexico.

"'It's the white spots that seem to be the difference maker," Davis said.

"The researchers analyzed nearly 400 wild monarch wings collected at different stages of their journey, measuring their color proportions. They found the successful migrant monarchs had about 3% less black and 3% more white on their wings.

"An additional analysis of museum specimens that included monarchs and six other butterfly species showed that the monarchs had significantly larger white spots than their nonmigratory cousins.

"The only other species that came close to having the same proportion of white spots on its wing was its semi-migratory relative, the southern monarch.

"The authors believe the butterflies' coloring is related to the amount of radiation they receive during their journey. The monarchs' longer journey means they're exposed to more sunlight. As a result, they have evolved to have more white spots.

"The amount of solar energy monarchs are receiving along their journey is extreme, especially since they fly with their wings spread open most of the time," Davis said. "After making this migration for thousands of years, they figured out a way to capitalize on that solar energy to improve their aerial efficiency."

"Davis' previous work showed that summer populations of monarchs have remained relatively stable over the past 25 years. That finding suggests that the species' population growth during the summer compensates for butterfly losses due to migration, winter weather and changing environmental factors.

"'The breeding population of monarchs seems fairly stable, so the biggest hurdles that the monarch population faces are in reaching their winter destination," Davis said. "This study allows us to further understand how monarchs are successful in reaching their destination.'"

Comment: this is still an amazing story. One migration in volves four molts and the final form knows what to do to return to home. The idea that they use sun energy is fascinating, especially if true.

Natures wonders: fungus controls cicada activity

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2020, 21:56 (1322 days ago) @ David Turell

Another example found:

https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-08-04-zombie-cicadas-discovered-in-west-virginia/?m...

"Researchers in West Virginia have discovered that cicadas have been infected by a parasitic fungus that takes over their brains. The Massospora fungus contains similar chemicals to hallucinogenic mushrooms and controls the cicadas as it eats away at their bodies.

"The infected insects will continue to act normal, even as the fungus eats away at their genitals, abdomen, and limbs. As they fly around, they spread the fungus, acting like "flying salt shakers of death." In some cases, male cicadas will flap their wings, mimicking the females' mating call. When an unsuspecting male flies over, it becomes infected with the parasitic fungus.

"'When these pathogens infect cicadas, it's very clear that the pathogen is pulling the behavioral levers of the cicada to cause it to do things which are not in the interest of the cicada but is very much in the interest of the pathogen,"

"'When these pathogens infect cicadas, it's very clear that the pathogen is pulling the behavioral levers of the cicada to cause it to do things which are not in the interest of the cicada but is very much in the interest of the pathogen,'"

Comment: we have had other examples using cicadas and ants in the past. These are best explained as part of econiches and I think the parasitism is a design by God.

Natures wonders: fungus controls of insects

by David Turell @, Friday, February 24, 2023, 19:51 (388 days ago) @ David Turell

A new review of fungal controls of insects:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/can-a-fungus-really-take-over-our-brains-20230223/

"In these zombie-like cases, the pathogen (whether it’s a virus, bacteria or fungus, or something else) acts specifically to change the behavior of its host.

"While we know a decent amount about these pathogens — including the very real Ophiocordyceps fungus, which does turn insects into unwitting agents of societal collapse — there’s still much to learn.

***

“Cordyceps” has become a common catch-all name for a group of fungi that infect insects. This grouping includes the species Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, better known as the “zombie ant fungus.” It spreads by sprouting fungal structures that erupt through the ant’s head after its death.

***

"...the fungus induces an infected ant to leave the nest, climb above it, and bite into nearby vegetation as it is dying — a practice known as summiting. A day or two after the ant’s death, the parasitic fungal spores erupt out of the ant’s head to shower the colony with the pathogen.

"Ophiocordyceps-infected ants aren’t the only ones who exhibit this climbing behavior upon infection. It is widespread across different categories of insects and can be caused by viruses, single-celled parasites called trematodes, and various species of fungi unrelated to Ophiocordyceps. It even has a common name: summit disease.

***

"We don’t know for sure. Recent studies have found chemical signals from the fungi in infected insects. Some of these signals — likely secreted proteins — may target the host’s behavioral systems and control behavior like summiting and nest desertion.

"Scientists hypothesize that pathogens may be taking advantage of preexisting behaviors governing molting and sleep, which evolved millions of years ago. Molting — the process by which an insect sheds its protective exoskeleton to grow a new, bigger one — is a time of vulnerability, since it takes a day or two for the new exoskeleton to harden enough to provide safety. Insects have evolved behaviors for this time that can include wandering from the nest and summiting. Sleep is also a vulnerable time, so some insect species have learned to sleep while grasping onto grass or leaves.

***

"Molting and sleep are controlled by the insect’s circadian rhythm, and summiting appears to be as well, as many species of infected insects do this at predictable times. In Ophiocordyceps-infected carpenter ants, for example, summiting always happens around solar noon. The biological machinery associated with an insect’s circadian rhythm therefore seems like a good place to explore."

Comment: remember we saw leaf-cutter ants described here years ago. Based on this article, the field has not advanced as much as could be hoped.

Natures wonders: fungus controls of insects

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 21, 2023, 00:36 (303 days ago) @ David Turell

An example of zombified fruit flies:

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-puppeteer-fungus-takeover-zombie-flies.html

"In a new study published in eLife, lead author Carolyn Elya, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard, reveals the molecular and cellular underpinnings behind the parasitic fungus, Entomophthora muscae's (E. muscae), ability to manipulate the behavior of fruit flies.

"Elya first described the manipulated behavior, called summiting, in a study published in eLife in 2018. Elya, who was studying microbes carried by fruit flies while a graduate student at University of California (UC) Berkeley, set out rotting fruit to capture wild fruit flies.

***

"Summiting occurs at sunset when the infected flies climb to an elevated location and extend their proboscises to the surface. A sticky droplet that emerges from the proboscis adheres the fly to the surface right before the wings raise up and away from the body and the flies die.

"'The climbing is very important as it positions the fly in an advantageous location for the fungus to spread to the most possible hosts," says Elya. "The fungus jumps to the new host by forming very specialized and temporary structures that burst through the fly's skin and shoots spores into the environment that are only good for a handful of hours. It's a fleeting process, so an advantageous position is everything to survival."

***

"'We found that summiting is not about climbing," said Elya, "it's actually this burst of locomotor activity that starts about two and a half hours before the flies die."

***

'"Overall, we found the flies hormonal axes was mediating summiting behavior. When we silenced these neurons the flies were really bad at summiting," Elya says. These neurons send projections to a neurohemal organ that produces juvenile hormone, a hormone conserved in insects. "We think the fungus is actually driving the activity of these neurons in order to drive the release of this hormone, which is causing the flies to have this burst of locomotor activity."

***

"Interestingly, the team also discovered that the flies blood brain barrier is compromised when exposed to the fungus. Normally the neurons are protected from the blood that's circulating through the fly's body. The breakdown of the blood brain barrier has important consequences for what the neurons are being exposed to, potentially allowing things that are circulating in the blood to interact with neurons in the brain, thus providing a route for modulating neural activity.

"'We think this could be important for the way that the fungus is driving behavioral changes," Elya said, "and we actually found that you can pull blood from flies that are doing the summiting behavior, put it into naive flies and drive some of this increased locomotion. So we've shown that there's at least the partial ability to recapitulate this summiting behavior just by transferring fly blood."

"Elya says that these experiments show some blood-borne factors can drive summiting behavior, though it's not yet clear what the identity of these factors are or who produces them (the fungus or the fly)."

Comment: fungus zombie control of the host helps the fungus to live on in new hosts. We have presented many examples of this in zombified ants. Parasitic fungi use this way to survive.

Natures wonders: zombified animals

by David Turell @, Friday, July 15, 2022, 18:22 (613 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi play tricks on male house flies:

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-zombie-fungus-lures-healthy-male.html

"Entomophthora muscae is a widespread, pathogenic fungus that survives by infecting common houseflies with deadly spores. Now, research shows that the fungus has a unique tactic to ensure its survival. The fungus "bewitches" male houseflies and drives them to necrophilia with the fungal-infected corpses of dead females.

"After having infected a female fly with its spores, the fungus spreads until its host has slowly been consumed alive from within. After roughly six days, the fungus takes over the behavior of the female fly and forces it to the highest point, whether upon vegetation or a wall, where the fly then dies. When the fungus has killed the zombie female, it begins to release chemical signals known as sesquiterpenes.

"'The chemical signals act as pheromones that bewitch male flies and cause an incredible urge for them to mate with lifeless female carcasses," explains Henrik H. De Fine Licht, an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen's Department of Environment and Plant Sciences and one of the study's authors.

"As male flies copulate with dead females, the fungal spores are showered onto the males, who then suffer the same gruesome fate. In this way, Entomophthora muscae spreads its spores to new victims and ensures for its survival.

"This is the conclusion of a new study conducted by researchers at the University of Copenhagen and Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences in Alnarp.

"'Our observations suggest that this is a very deliberate strategy for the fungus. It is a true master of manipulation—and this is incredibly fascinating," says Henrik H. De Fine Licht.

***

"'We see that the longer a female fly has been dead, the more alluring it becomes to males. This is because the number of fungal spores increases with time, which enhances the seductive fragrances," explains Henrik H. De Fine Licht."

Comment: a form of zombification has been presented many times here, where the fungus takes control of the insect brain. This is variation on the theme.

Natures wonders: another example of bioluminescence

by David Turell @, Friday, August 16, 2019, 00:23 (1677 days ago) @ David Turell

Schooling fish with lights around eyes:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/fish-flashing-below?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+Maili...

"the aptly named flashlight fish (Anomalops katoptron), and this how it goes about its nocturnal business.

"Researchers from the City University of New York, US, have discovered that they use their own light to allow them to school at night, and only a few need to be actively flashing to maintain the group.

"They generate the light via bioluminescent bacteria in specialised organs under their eyes.

"Over 25% of fish species exhibit collective schooling behaviour, but schooling based on bioluminescent signalling has not previously been demonstrated," says research leader David Gruber.

"'Being in the middle of one of these bioluminescing schools was one of the most magical things I've ever experienced as a marine biologist. It was like an Avatar moment as we watched rivers of bioluminescing fish merge like a blue-brick road and flow down the reef."

"During two research expeditions to the Solomon Islands, Gruber and colleagues used low-light video to film large assemblages – hundreds to thousands of individuals – of the fish at night.

"The recording showed that once fish velocity increased past a certain level, a loose group would transition to a closely-knit school, even with relatively-few flashing fish present.

"After tracking each flashing fish in the analysed video clips and localising the fish in every frame, the authors created a model to simulate the movement of flashlight fish schools based on individual fish actions (cohesion, separation, and alignment) as well as water friction as a resistant force.

"The model showed that less than 5% of the schooling flashlight fish needed to be flashing in order for schooling to be maintained in dark conditions.

"Since fish reveal their location when they flash, the authors suggest that this may be a predator-avoidance strategy. They speculate that in order to confuse predators, some fish might flash, then rapidly change direction before flashing again.:

Comment: Many animals use bioluminescent bacteria by symbiosis. And not just fish. Think of fireflies

Natures wonders: another example of bioluminescence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 22:02 (1105 days ago) @ David Turell

A little squid uses it:

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-squid-bacteria-yield-clues-symbiotic.html


"The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis. Now researchers have used a powerful chemical analysis tool to identify a small molecule produced by the bacteria that appears to play an important role in their colonization of the light organ.

***

"The Hawaiian bobtail squid is a small nocturnal squid, about the size of a thumb, that lives in shallow coastal waters, hiding in the sand during the day and coming out at night to hunt for small shrimp and other prey. The bioluminescent glow from its light organ is directed downward and adjusted to match the intensity of light from the moon and stars, eliminating the squid's shadow and masking its silhouette. This "counterillumination" strategy helps conceal the squid both from bottom-dwelling predators and from its own prey.

"A juvenile bobtail squid is completely free of bacteria when it first hatches, but within hours its light organ becomes colonized by a very specific type of bacteria called Vibrio fischeri. The baby squid enters an environment teeming with thousands of kinds of bacteria and millions of bacterial cells per milliliter of seawater, of which only a tiny fraction are V. fischeri. Yet only those specially adapted bacteria are able to take up residence inside the light organ.

***

"The small molecule identified in this study is a type of diketopiperazine (DKP), a large family of cyclic dipeptides. This particular DKP—cyclo(D-histidyl-L-proline), or cHP-3—was directly detected in the light organs of the colonized squid. It was also produced more abundantly by strains of V. fischeri that showed increased biofilm formation, which correlates with colonization ability. And finally, supplementing bacterial cultures with cHP-3 led to a concentration-dependent increase in bioluminescence.

"'We know that it is produced during the first few hours of colonization when the symbiosis gets established, and we also know that it influences bacterial luminescence, and bioluminescence and colonization are tied together," Sanchez said.

"The results indicate that cHP-3 is an important chemical signal specific to this symbiosis, but the researchers have not yet determined exactly what its role is or the details of its interactions."

Comment: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It apperes designed to me.

Natures wonders: snails lure worms for a meal

by David Turell @, Friday, March 12, 2021, 20:14 (1102 days ago) @ David Turell

The worms react to a sex pheromone from the snails:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cone-snail-venom-sea-worms-pheromones

"Conus imperialis venom contains two molecules that mimic bristle worm pheromones and can stimulate mating behaviors, researchers report March 12 in Science Advances. The find raises the possibility that the cone snails are “weaponizing the worms’ own pheromone as a sort of lure,”says Joshua Torres, a medicinal chemist at the University of Copenhagen. “It’s really wild.”

"Cone snails pack their potent venom into self-made harpoons, which they then fling into fish, mollusks or worms. The venom of each of the more than 700 cone snail species is a treasure trove of chemicals that hijack specific physiological pathways in their prey. For example, one cone snail species produces its own fish insulin that saps prey’s blood sugar, making a lethargic target.

***

"...these small molecules didn’t seem to target neuromuscular pathways and impair their function, like many venom constituents. But the molecules were remarkably similar to some bristle worm’s mating pheromones. Chemically, the snail’s mimics are actually more stable than the worm’s natural pheromones, which degrade relatively quickly after release, Torres says. The match seemed too perfect to be coincidental.

***

“'Cone snails are full of surprises, and this paper raises an exciting possibility,” says Thomas Duda, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who wasn’t involved in the study. “The next step needs to be figuring out how this actually works in nature.”

"C. imperialis’ hunting behavior is mostly known from laboratory studies, where the worms are sitting ducks for snails, Torres says. In the wild, however, the worms spend time hidden below sediment and under crevices. Observations in more natural settings could confirm whether C. imperialis’ specialized venom entices worms with the promise of a mate, only to become a meal."

Comment: What is interesting to me is how does a very different species learn to mimic another's special molecules. Making any biochemical molecule is very complex and usually requires specialized enzymes. Remembering how large and complex enzymes have to be I would say God does this designing.

Natures wonders: the mind of the octopus

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 26, 2019, 20:06 (1727 days ago) @ David Turell

Another attempt at understanding the octopus nervous system:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190625102420.htm

"The new research supports previous findings that octopus' suckers can initiate action in response to information they acquire from their environment, coordinating with neighboring suckers along the arm. The arms then process sensory and motor information, and muster collective action in the peripheral nervous system, without waiting on commands from the brain.

"The result is a bottom-up, or arm-up, decision mechanism rather than the brain-down mechanism typical of vertebrates, like humans, according to Dominic Sivitilli, a graduate student in behavioral neuroscience and astrobiology at the University of Washington in Seattle.

***

"He believes understanding how the octopus perceives its world is as close as we can come to preparing to meet intelligent life beyond our planet.

"'It's an alternative model for intelligence," Sivitilli said. "It gives us an understanding as to the diversity of cognition in the world, and perhaps the universe."

"The octopus exhibits many similar behaviors to vertebrates, like humans, but its nervous system architecture is fundamentally different, because it evolved after vertebrates and invertebrates parted evolutionary ways, more than 500 million years ago.

"Vertebrates arranged their central nervous system in a cord up the backbone, leading to highly centralized processing in the brain. Cephalopods, like the octopus, evolved multiple concentrations of neurons called ganglia, arranged in a distributed network throughout the body. Some of these ganglia grew more dominant, evolving into a brain, but the underlying distributed architecture persists in the octopus's arms, and throughout its body.

"'The octopus' arms have a neural ring that bypasses the brain, and so the arms can send information to each other without the brain being aware of it," Sivitilli said. "So while the brain isn't quite sure where the arms are in space, the arms know where each other are and this allows the arms to coordinate during actions like crawling locomotion."

***

"Of the octopus' 500 million neurons, more than 350 million are in its eight arms. The arms need all that processing power to manage incoming sensory information, to move and to keep track of their position in space. Processing information in the arms allows the octopus to think and react faster, like parallel processors in computers.

***

"'You're seeing a lot of little decisions being made by these distributed ganglia, just by watching the arm move, so one of the first things we're doing is trying to break down what that movement actually looks like, from a computational perspective," Gire said. "What we're looking at, more than what's been looked at in the past, is how sensory information is being integrated in this network while the animal is making complicated decisions.'"

Comment: The octopus brain must be able to integrate all the sensory info coming from its eight legs. It is a strange but an advanced system. All part of the need for echoniches for food supply.

Natures wonders: making an octopus brain:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 09, 2022, 22:29 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

Study covers all cephalopods:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-squid-octopus-big-brains.html

"Cephalopods have the most complex brains of any invertebrates on the planet. What remains mysterious, however, is the development process. Basically, scientists have long wondered how cephalopods get their big brains in the first place. A Harvard lab that studies the visual system of these soft-bodied creatures—which is where two-thirds of their central processing tissue is focused—believe they've come close to figuring it out. The process, they say, looks surprisingly familiar.

***

"The neural stem cells they tracked behaved in an eerily similar manner to the way these cells behave in vertebrates during the development of their nervous systems. It suggests that vertebrates and cephalopods, despite diverging from each other 500 million years ago, are not only using similar mechanisms to make their big brains, but that this process and the way the cells act, divide, and are shaped may essentially lay out the blueprint required develop this kind of nervous system.

"'Our conclusions were surprising, because a lot of what we know about nervous system development in vertebrates has long been thought to be special to that lineage," said Kristen Koenig, a John Harvard Distinguished Fellow and senior author of the study.

"'By observing the fact that the process is very similar, what it suggested to us is that these two independently evolved very large nervous systems are using the same mechanisms to build them. What that suggests is that those mechanisms—those tools—the animals use during development may be important for building big nervous systems."

***

"This live-imaging technique allowed the team to observe stem cells called neural progenitor cells, and how they are organized. The cells form a special kind of structure called a pseudostratified epithelium. Its main feature is the cells are elongated so they can be densely packed. The researchers also saw the nucleus of these structures move up and down before and after dividing. This movement is important for keeping the tissue organized and growth continuing, they said.

"This type of structure is universal in how vertebrate species develop their brain and eyes. Historically, it was considered one of the reasons the vertebrate nervous system could grow so large and complex. Scientists have observed examples of this type of neural epithelium in other animals, but the squid tissue they looked at in this instance was unusually similar to vertebrate tissues in its size, organization and the way the nucleus moved."

Comment: for me it is just another example of genome convergence.

Natures wonders: venus flytrap new studies

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 09, 2019, 23:27 (1714 days ago) @ David Turell

How does it trap something as light as a mosquito? Deforming trap hairs set off electrical impulses:

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-carnivorous-mosquitoes.html

"The plant is capable of sensing prey through delicate trigger hairs on the inside of its flat leaves. Since prey insects come in different sizes and the Venus flytrap cannot afford to be fussy, the plant grows traps across a variety of sizes.

"Now, researchers from the universities of Würzburg and Cambridge have discovered that the tactile sensors in these traps already respond to minute pressure stimuli, converting them to electrical signals that cause the trap to close.

***

"'Each trap lobe features three to four multicellular hairs that are torsion-resistant except for a notch at the base. When an insect, lured by the smell, color or nectar of the trap, touches the trigger hair, the hair will yield in the area of the non-reinforced base. This causes the sensory cells in this area to be stretched on one side and compressed on the other side," says Professor Rainer Hedrich, explaining the operating principle of the Venus flytrap.

***

"An ant or housefly creates a force when walking which is approximately equivalent to its body weight. So a fly weighing ten milligrams is capable of generating 100 micronewtons, a force that is easily sufficient to excite a large trap. However, if a mosquito weighing just three milligrams ends up in such a large trap, the trigger hairs will not be deflected.

"But since a mosquito, too, can be an important source of nutrients, the Venus flytrap has also developed smaller traps during the course of evolution. These mini-traps also respond to the smaller forces generated by the lightweight mosquito. "This trap-size-based sensitivity of the trigger hairs is crucial for the economic efficiency of the traps," Professor Hedrich explains. After all, it costs the plant much more energy to reopen a large trap than a small one. "If underweight, low-nutrient prey insects were able to trigger large traps, the cost-benefit ratio would turn out negative and the Venus flytrap would slowly starve in the worst case," Professor Hedrich explains. (my bold)

"Once the trap has closed, the insect prey usually does not just accept its fate. Instead it struggles and tries to escape. In its panic, it constantly touches the tactile hairs, triggering up to 100 action potentials in two hours. According to Professor Hedrich, the Venus flytrap takes into account these electrical signals and initiates a corresponding response that ranges from the production and excretion of digestive enzymes to taking up the nutrients from the decomposed prey.

"The scientists conducted another experiment to determine how often a single trigger hair can be stimulated within one hour. The result: "From a frequency of a tenth of a hertz, that is one stimulation every ten seconds, the trigger hair starts to exhibit signs of fatigue," says Sönke Scherzer. At higher frequencies, an action potential was no longer triggered each time a tactile hair is stimulated and eventually the electrical events did not take place at all. When the scientists interrupted the repeated stimulation sequence for a minute, the hair fully regained its mechano-electrical properties."

Comment: Note the bolded paragraph. The explanation for tiny traps makes sense, but it is impossible to imagine how evolution evolved such a complex plant .

Natures wonders: venus flytrap brief comment:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 04, 2019, 22:29 (1657 days ago) @ David Turell

The main point as to why Darwin doesn't work here:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/venus-flytrap-takes-a-bite-out-of-darwinism/

"Dr. Eberlin, the former president of the International Mass Spectrometry Association, describes the problem: The Venus flytrap, like all carnivorous plants, had no use for its insect-trapping function unless it also had an insect-digesting function. And vice versa. Did they really both evolve together? And how, when there would be no functional advantage along much of the evolutionary pathway to the sophisticated finished system? Finally, how did this “evolutionary miracle” also happen in four other carnivorous plant genera?"

Comment: It obviously had to be designed to appear with all the mechanisms working together at once, Not by Darwin.

Natures wonders: venus flytrap mutations

by David Turell @, Friday, May 15, 2020, 20:00 (1403 days ago) @ David Turell

A careful genetic study that shows how God might dabble in the genome:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/how-venus-flytraps-evolved-their-taste-meat?utm...

"Carnivorous plants have developed many devious ways to snare prey. Pitcher plants, for example, use “pitfall traps” that contain enzymes for digesting stray insects. Others—including the closely related Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), the aquatic waterwheel plant (Aldrovanda vesiculosa), and the sundew (Drosera spatulata)—use moving traps. The sundew rolls up its sticky landing pad when mosquitoes get caught. And the Venus flytrap uses modified leaves, or pads, that snap shut when an insect lands—but only after the pads sense multiple touches on their trigger hairs.

"To find out how these traps evolved, researchers led by computational evolutionary biologist Jörg Schultz and plant biologist Rainer Hedrich, both of the University of Würzburg, sequenced the genomes of the sundew, the aquatic waterwheel, and the Venus flytrap, which are all closely related. They then compared their genomes with those of nine other plants, including a carnivorous pitcher plant and noncarnivorous beetroot and papaya plants.

***

"They found that the key to the evolution of meat eating in this part of the plant kingdom was the duplication of the entire genome in a common ancestor that lived about 60 million years ago, the team reports today in Current Biology. That duplication freed up copies of genes once used in roots, leaves, and sensory systems to detect and digest prey. For example, carnivorous plants repurposed copies of genes that help roots absorb nutrients, to absorb the nutrients in digested prey. “That root genes are being expressed in the leaves of carnivores is absolutely fascinating,” says Kenneth Cameron, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

"Hedrich and his colleagues conclude that carnivory evolved once in the ancestor of the three species and, independently, in the pitcher plant. Adding these two new origins to others already documented, the researchers conclude that meat eating has evolved at least six times."

Comment: This is a good example of how God can step in and produce new adaptations. The convergence illustrates how evolution can then proceed on its own, once God sets the course and understands where it is going.

Natures wonders: venus flytrap mechanism

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 20:49 (1364 days ago) @ David Turell

New studies, but still no complete answers:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-biomechanical-analyses-simulations-reveal-venus.html

"The Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) takes only 100 milliseconds to trap its prey. Once their leaves, which have been transformed into snap traps, have closed, insects can no longer escape. Using biomechanical experiments and virtual Venus flytraps a team from Freiburg Botanical Garden and the University of Stuttgart has analyzed in detail how the lobes of the trap move. Freiburg biologists Dr. Anna Westermeier, Max Mylo, Prof. Dr. Thomas Speck and Dr. Simon Poppinga and Stuttgart structural engineer Renate Sachse and Prof. Dr. Manfred Bischoff show that the trap of the carnivorous plant is under mechanical prestress. In addition, its three tissue layers of each lobe have to deform according to a special pattern.

"The diet of the Venus flytrap consists mainly of crawling insects. When the animals touch the sensory hairs inside the trap twice within about 20 seconds it snaps shut. Aspects such as how the trap perceives its prey and how it differentiates potential prey from a raindrop falling into the trap were already well known to scientists. However the precise morphing process of the halves of the trap remained largely unknown.

"In order to gain a better understanding of these processes, the researchers have analyzed the interior and exterior surfaces of the trap using digital 3-D image correlation methods. Scientists typically use these methods for the examination of technical materials. Using the results the team then constructed several virtual traps in a finite element simulation that differ in their tissue layer setups and in the mechanical behavior of the layers.

"Only the digital traps that were under prestress displayed the typical snapping. The team confirmed this observation with dehydration tests on real plants: only well-watered traps are able to snap shut quickly and correctly by releasing this prestress. Watering the plant changed the pressure in the cells and with it the behavior of the tissue. In order to close correctly, the traps also had to consist of three layers of tissue: an inner which constricts, an outer which expands, and a neutral middle layer."

Comment: These strange plants raise questions. How did they evolve? How could there be an intermediate stage? We know of none. How did the plant develop digestive chemicals and self- protection at the same time?

Natures wonders: venus flytrap mechanism

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 11, 2020, 00:58 (1347 days ago) @ David Turell

A finding that light touch can also work:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-venus-flytraps-snap.html

A study led by researchers at the University of Zurich has now shown that a single slow touch also triggers trap closure—probably to catch slow-moving larvae and snails.

***

"A new study from the University of Zurich (UZH) and ETH Zurich has now found another triggering mechanism. "Contrary to popular belief, slowly touching a trigger hair only once can also cause two signals and thus lead to the snapping of the trap," says co-last author Ueli Grossniklaus, director of the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at UZH.

***

"When open, the lobes of the Venus flytrap's leaves are bent outwards and under strain—like a taut spring. The trigger signal leads to a minute change in the leaves' curvature, which makes the trap snap instantaneously. The electrical signals are generated by ion channels in the cell membrane, which transport atoms out of and into the cell.

"'We think that the ion channels stay open for as long as the membrane is mechanically stretched. If the deflection occurs slowly, the flow of ions is enough to trigger several signals, which causes the trap to close," explains co-first author Hannes Vogler, plant biologist at UZH. The newly discovered triggering mechanism could be a way for the Venus flytrap to catch slow-moving prey, such as larvae or snails."

Comment: Still no idea as to how this evolved. If the plant was following a trial and error method of development, it would have starved unless extremely lucky by figuring it out on a first try. Design is required

Natures wonders: venus flytrap mechanism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 15:05 (1336 days ago) @ David Turell

It came from a loss of genes:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200514131733.htm

"The first thing the international research team found out was that, despite their different lifestyles and trapping mechanisms, Venus flytrap, sundew and waterwheel have a common "basic set" of genes that are essential for the carnivorous lifestyle.

"'The function of these genes is related to the ability to sense and digest prey animals and to utilise their nutrients," explains Rainer Hedrich.

"'We were able to trace the origin of the carnivory genes back to a duplication event that occurred many millions of years ago in the genome of the last common ancestor of the three carnivorous species," says Jörg Schultz. The duplication of the entire genome has provided evolution with an ideal playing ground for developing new functions.

"To their surprise, the researchers discovered that the plants do not need a particularly large number of genes for carnivory. Instead, the three species studied are actually among the most gene-poor plants known. Drosera has 18,111, Dionaea 21,135 and Aldrovanda 25,123 genes. In contrast, most plants have between 30,000 and 40,000 genes.

"How can this be reconciled with the fact that a wealth of new genes is usually needed to develop new ways of life? "This can only mean that the specialization in animal food was accompanied by an increase in the number of genes, but also a massive loss of genes," concludes developmental biologist Hasebe.

"Most of the genes required for the insect traps are also found in slightly modified form in normal plants. "In carnivorous plants, several genes are active in the trapping organs, which in other plants have their effect in the root. In the trapping organs, these genes are only switched on when the prey is secure," explains Hedrich. This finding is consistent with the fact that the roots are considerably reduced in Venus flytrap and sundew. In the waterwheel they are completely absent."

Comment: A loss of genes to create a complicated mechanism. Behe supported once again that reducing DNA advances evolution.It also makes one wonder why most plants have more genes than humans.

Natures wonders: under water caterpillar wonders

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 11, 2016, 00:48 (2716 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain pupas and/or caterpillars can spend hours to days under water and survive:-http://www.livescience.com/56411-goliath-worms-survive-drowning.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161010-ls-&quot;Hefty, bright-green caterpillars sometimes called goliath worms are living up to their moniker: They are so tough, they can survive underwater for hours, scientists have found. &#13;&#10; &#160;&#160;&#13;&#10;&quot;And during their pupa stage &#151; encased in a chrysalis before transforming into adult moths &#151; they can survive for days at a time without surfacing.-&quot;Researchers discovered that the hardy caterpillars of Manduca&#160;sexta&#160;moths could recover after spending as much as 4 hours immersed in water. The pupae were even more resilient, emerging after a five-day soak and showing no long-term ill effects.-***-&quot;Insects experiencing long dunks underwater use one of two mechanisms to survive and recover, Woods said.-&quot;One technique involves the insect extracting oxygen from the surrounding water; that requires specialized body parts. Mayflies and damselflies, for example, have a type of gill that connects to the trachea and conveys dissolved oxygen in water into the insect&apos;s body, allowing them to breathe even when fully immersed.-&quot;The other method involves sealing up the body and getting by without oxygen, a process known as anaerobic metabolism. But this can be risky, Woods said. This type of metabolism produces toxic byproducts, which, at high levels, can poison the insect.&#13;&#10;&quot;So usually insects can use anaerobic metabolism for finite periods of time,&quot; he said.-&quot;To find out M. sexta&apos;s strategy for surviving underwater, the researchers immersed caterpillars and the more developed pupae. The caterpillars were able to recover after 4 hours underwater &#151; not too shabby. But pupae were &quot;the champs&quot; at recovery, according to Woods. He and his colleagues found that the submerged pupae didn&apos;t draw upon dissolved oxygen, and relied on anaerobic metabolism to keep going when they were underwater, for as long as five days.-&quot;In the absence of oxygen, a compound called lactate built up in the M. sexta pupae&apos;s cells. This could have had fatal consequences, but the scientists found that M. sexta was capable of quickly metabolizing, or breaking down, the lactate once they were removed from the water.-&quot;But after spending a long time in water, a sudden reinfusion of life-giving oxygen doesn&apos;t necessarily mean that M. sexta&apos;s troubles are over.-&quot;That big pulse of oxygen can generate what are called &apos;oxygen radicals&apos; &#151; basically toxic oxygen-based molecules that zip around and damage other molecules in cells,&quot; he told Live Science. &quot;We found that Manduca had elevated metabolic rates well beyond the point when they had rid themselves of all the lactate &#151; which we think means that they were still repairing other tissues,&quot; Woods said.&quot;-Comment: Again it is difficult to see how this developed in step by step evolution unless there was enough initial variation in the insects and the longest breath holders in floods survived and bit by bit descendent survivors developed the capacity.

Natures wonders: Bird Migration by a new mechanism

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 07, 2018, 19:58 (2172 days ago) @ David Turell

A new single prot ein is found as a magnetic field sensor:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180406091756.htm

"Biologists have identified a single protein without which birds probably would not be able to orient themselves using the Earth's magnetic field.

"The receptors that sense the Earth's magnetic field are probably located in the birds' eyes. Now, researchers at Lund University have studied different proteins in the eyes of zebra finches and discovered that one of them differs from the others: only the Cry4 protein maintains a constant level throughout the day and in different lighting conditions.

"Cry4 belongs to a group of proteins called cryptochromes. Normally they regulate the biological clock, but have also been considered significant for the magnetic sense. With this study, we now know which of the birds' cryptochromes do what.

"'Cry4 is an ideal magnetoreceptor as the level of the protein in the eyes is constant. This is something we expect from a receptor that is used regardless of the time of day," explains Atticus Pinzón-Rodríguez, one of the researchers behind the study.

"The conclusion is thus that this specific protein helps the magnetic sense to function, while other cryptochromes, whose levels in the body vary at different times of the day, take care of the biological clock instead.

"Last year, Atticus Pinzón-Rodríguez and his colleagues noted that not only migratory birds navigate using a magnetic compass. Even resident birds that do not migrate in the spring and autumn have a magnetic sense and navigate using their internal magnetic compass. He now takes this one step further:

"'This and last year's results indicate that other animals, perhaps all of them, have magnetic receptors and can pick up on magnetic fields.'"

Comment: If migration is necessary for survival, it is obvious that this mechanism had to be present when the species appeared. More evidence for design.

Natures wonders: breaking egg shells inside out

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 15:36 (2172 days ago) @ David Turell

Why it is so easy for the chick to break out:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/30/scientists-solve-eggshell-mystery-of-ho...

"Before being laid, bird eggs form a hard calcium-rich shell with three main layers. While it was already known that these thin from the innermost out as a chick grows in preparation for hatching – with calcium from the shell being incorporated into its skeleton in the process – quite what happens at the molecular scale has been something of a mystery.

"Now scientists say they have discovered that eggshells have a nanostructure, and that it appears to play a key role in the strength of the shell.

“'Everybody thinks eggshells are fragile – [when] we’re careful, we ‘walk on eggshells’ – but in fact, for their thinness they are extremely strong, harder than some metals,” said Prof Marc McKee, a coauthor of the study from McGill University in Canada. “We are really understanding now at the almost molecular scale how an eggshell is assembled and how it dissolves.”

"McKee and colleagues describe how they probed the issue by focusing on the role of a protein known as osteopontin. This substance is found throughout the eggshell and was already thought to be important in organising the structure of its minerals.

“'Something as different as an eggshell and a tooth and a bone, they all have this protein,” said McKee. “We think it is proteins like that that help guide the mineralisation process to give these tissues their properties.”


"Using a number of microscopy techniques, as well as a cutting-edge method known as focused-ion beam for preparing thin sections of the eggshell, the team found that all of the layers appear to be formed from an array of tiny areas packed with a crystalline calcium-containing mineral.

"The team also found the areas are smaller and more closely arranged in the outer layer, with the nanostructure becoming larger towards the inner layers. Levels of osteopontin were found to be lowest in the innermost eggshell layer.

“'The third discovery was that the outside of the shell is harder as it has the smallest [nanostructure] and then you move inwards and it gets a little bit softer,” said McKee.
The team say the upshot is that osteopontin seems to form a sort of scaffold that guides the arrangement of calcium-containing mineral, generating a nanostructure that affects the hardness of the eggshell layer.

***

“'If you don’t put in the protein in the test tube you get a big giant calcite [calcium carbonate] crystal like you’d find in a museum. If you throw in the protein, it slows the process down, it gets embedded inside that crystal and it generates a very similar nanostructure property in those synthetic crystals and they have increased hardness,” said McKee. Higher concentrations of osteopontin were found to produce a smaller nanostructure.

"The team then turned from the eggs that wind up on our breakfast tables to looking at the structure of chicken eggs that had been fertilised and incubated for 15 days. While the nanostructure of the outermost of the three eggshell layers remained unchanged, the nanostructure of the inner layers had become smaller in size. That, said McKee, is a result of calcium carbonate being dissolved in acidic conditions and used in the chick’s skeleton, and the process might be aided by the nanostructure increasing the surface area of the calcium-containing mineral. "

Comment: Very clever design. It requires a special protein be present. As the contents get stronger the container gets weaker. The upshot is that the shell weakens, allowing it to crack and the chick to hatch. And also gives up calcium that helps the skeleton grow. This must have been designed from the beginning, or bird and all other egg-laying species would not have survived. It must be developed as an all-at-once result. Chance evolution cannot do that, or find a very specific protein for the operation which automatically controls the process by chance mutations.

Natures wonders: Bird Migration by moonlight

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 19:52 (1617 days ago) @ David Turell

First finding of its type. Nightjars use moonlight paterns:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219944-nightjars-time-their-epic-migration-flight...

"The European nightjar, which migrates from northern Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, seems to synchronise its flying with phases of the moon. It is the first time an animal’s migration patterns have been shown to be associated with the lunar cycle.

“'Most birds migrate at night, therefore the effect of moonlight on migration has always been an open question,” says Cecilia Nilsson at Cornell University in New York.

***

"Their results reveal a key role of the full moon in the nightjar’s itinerary, which consists of long night-time flights with daytime resting punctuated by much longer rests at stopover sites. On moonlit nights, the birds’ foraging during migration stopovers more than doubled.

"Then, as the moon wanes, increasing numbers of nightjars embark on flights along their migration route, peaking at around 11 days after a full moon. Sometimes, all of the tracked birds would migrate simultaneously at this time in a great pulse.

"The team also found that the birds concentrate their feeding activity at dawn and dusk on most nights, only foraging through the night when there is plenty of moonlight.
Norevik says he and his team were astounded by how well the activity pattern of the birds followed the cycles of the moon. This is the first time moon phase has been identified as a regulator of migration schedule.

"Nilsson says these findings raise questions about the impact of artificial lights on any migrating birds relying on the lunar cycle. Light pollution is thought to be harmful to birds, but if the light of the full moon increases their foraging success, maybe artificial lighting could help them in that regard, acting as a bright, alternative moon."

Comment: Not surprising the moon is also used by some species. Warmer weather is always better, despite the current silly worries about global warming.

Natures wonders: massive fish migration in deep oceans

by David Turell @, Friday, March 27, 2020, 00:53 (1453 days ago) @ David Turell

There are many undersea observation posts and migration is there:

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-scientists-document-seasonal-migrations-fish.html

"Scientists have, for the first time, documented seasonal migrations of fish across the seafloor in deep-sea fish, revealing an important insight that will further scientific understanding of the nature of our planet.

"'We are extremely excited about our findings, which demonstrate a previously unobserved level of dynamism in fishes living on the deep sea floor, potentially mirroring the great migrations which are so well characterised in animal systems on land," said Rosanna Milligan, Assistant Professor at Nova Southeastern University, who started the work at the University of Glasgow.

***

"This study now provides evidence of cycles of movement across the seafloor in deep-sea fish, with the study authors believing these movements could be happening in other locations across the world's sea floor too.

***

"'The work really adds to our understanding of movement patterns in deep-sea fishes and suggests reasons for their behaviours, Milligan said. "Because we were able to link the abundances of fish observed at the seafloor to satellite-derived estimates of primary productivity, our results suggest that even top-level predators and scavengers in the deep oceans could be affected by changes filtering down from the surface of the ocean.'"

Comment: It has to be the same ecosystems down there as up here following the same top predator patterns of organization.

Natures wonders: massive sardine migration

by David Turell @, Monday, September 20, 2021, 20:47 (910 days ago) @ David Turell

New studies:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210915161346.htm

"Scientists have discovered how the Sardine Run, one of the world's biggest migration events, works. This spectacular event, considered the 'Greatest Shoal on Earth', involves the movement of hundreds of millions of sardines from their cool-temperate core range into the warmer subtropical waters of the Indian Ocean, on South Africa's east coast.

***

"This spectacular event, considered the "Greatest Shoal on Earth," involves the movement of hundreds of millions of sardines from their cool-temperate core range into the warmer subtropical waters of the Indian Ocean, on South Africa's east coast.

The sardine run is triggered by the upwelling of cold water on the southeast coast and as they swarm north they get sandwiched between the coast and a southward-flowing hot current that exceeds the sardines physiological capacity. They are then predated by huge numbers of dolphins, sharks, seabirds and even whales, an event that has featured in many nature documentaries. (my bold)

***

"'Surprisingly, we also discovered that sardines participating in the migration run are primarily of Atlantic origin and prefer colder water," says Professor Luciano Beheregaray at the Flinders University Molecular Ecology Lab, one of the study authors.

"'The cold water of the brief upwelling periods attracts the west coast sardines, which are not adapted to the warmer Indian Ocean habitat," says author Professor Peter Teske from Johannesburg.

"'This is a rare finding in nature, since there are no obvious fitness benefits for the migration, so why do they do it? "We think the sardine migration might be a relic of spawning behaviour dating back to the glacial period. What is now subtropical Indian Ocean habitat was then an important sardine nursery area with cold waters," says Professor Teske.

"This visually breathtaking migration run attracts tourists from around the world who are keen to get a glimpse of the underwater spectacle...."

Comment: Another instinctual event that helps feed many other organisms. Note my bold. Evolution is not just about new forms but creating a food supply for all.

Natures wonders: synchronized firefly lights

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 18:17 (910 days ago) @ David Turell

Some species light up together:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-firefly-flashes-illuminate-the-physics-of-complex-systems?ut...

"While fireflies have been found on every continent except Antarctica, synchronous species are rarer. Early scientists who investigated popular accounts of firefly synchrony often dismissed it as an illusion, a statistical accident, or an observational artefact caused by an observer blinking their eyelids or the fireflies’ light-producing organs being aligned by the wind. As synchronous displays are rare, not to mention complex and ‘messy’, scepticism persisted. Even after precise synchrony was first confirmed in Thailand in 1968, there was no record of the phenomenon in the western hemisphere until the 1990s. It was Lynn Faust – back then a firefly hobbyist, nowadays a world-renowned expert – who was the first to identify synchronous fireflies in the United States, in the backyard of her family’s cabin in Tennessee. Careful studies over the past 50 years have confirmed that synchronous fireflies are more common than originally thought. To date, three species of synchronous fireflies have been found in North America, and we might yet discover many more in the future.

***

"Fireflies’ dazzling light displays are, in fact, courtship rituals: flying males announce their presence as suitable mates to the females on the ground. Their light signal is composed of a species-specific on/off light pattern repeated periodically. A good example is Photinus carolinus, a synchronous firefly species documented in the southeast region of the US. A male would fly about a metre off the ground. Every 15 seconds or so, he makes several consecutive flashes, one second apart. The female P carolinus stays closer to the ground in low vegetation. If the female is interested, she waits two seconds before making a half-second flash of her own at the third second.

"Flash production is a voluntary action, resulting from the well-timed release of the neurotransmitter octopamine that then triggers a chemical reaction in the insect’s lantern. The current, state-of-the-art hypothesis is that fireflies control their flashing by regulating how much oxygen goes to their light-producing organs, though whether that’s accurate is still unclear. What’s certain is that, unlike a light bulb, a firefly’s light is ‘cold light’, with only minimal energy lost as heat. This is crucial to fireflies’ survival, as a firefly could not withstand its lantern getting as hot as a light bulb.

***

"Our results suggest that fireflies interact locally through a dynamic network of visual connections according to the extent to which they’re separated from surrounding terrain and vegetation. This result illuminates the importance of the environment in shaping self-organisation and collective behaviour. And finally, we showed that information is expressed not only in the timing of the flashes, but also in the movement of the fireflies. Encoding information in movement of the synchronous fireflies is less striking by eye, but our cameras tracked what our naked eye could not: although collective flashing is symmetric within a burst, firefly movement is not. The burst leader was flashing longer and flying farther than followers. Specifically, the pacemaker males who flash earlier in the burst move faster, in comparison with males who flash later throughout the burst."

Comment: And so it is case of follow the leader. Note firefly light takes a special protein. How did this develop in nature because most insects can easily mate without such signaling?

Natures wonders: elephant seals migrate

by David Turell @, Monday, February 28, 2022, 19:11 (749 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like many animals:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2309844-elephant-seals-seem-to-have-precise-mental...

"Northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) return to the beaches where they breed at the same time every year after migrating thousands of kilometres. Ecologists have now found that they seem to know when to begin their journeys based on how far away they are – displaying an impressive sense of geography.

"Every year, between December and March, northern elephant seals breed on beaches along the west coast of Canada, the US and Mexico. Once pregnant, female elephant seals leave their breeding beaches and migrate into the north-east Pacific Ocean to search for food. They spend around 240 days at sea and travel roughly 10,000 kilometres before returning to their breeding beaches to give birth.

"Between 2004 and 2015, Roxanne Beltran at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her colleagues tagged and tracked 108 adult female elephant seals that bred on a beach at Año Nuevo State Park in California, collecting data for 126 complete journeys.

***

"They found that the elephant seals would consistently return to their breeding beach to give birth within five days of arriving in January every year. Seals that were further from the beach would begin their migration earlier than those closer to the beach to give themselves time to complete the journey."

Comment: it is best to assume they use the same system as other species.

Natures wonders: Death's Head hawkmoths' migration

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 17:14 (571 days ago) @ David Turell

Dead of night, straight flight, even with wind shift:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-head-hawkmoths-fly-migration-navigate-dark-a...

"The moths, nicknamed for the skull-and-crossbones pattern on their backs, migrate thousands of kilometers between northern Africa and the Alps during the spring and fall. Many migratory insects go where the wind takes them, says Ring Carde, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside who is not a member of Wikelski’s team. Death’s-head hawkmoths appear to be anything but typical.

“'When I follow them with a plane, I use very little gas,” says Wikelski, of the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Munich. “That shows me that they are supposedly choosing directions or areas that are probably supported by a little bit of updraft.”

"A new analysis of data collected from 14 death’s-head hawkmoths suggest that these insects indeed pilot themselves, possibly relying in part on an internal compass attuned to Earth’s magnetic field. The moths not only fly along a straight path, they also stay the course even when winds change, Wikelski and colleagues report August 11 in Science.

"The findings could help predict how the moths’ flight paths might shift as the globe continues warming, Wikelski says. Like many animals, death’s-head hawkmoths will probably move north in search of cooler temperatures, he suspects.

***

"While detailed tracking of eight of the moths allowed him to follow the insects for about 63 kilometers on average, he pursued one for just under 90 kilometers. That’s the longest distance that an insect has been continuously tracked, he says. “It’s outrageously crazy work,” he says of the night flights at low altitude. “It’s also a little dangerous and it’s just showing it’s possible.'”

Comment: The 90-kilometer track assumes they go straight to Africa. Just like Monarchs in North America

Natures wonders: lungworm lifecycle hosts

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 17:36 (571 days ago) @ David Turell

A problem in Hawaii andv tropics:

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-slugs-snails-rat-lungworm-disease.html

Researchers from the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa and the University of London (UK) combed through nearly 140 scientific studies published between 1962 and 2022 and found 32 species of freshwater prawns/shrimp, crayfish, crabs, flatworms, fish, sea snakes, frogs, toads, lizards, centipedes, cattle, pigs, and snails can act as carriers of the rat lungworm parasite (Angiostrongylus cantonensis). Of these, at least 13 species of prawns/shrimp, crabs, flatworms, fish, frogs, toads, lizards, and centipedes have been associated with causing rat lungworm disease in humans.

***

Cowie explained that the rat lungworm has a complex life cycle that involves slugs and snails as so-called "intermediate" hosts and rats as "definitive" hosts in which the worms reach maturity and reproduce. Rats become infected when they eat an infected snail or slug. People also become infected when they eat an infected snail or slug, and this can lead to serious illness and occasionally death.

"But people can also get infected if they eat so-called paratenic hosts, which are also known as carrier hosts," said Cowie, who is a research professor in the Pacific Biosciences Research Center at SOEST. "These are animals that become infected by eating infected snails or slugs, but in which the worms cannot develop to maturity as they do in a rat. However, in such hosts the worms become dormant, but still infective. And if one of these hosts, or part of one, is then eaten raw by a person—an accidental host—development can continue, but only up to a point."

That point is when they are in the person's brain, where they are moving around, feeding, and growing. But then the worms die. The damage to the brain and the massive inflammation that results when they die is primarily what causes the symptoms of rat lungworm disease.

"Rat lungworm disease is at present confined largely to the tropics and subtropics, notably parts of South and Southeast Asia, where it probably originated, southern China, Taiwan, southern Japan, various Pacific islands and archipelagos, and more recently Brazil, Caribbean islands, and Australia. The parasite has also been reported from the Canary Islands and Balearic Islands of Spain, as well as southeastern parts of the United States, where there have been a handful of cases of rat lungworm disease. Climate change may lead to its further spread into currently more temperate regions.

"Hawai'i is a global center of the incidence of rat lungworm disease, and indeed it was in Hawai'i where the connection between the parasite and the disease was first discovered, by University of Hawai'i and US government scientists in the early 1960s.

"'Several species capable of acting as carriers (paratenic hosts) are present in Hawai'i, including flatworms, centipedes, coqui frogs, and cane toads," said Cowie. "While people in Hawai'i are unlikely to eat these animals, it is not unknown for people to do so on a dare, and become seriously ill. Elsewhere, certain paratenic hosts are eaten for supposed health reasons—frogs in Taiwan and Japan, or to enhance virility—lizards in Thailand."

"Domestic animals, especially dogs and horses, can also become infected by the rat lungworm parasite, including in Hawai'i, probably mostly from accidentally or deliberately eating snails or slugs."

Comment: to forestall dhw's usual comment about why God produced these dangerous animals, note they get in trouble with humans if they get into the wrong animals. In their own ecosystem they are just fine.

Natures wonders: plants fight infections with genome change

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 17:49 (571 days ago) @ David Turell

Use a shortcut:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220825164126.htm

"Crops and other plants are often under attack from bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens. When a plant senses a microbial invasion, it makes radical changes in the chemical soup of proteins -- the workhorse molecules of life -- inside its cells.

***

"In a 2017 study, Dong and her team found that when a plant is infected, certain mRNA molecules are translated into proteins faster than others. What these mRNA molecules have in common, the researchers discovered, is a region at the front end of the RNA strand with recurring letters in its genetic code, where the nucleotide bases adenine and guanine repeat themselves over and over again.

"In the new study, Dong, Wang and colleagues show how this region works with other structures inside the cell to activate "wartime" protein production.

"They showed that when plants detect a pathogen attack, the molecular signposts that signal the usual starting point for ribosomes to land on and read the mRNA are removed, which keeps the cell from making its typical "peacetime" proteins.

"Instead, ribosomes bypass the usual starting point for translation, using the region of recurring As and Gs within the RNA molecule for docking and start reading from there instead.

"They basically take a shortcut," Dong said.

"For plants, fighting infection is a balancing act, Dong said. Allocating more resources to defense means less is available for photosynthesis and other activities in the business of life. Producing too many defense proteins can create collateral damage: plants with an over-active immune system suffer stunted growth.

"By understanding how plants strike this balance, Dong said, scientists hope to find new ways to engineer disease-resistant crops without compromising yield."

Comment: a,ll organisms can be attacked by pathogens. This is the designed mechanism provided for plants.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 19, 2018, 07:29 (2039 days ago) @ David Turell

This videotalks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Sunday, August 19, 2018, 10:52 (2039 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: This video talks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

Thank you, Tony, for this brilliant, fascinating, amazingly illuminating lecture. I was bowled over by it. You will not be surprised when I say that the most striking thing for me was the statement that “all these species had to have had a common ancestor” – and the species ranged from bacteria to humans. The cell is the basis of all life, whether it was designed by a God or not. And whether the astonishing variety of living forms extant and extinct was divinely preprogrammed, separately dabbled, or the consequence of cellular responses to different environments, is one of the questions we have been discussing for days that are like years, or years that are like days!

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 19, 2018, 17:26 (2039 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: This video talks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

DHW: Thank you, Tony, for this brilliant, fascinating, amazingly illuminating lecture. I was bowled over by it. You will not be surprised when I say that the most striking thing for me was the statement that “all these species had to have had a common ancestor” – and the species ranged from bacteria to humans. The cell is the basis of all life, whether it was designed by a God or not. And whether the astonishing variety of living forms extant and extinct was divinely preprogrammed, separately dabbled, or the consequence of cellular responses to different environments, is one of the questions we have been discussing for days that are like years, or years that are like days!

If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example:

In C++, you may have a function that looks like


int startvalue= somevalue; //defines a starting value
int end=someothervalue; //defines an ending value

//iterate through all possible values of i, from start to end, and does something

For (i=startvalue;i!=endvalue;i++){
do something with i;}

This code is nearly ubuiquitous in all c++ programming. You would be hard pressed to find a modern C++ program that does not contain this code. The start and end values may be different, and the 'do something' code may be different, but the iterator framework is identical.

This is exactly what we see in the LPL (living programming language). How can we both look at the same exact chart and see such totally different things? Because of which narrative we are using to describe what we see. To an evolutionist, it means common decent, even across species who obviously did not descend from each other. For me, it shows a programming language with reusable elements that does not care about descent.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 19, 2018, 19:02 (2039 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: This video talks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

DHW: Thank you, Tony, for this brilliant, fascinating, amazingly illuminating lecture. I was bowled over by it. You will not be surprised when I say that the most striking thing for me was the statement that “all these species had to have had a common ancestor” – and the species ranged from bacteria to humans. The cell is the basis of all life, whether it was designed by a God or not. And whether the astonishing variety of living forms extant and extinct was divinely preprogrammed, separately dabbled, or the consequence of cellular responses to different environments, is one of the questions we have been discussing for days that are like years, or years that are like days!


Tony: If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example:

In C++, you may have a function that looks like


int startvalue= somevalue; //defines a starting value
int end=someothervalue; //defines an ending value

//iterate through all possible values of i, from start to end, and does something

For (i=startvalue;i!=endvalue;i++){
do something with i;}

This code is nearly ubuiquitous in all c++ programming. You would be hard pressed to find a modern C++ program that does not contain this code. The start and end values may be different, and the 'do something' code may be different, but the iterator framework is identical.

This is exactly what we see in the LPL (living programming language). How can we both look at the same exact chart and see such totally different things? Because of which narrative we are using to describe what we see. To an evolutionist, it means common decent, even across species who obviously did not descend from each other. For me, it shows a programming language with reusable elements that does not care about descent.

Thank you Tony. Great lecture. And further thank you for interpreting DNA as a program for processing life with functional coding. Easy to imagine a primary designer for the first living cells from which these sub-sea ogranisms must have developed.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Monday, August 20, 2018, 11:45 (2038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: This video talks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

DHW: Thank you, Tony, for this brilliant, fascinating, amazingly illuminating lecture. I was bowled over by it. You will not be surprised when I say that the most striking thing for me was the statement that “all these species had to have had a common ancestor” – and the species ranged from bacteria to humans. The cell is the basis of all life, whether it was designed by a God or not. And whether the astonishing variety of living forms extant and extinct was divinely preprogrammed, separately dabbled, or the consequence of cellular responses to different environments, is one of the questions we have been discussing for days that are like years, or years that are like days!

TONY: If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example […]

Tony, thank you for the example, but to my shame I must confess that your computer language is totally foreign to me! It was you who kindly selected this lecture for us, but if you are satisfied that DNA is in the sort of programming language you are familiar with, I’m not going to argue with you! I listened to the opinion of a microbiologist, and was struck by what she said. However, I notice that your objection is that “the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common descent” (which certainly modifies her statement). At least that means, though, that you believe they CAN represent common descent. My point was that the cell is the basis of all life, and I find it perfectly conceivable that its design (which believers may attribute to their God) would render cells capable of combining with other cells to create every single organism, extant and extinct, throughout the history of life. This means common descent from the first living cells. Your post clearly doesn’t exclude this possibility, which is good enough for me.

DAVID: This has got to be a different branch than Archaea. It is not a candidate for origin of life since its reproductive rate is so long, it doesn't allow for evolution at the rate we see it out in the sunlight on the surface of Earth or at ocean bottom interface with salt water.

I don’t know why you have switched the subject from common descent to origin of life. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember Karen Lloyd even mentioning the origin of life, and she gave the same explanation for why the microbes couldn’t evolve.

DAVID: Thank you Tony. Great lecture. And further thank you for interpreting DNA as a program for processing life with functional coding. Easy to imagine a primary designer for the first living cells from which these sub-sea ogranisms must have developed.

Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 20, 2018, 13:03 (2038 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example […]

DHW: I listened to the opinion of a microbiologist, and was struck by what she said. However, I notice that your objection is that “the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common descent” (which certainly modifies her statement). At least that means, though, that you believe they CAN represent common descent. My point was that the cell is the basis of all life, and I find it perfectly conceivable that its design (which believers may attribute to their God) would render cells capable of combining with other cells to create every single organism, extant and extinct, throughout the history of life. This means common descent from the first living cells. Your post clearly doesn’t exclude this possibility, which is good enough for me.

That tiny bit of code simply said, as long as some condition(i being with the span of two values) is true, do something. For example, as long as a creature is feeling threatened, engage the sympathetic nervous system for fight-or-flight, or as long as food is abundant, have more babies.

DAVID: This has got to be a different branch than Archaea. It is not a candidate for origin of life since its reproductive rate is so long, it doesn't allow for evolution at the rate we see it out in the sunlight on the surface of Earth or at ocean bottom interface with salt water.

DHW: I don’t know why you have switched the subject from common descent to origin of life. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember Karen Lloyd even mentioning the origin of life, and she gave the same explanation for why the microbes couldn’t evolve.

DAVID: Thank you Tony. Great lecture. And further thank you for interpreting DNA as a program for processing life with functional coding. Easy to imagine a primary designer for the first living cells from which these sub-sea ogranisms must have developed.

DHW: Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.


Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present. For example, each of us three almost universally interprets data in a way that fits our preferred theory, which is why we always disagree and always end up having the same arguments. These biases are formed from the narrative, or combination of narratives, that we have chosen to believe. The primary issue is that each of our narratives are mutually exclusive, and for the most part, none of us are really interested in understanding each other's narrative framework as much as we are interested in defending our own framework, or as DHW is fond of doing, trying to wrangle someone into saying they agree with him. :-P

When I said that it did not HAVE to mean something, I wasn't implying that I thought it meant something different than I stated. I as simply saying that it CAN and WILL be interpreted differently, depending on the starting cognitive bias of the interpreter. Evolution is slippery because the cognitive bias is very entrenched culturally, because the cognitive bias appears to make sense when not examined too deeply, because humans stink at understanding odds, and because it frees them up from ideas that they feel are limiting or painful to think about(i.e. God and the ramifications of his existence).

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

David generally tries to have the best of both worlds; he recognizes the need for a designer, but tends to agree with evolution from common descent, though I think he waffles on that slightly, perhaps recognizing that the so-called bush of life doesn't match the genetic data, which seriously undermines the theory of common descent.

Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. It never has been, nor will it ever be, a cow or dog, or cat or whale. And yet, it will have similarities with them because they all have similar functionality which requires similar design elements, just like most cars and trucks have 4 wheels and a engine, despite their other differences, and most of those wheels and engines will have similar elements and components even though they perform differently. This is true, and will always be true, because of the mechanical, physical requirements of being a car or truck. Likewise, all combustion engines, whether jet planes, boat engines, or car motors, will all has similar properties defined by mechanical need.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Monday, August 20, 2018, 15:28 (2038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

Tony: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present. For example, each of us three almost universally interprets data in a way that fits our preferred theory, which is why we always disagree and always end up having the same arguments. These biases are formed from the narrative, or combination of narratives, that we have chosen to believe. The primary issue is that each of our narratives are mutually exclusive, and for the most part, none of us are really interested in understanding each other's narrative framework as much as we are interested in defending our own framework, or as DHW is fond of doing, trying to wrangle someone into saying they agree with him. :-P

When I said that it did not HAVE to mean something, I wasn't implying that I thought it meant something different than I stated. I as simply saying that it CAN and WILL be interpreted differently, depending on the starting cognitive bias of the interpreter. Evolution is slippery because the cognitive bias is very entrenched culturally, because the cognitive bias appears to make sense when not examined too deeply, because humans stink at understanding odds, and because it frees them up from ideas that they feel are limiting or painful to think about(i.e. God and the ramifications of his existence).

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

You see dhw as rigid as I do.


Tony: David generally tries to have the best of both worlds; he recognizes the need for a designer, but tends to agree with evolution from common descent, though I think he waffles on that slightly, perhaps recognizing that the so-called bush of life doesn't match the genetic data, which seriously undermines the theory of common descent.

My waffle, as you note, is based on the genetic and morphologic tree obvious differences. I think you and I would agree as you really do below:


Tony: Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. It never has been, nor will it ever be, a cow or dog, or cat or whale. And yet, it will have similarities with them because they all have similar functionality which requires similar design elements, just like most cars and trucks have 4 wheels and a engine, despite their other differences, and most of those wheels and engines will have similar elements and components even though they perform differently. This is true, and will always be true, because of the mechanical, physical requirements of being a car or truck. Likewise, all combustion engines, whether jet planes, boat engines, or car motors, will all has similar properties defined by mechanical need.

This is really my view. God started life, and reused whatever part He had perfected in moving from stage to stage. But life did evolve from simple to complex stages, in gaps/jumps controlled by God. So it depends on you use the word 'evolution' to describe the process to arrive at us. Perhaps 'stepwise' is a better term.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 20, 2018, 17:12 (2038 days ago) @ David Turell

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.


David: You see dhw as rigid as I do.


Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

Tony: David generally tries to have the best of both worlds; he recognizes the need for a designer, but tends to agree with evolution from common descent, though I think he waffles on that slightly, perhaps recognizing that the so-called bush of life doesn't match the genetic data, which seriously undermines the theory of common descent.


David: My waffle, as you note, is based on the genetic and morphologic tree obvious differences. I think you and I would agree as you really do below:


Tony: Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. It never has been, nor will it ever be, a cow or dog, or cat or whale. And yet, it will have similarities with them because they all have similar functionality which requires similar design elements, just like most cars and trucks have 4 wheels and a engine, despite their other differences, and most of those wheels and engines will have similar elements and components even though they perform differently. This is true, and will always be true, because of the mechanical, physical requirements of being a car or truck. Likewise, all combustion engines, whether jet planes, boat engines, or car motors, will all has similar properties defined by mechanical need.


David: This is really my view. God started life, and reused whatever part He had perfected in moving from stage to stage. But life did evolve from simple to complex stages, in gaps/jumps controlled by God. So it depends on you use the word 'evolution' to describe the process to arrive at us. Perhaps 'stepwise' is a better term.

Step-wise is precisely what the bible describes, but not only for life, for all of creation, which is precisely what we see. As far as step-wise creation of life, I see it as necessary for the conditioning of the planet for further development.

Each stage of life coincided not only with what the environment could support, but also in what the animals could provide the environment. From mats of microbes that slowly broke down igneous rocks into soil and reconditioned the atmosphere to support larger life by increasing O2 levels, to the fish that that re-balanced microbial mats and the larger marine and bird life that fed on the fish. The biosphere was created in very discrete, very balanced stages, and at the end of each stage the Earth was brought to a new state of homeostasis, followed by a changing of the guard in terms of animal life. The old guard's task performed, they were simply allowed to die off in their time, slowly fading into the twilight of a Earth that was no longer a home suitable for them. The new guard started their new tasks, driving the planet to a new form of homeostasis over long epochs.

What I don't see happening, are mistakes. I see no genetic goofs in the fossil record, like "Oh shit, I'm a whale-dog-catapus!" Despite sharing huge portions of genetic programming, each block of code functions precisely as it need to for that particular organism in there environment. No oops, no evolution.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Monday, August 20, 2018, 17:34 (2038 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by David Turell, Monday, August 20, 2018, 17:52

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.


David: You see dhw as rigid as I do.

Tony: Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

David: This is really my view. God started life, and reused whatever part He had perfected in moving from stage to stage. But life did evolve from simple to complex stages, in gaps/jumps controlled by God. So it depends on you use the word 'evolution' to describe the process to arrive at us. Perhaps 'stepwise' is a better term.


Tony: Step-wise is precisely what the bible describes, but not only for life, for all of creation, which is precisely what we see. As far as step-wise creation of life, I see it as necessary for the conditioning of the planet for further development.

Stepwise is a form of evolution. The first Ford is now the current Ford, a stepwise evolution!


Tony: Each stage of life coincided not only with what the environment could support, but also in what the animals could provide the environment. From mats of microbes that slowly broke down igneous rocks into soil and reconditioned the atmosphere to support larger life by increasing O2 levels, to the fish that that re-balanced microbial mats and the larger marine and bird life that fed on the fish. The biosphere was created in very discrete, very balanced stages, and at the end of each stage the Earth was brought to a new state of homeostasis, followed by a changing of the guard in terms of animal life. The old guard's task performed, they were simply allowed to die off in their time, slowly fading into the twilight of a Earth that was no longer a home suitable for them. The new guard started their new tasks, driving the planet to a new form of homeostasis over long epochs.

What I don't see happening, are mistakes. I see no genetic goofs in the fossil record, like "Oh shit, I'm a whale-dog-catapus!" Despite sharing huge portions of genetic programming, each block of code functions precisely as it need to for that particular organism in there environment. No oops, no evolution.

You reflect some of the current Darwin view of environment and living organism interaction, what I look at as balance of nature:

https://aeon.co/essays/can-animals-be-usefully-described-as-clockwork-machines?utm_sour...

"Today, the tension between active and passive mechanism is still evident, for example, in evolutionary biology. While evolutionary theorists reject creationism, of course, concepts such as adaptation and fitness are in fact grounded in a passive-mechanist view of living structures. That view has traditionally banned any talk of evolutionary agency within living organisms, and instead ascribed their forms and structures to forces acting from outside them.

"At the same time, evolutionary theory retains an important inheritance from the active mechanist tradition; indeed, active mechanist ideas seem currently to be in the ascendant. Recent work on ‘niche construction’ for example attends to the ways that organisms can shape their environments, which in turn shape them through natural selection. Meanwhile, research in epigenetics examines how organisms can transform in response to their environments in heritable ways. Rather than being purely passive recipients of environmental pressures, organisms are active and self-transforming, according to current research. (my bold)

"According to these scientists, life is still fundamentally mechanistic – in the sense that it is made of mechanical parts and forces, with no spirits or supernatural puppeteers to make it go. But if living things are machines, they are looking more and more like responsive and disquiet ones, in a perpetual state of flux and restlessness."

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 20, 2018, 17:48 (2038 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: Step-wise is precisely what the bible describes, but not only for life, for all of creation, which is precisely what we see. As far as step-wise creation of life, I see it as necessary for the conditioning of the planet for further development.

Each stage of life coincided not only with what the environment could support, but also in what the animals could provide the environment. From mats of microbes that slowly broke down igneous rocks into soil and reconditioned the atmosphere to support larger life by increasing O2 levels, to the fish that that re-balanced microbial mats and the larger marine and bird life that fed on the fish. The biosphere was created in very discrete, very balanced stages, and at the end of each stage the Earth was brought to a new state of homeostasis, followed by a changing of the guard in terms of animal life. The old guard's task performed, they were simply allowed to die off in their time, slowly fading into the twilight of a Earth that was no longer a home suitable for them. The new guard started their new tasks, driving the planet to a new form of homeostasis over long epochs.

What I don't see happening, are mistakes. I see no genetic goofs in the fossil record, like "Oh shit, I'm a whale-dog-catapus!" Despite sharing huge portions of genetic programming, each block of code functions precisely as it need to for that particular organism in there environment. No oops, no evolution.


David: You reflect some of the current Darwin view of environment and living organism interaction, what I look at as balance of nature:

https://aeon.co/essays/can-animals-be-usefully-described-as-clockwork-machines?utm_sour...

"Today, the tension between active and passive mechanism is still evident, for example, in evolutionary biology. While evolutionary theorists reject creationism, of course, concepts such as adaptation and fitness are in fact grounded in a passive-mechanist view of living structures. That view has traditionally banned any talk of evolutionary agency within living organisms, and instead ascribed their forms and structures to forces acting from outside them.

"At the same time, evolutionary theory retains an important inheritance from the active mechanist tradition; indeed, active mechanist ideas seem currently to be in the ascendant. Recent work on ‘niche construction’ for example attends to the ways that organisms can shape their environments, which in turn shape them through natural selection. Meanwhile, research in epigenetics examines how organisms can transform in response to their environments in heritable ways. Rather than being purely passive recipients of environmental pressures, organisms are active and self-transforming, according to current research. (my bold)

"According to these scientists, life is still fundamentally mechanistic – in the sense that it is made of mechanical parts and forces, with no spirits or supernatural puppeteers to make it go. But if living things are machines, they are looking more and more like responsive and disquiet ones, in a perpetual state of flux and restlessness."

I don't particularly buy into a fully mechanistic view of life. I see too much personality in animals to buy that entirely. I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence, and obviously the creator would be many orders of magnitude greater than we are. After all, we are not, supposedly, the greatest of his creations; not by far. Everything exists at scale and has a limited vantage point from which to perceive creation.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 11:32 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Combining lots of posts here:

dhw: My point was that the cell is the basis of all life, and I find it perfectly conceivable that its design (which believers may attribute to their God) would render cells capable of combining with other cells to create every single organism, extant and extinct, throughout the history of life. This means common descent from the first living cells. Your post clearly doesn’t exclude this possibility, which is good enough for me.

TONY: That tiny bit of code simply said, as long as some condition(i being with the span of two values) is true, do something. For example, as long as a creature is feeling threatened, engage the sympathetic nervous system for fight-or-flight, or as long as food is abundant, have more babies.

Again please forgive my ignorance, but are you referring to the "tiny bit of code" you gave us (which I didn't understand at all) or to the code that Karen Lloyd was explaining? Or to both? Her argument was that the common features in her code demonstrated common descent. I am only asking for brief clarification, not trying to make a point.

TONY: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present.

This is certainly true whenever anyone chooses to believe one option in relation to a subject on which there is no universal consensus as to what is true and what is false.

TONY: DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

Hold on, hold on! This is far too general. I can’t decide whether there is or is not a God, and so I can’t choose. I don’t know whether cellular intelligence can extend so far as to produce the innovations necessary for evolution, and so I offer it only as a hypothesis; I defend it as a logical explanation of what I see as life’s higgledy-piggledy history of comings and goings, particularly in the light of David’s theories. I HAVE made a choice concerning common descent (yes), random mutations (no).

TONY: Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. […]

It’s important to note that common descent does not exclude your God (as Darwin himself emphasized). You can claim he began by creating the simplest forms (single cells), personally put them together to make multicellular forms, and personally organized them into all the different species. You still have common descent from those first forms. Or you can claim that he set up a mechanism whereby they did their own organizing. You believe he created a mechanism that enabled species to diverge into variants. Why won't you consider the possibility that the same mechanism enabled early forms of life to diverge into species?

dhw (to David): Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

DAVID: You have never understood my view that the issue of common descent and evolution must include consideration of the first cells, not avoid it as you and Darwin do.

My whole hypothesis is based on consideration of the first cells! Namely, that they contained the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution, and all other organisms are descended from them! My question was whether you believed this or not.

DAVID: (under “Theoretical origin of life”) It makes sense that the earliest cells were the basis for development of future forms, and would not leave fossils behind.

Yes indeed, the theory of common descent makes sense.

DAVID: Rather than being purely passive recipients of environmental pressures, organisms are active and self-transforming, according to current research.

"Active and self-transforming" is a very important factor in my hypothesis.

TONY: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence, and obviously the creator would be many orders of magnitude greater than we are. After all, we are not, supposedly, the greatest of his creations; not by far. Everything exists at scale and has a limited vantage point from which to perceive creation.

Delighted to see you embracing the concept of bacterial intelligence, as opposed to David’s belief that they are mindless machines. (I seek points of agreement as well as points of disagreement!) Your reference to our not being the greatest of his creations is presumably derived from the Bible, which I take to be the basis of your own “cognitive bias” in relation to all these discussions. ;-)

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 13:05 (2037 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: That tiny bit of code simply said, as long as some condition(i being with the span of two values) is true, do something. For example, as long as a creature is feeling threatened, engage the sympathetic nervous system for fight-or-flight, or as long as food is abundant, have more babies.

DHW: Again please forgive my ignorance, but are you referring to the "tiny bit of code" you gave us (which I didn't understand at all) or to the code that Karen Lloyd was explaining? Or to both? Her argument was that the common features in her code demonstrated common descent. I am only asking for brief clarification, not trying to make a point.

The italicized bit refers to my code example, the bit after that refers to how similar genetic code could be used across species to achieve similar purposes.


TONY: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present.

DHW: This is certainly true whenever anyone chooses to believe one option in relation to a subject on which there is no universal consensus as to what is true and what is false.

There has never been, nor will there ever likely be, a universal consensus about ANYTHING.

TONY: DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

DHW: Hold on, hold on! This is far too general. I can’t decide whether there is or is not a God, and so I can’t choose. I don’t know whether cellular intelligence can extend so far as to produce the innovations necessary for evolution, and so I offer it only as a hypothesis; I defend it as a logical explanation of what I see as life’s higgledy-piggledy history of comings and goings, particularly in the light of David’s theories. I HAVE made a choice concerning common descent (yes), random mutations (no).

Cellular 'intelligence' is pretty much limited to physical triggers and perhaps some miniscule 'thought' in terms of getting food and such. Call it a 95/5 ratio of physical reactions to intelligent choice.


TONY: Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. […]

DHW; It’s important to note that common descent does not exclude your God (as Darwin himself emphasized). You can claim he began by creating the simplest forms (single cells), personally put them together to make multicellular forms, and personally organized them into all the different species. You still have common descent from those first forms. Or you can claim that he set up a mechanism whereby they did their own organizing. You believe he created a mechanism that enabled species to diverge into variants. Why won't you consider the possibility that the same mechanism enabled early forms of life to diverge into species?

I discount common decent based on both what we do and do not observe. The lack of transitional fossils, the lack of ongoing speciation, the lack of failed speciation fossils, and the way that 'common descent' as measured by genetics has no coherency.

TONY: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence, and obviously the creator would be many orders of magnitude greater than we are. After all, we are not, supposedly, the greatest of his creations; not by far. Everything exists at scale and has a limited vantage point from which to perceive creation.

Delighted to see you embracing the concept of bacterial intelligence, as opposed to David’s belief that they are mindless machines. (I seek points of agreement as well as points of disagreement!) Your reference to our not being the greatest of his creations is presumably derived from the Bible, which I take to be the basis of your own “cognitive bias” in relation to all these discussions. ;-)

Even without referring to the bible, I see the Earth as an organism as sorts, and it certainly exhibits the characteristics of one. Referring to the bible, there would be other layers of creation that we are not directly privy to.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 17:00 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

DHW: Hold on, hold on! This is far too general. I can’t decide whether there is or is not a God, and so I can’t choose. I don’t know whether cellular intelligence can extend so far as to produce the innovations necessary for evolution, and so I offer it only as a hypothesis; I defend it as a logical explanation of what I see as life’s higgledy-piggledy history of comings and goings, particularly in the light of David’s theories. I HAVE made a choice concerning common descent (yes), random mutations (no).


Tony: Cellular 'intelligence' is pretty much limited to physical triggers and perhaps some miniscule 'thought' in terms of getting food and such. Call it a 95/5 ratio of physical reactions to intelligent choice.

Since Tony enclosed thought in quotes, he is totally with me in considering cellular reactions as automatic.

TONY: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence, and obviously the creator would be many orders of magnitude greater than we are. After all, we are not, supposedly, the greatest of his creations; not by far. Everything exists at scale and has a limited vantage point from which to perceive creation.

dhw: Delighted to see you embracing the concept of bacterial intelligence, as opposed to David’s belief that they are mindless machines.

From Tony's comment above about degrees of automaticity I think you are misinterpreting him in regard to bacterial intelligence.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 11:07 (2036 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I’ve juxtaposed parts of your post in order to keep the themes together.

DHW: Again please forgive my ignorance, but are you referring to the "tiny bit of code" you gave us (which I didn't understand at all) or to the code that Karen Lloyd was explaining? Or to both? Her argument was that the common features in her code demonstrated common descent. I am only asking for brief clarification, not trying to make a point.

TONY: The italicized bit refers to my code example, the bit after that refers to how similar genetic code could be used across species to achieve similar purposes.

Thank you. As I see it, this fits in with common descent (and with natural selection). Whatever combination of cells is useful gets passed on: e.g. the eye does not have to be reinvented for each new species. It will simply undergo variations in accordance with the needs or opportunities created by the environment. The same principle would apply to speciation, except that the variations lead to more radical changes. You can say your God used the same basic design, but it’s still common descent.

TONY: I discount common decent based on both what we do and do not observe. The lack of transitional fossils, the lack of ongoing speciation, the lack of failed speciation fossils, and the way that 'common descent' as measured by genetics has no coherency.

If a similar genetic code is found across species “to achieve similar purposes”, how can you say there is no genetic coherency? There are some transitional fossils (e.g. horses, whales, humans) but you are right, there is no continuous line of fossils containing every single modification between species and their ancestors, and I don’t know if we can expect one. Nor do I know how a “failure” would produce a fossil since by definition it would never come into existence. Nor do I know how the lack of ongoing speciation disproves common descent. But do you or do you not believe that life began with single cells, and that all subsequent life consists of different cell combinations? For me that is a key issue in our quest to understand the mystery of speciation.

DHW: I don’t know whether cellular intelligence can extend so far as to produce the innovations necessary for evolution, and so I offer it only as a hypothesis; I defend it as a logical explanation of what I see as life’s higgledy-piggledy history of comings and goings, particularly in the light of David’s theories.

TONY: Cellular 'intelligence' is pretty much limited to physical triggers and perhaps some miniscule 'thought' in terms of getting food and such. Call it a 95/5 ratio of physical reactions to intelligent choice.

Most organisms devote most of their thought to “getting food and such”, and they use their intelligence to enhance their chances of survival. No ratio involved. I gave you examples of bacterial intelligence on Saturday 11 August at 9.23 under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, but you do not seem to have seen it.

Earlier you wrote: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence.

Of course I agree that the level and the nature of their intelligence are not comparable to ours. But our intelligence is often fully stretched when we try to outwit them!

TONY: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present.

DHW: This is certainly true whenever anyone chooses to believe one option in relation to a subject on which there is no universal consensus as to what is true and what is false.

TONY; There has never been, nor will there ever likely be, a universal consensus about ANYTHING.

True. I’ll have to modify that to a general consensus. Of course even that can change but, for instance, it is now generally accepted that the Earth is not flat and it goes round the sun. I think most of us today would agree, and so we don’t bother about the data and have no cognitive bias. We accept it as a fact.
--

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 13:36 (2036 days ago) @ dhw

I’ve juxtaposed parts of your post in order to keep the themes together.

DHW: Again please forgive my ignorance, but are you referring to the "tiny bit of code" you gave us (which I didn't understand at all) or to the code that Karen Lloyd was explaining? Or to both? Her argument was that the common features in her code demonstrated common descent. I am only asking for brief clarification, not trying to make a point.

TONY: The italicized bit refers to my code example, the bit after that refers to how similar genetic code could be used across species to achieve similar purposes.

DHW: Thank you. As I see it, this fits in with common descent (and with natural selection). Whatever combination of cells is useful gets passed on: e.g. the eye does not have to be reinvented for each new species. It will simply undergo variations in accordance with the needs or opportunities created by the environment. The same principle would apply to speciation, except that the variations lead to more radical changes. You can say your God used the same basic design, but it’s still common descent.

No. Not at all, sir, not at all. As a LPL(Living programming language), it does not imply inheritance at all. Two species could be entirely unrelated by anything other than environment and still share coding elements out of necessity. To use your eye example, two creatures having eyes does not imply common descent, but you WOULD expect to see the same type of code used for the same functionality (eyes). I mean, seriously, nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, except in biology, would anyone be dumb or audacious enough to make the claim two things being similar came from a common predecessor explicitly by virtue of similarity.

TONY: I discount common decent based on both what we do and do not observe. The lack of transitional fossils, the lack of ongoing speciation, the lack of failed speciation fossils, and the way that 'common descent' as measured by genetics has no coherency.

If a similar genetic code is found across species “to achieve similar purposes”, how can you say there is no genetic coherency? There are some transitional fossils (e.g. horses, whales, humans) but you are right, there is no continuous line of fossils containing every single modification between species and their ancestors, and I don’t know if we can expect one. Nor do I know how a “failure” would produce a fossil since by definition it would never come into existence. Nor do I know how the lack of ongoing speciation disproves common descent. But do you or do you not believe that life began with single cells, and that all subsequent life consists of different cell combinations? For me that is a key issue in our quest to understand the mystery of speciation.

Why would a failure not 'come into existence'? I mean, in order for it to BE a failure, it must by definition exist. Either by still birth or short life, there would be corpses to become fossils. Let me ask the question in a different way:

Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that speciation ever occurred? Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that indicates common descent?

DHW: Most organisms devote most of their thought to “getting food and such”, and they use their intelligence to enhance their chances of survival. No ratio involved. I gave you examples of bacterial intelligence on Saturday 11 August at 9.23 under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, but you do not seem to have seen it.

Earlier you wrote: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence.

Of course I agree that the level and the nature of their intelligence are not comparable to ours. But our intelligence is often fully stretched when we try to outwit them!

Getting food and such is far, far, far different that "understanding the need for a change and how to best meet that need, understanding oneself enough to know what needs to change at a genetic level, applying that change, and keeping track of which changes didn't work so as not to repeat mistakes. As humans, we can't even make it past the first milestone the vast majority of the time.


TONY: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present.

DHW: This is certainly true whenever anyone chooses to believe one option in relation to a subject on which there is no universal consensus as to what is true and what is false.

TONY; There has never been, nor will there ever likely be, a universal consensus about ANYTHING.

DHW True. I’ll have to modify that to a general consensus. Of course even that can change but, for instance, it is now generally accepted that the Earth is not flat and it goes round the sun. I think most of us today would agree, and so we don’t bother about the data and have no cognitive bias. We accept it as a fact.
--

We do, but I know others that don't. It's the damnedest thing, really. However, common descent and God are different in that we can observe neither directly as we did the shape of the planet.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 18:56 (2036 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Most organisms devote most of their thought to “getting food and such”, and they use their intelligence to enhance their chances of survival. No ratio involved. I gave you examples of bacterial intelligence on Saturday 11 August at 9.23 under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, but you do not seem to have seen it.

Earlier you wrote: I do not think that animals are on the same level of intelligence that we are, but I do not think they are mindless machines either. We are to them as they are to bacteria, in terms of intelligence.

Of course I agree that the level and the nature of their intelligence are not comparable to ours. But our intelligence is often fully stretched when we try to outwit them!


Tony: Getting food and such is far, far, far different that "understanding the need for a change and how to best meet that need, understanding oneself enough to know what needs to change at a genetic level, applying that change, and keeping track of which changes didn't work so as not to repeat mistakes. As humans, we can't even make it past the first milestone the vast majority of the time.

A beautifully expressed paragraph which describes the need for foresight and planning before a complexly changed organism can arrive! No itty-bitty steps, suggested by the dhw proposal, exist in the fossil record.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Thursday, August 23, 2018, 12:19 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: The italicized bit refers to my code example, the bit after that refers to how similar genetic code could be used across species to achieve similar purposes.

DHW: Thank you. As I see it, this fits in with common descent (and with natural selection). Whatever combination of cells is useful gets passed on: e.g. the eye does not have to be reinvented for each new species. It will simply undergo variations in accordance with the needs or opportunities created by the environment. The same principle would apply to speciation, except that the variations lead to more radical changes. You can say your God used the same basic design, but it’s still common descent.

TONY: No. Not at all, sir, not at all. As a LPL(Living programming language), it does not imply inheritance at all. Two species could be entirely unrelated by anything other than environment and still share coding elements out of necessity. To use your eye example, two creatures having eyes does not imply common descent, but you WOULD expect to see the same type of code used for the same functionality (eyes). I mean, seriously, nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, except in biology, would anyone be dumb or audacious enough to make the claim two things being similar came from a common predecessor explicitly by virtue of similarity.

First of all, NOBODY understands how life and speciation occurred, and that is why we continue to search for explanations. Secondly, “descent” entails looking backwards, not across. Would anyone be "dumb or audacious enough" to make the claim that new organisms spring from nowhere, as opposed to springing from existing organisms? You have not answered the crucial question I asked later in my post: “do you or do you not believe that life began with single cells, and that all subsequent life consists of different cell combinations?” If you do accept it, then it follows on logically that similarities all through the ever changing succession of species have been INHERITED from earlier forms of life, and have survived because they are useful, i.e. “you would expect to see the same type of code used for the same functionality”.

Dhw: If a similar genetic code is found across species “to achieve similar purposes”, how can you say there is no genetic coherency? There are some transitional fossils (e.g. horses, whales, humans) but you are right, there is no continuous line of fossils containing every single modification between species and their ancestors, and I don’t know if we can expect one. Nor do I know how a “failure” would produce a fossil since by definition it would never come into existence. Nor do I know how the lack of ongoing speciation disproves common descent.

Tony: Why would a failure not 'come into existence'? I mean, in order for it to BE a failure, it must by definition exist. Either by still birth or short life, there would be corpses to become fossils.

You have picked on just one of the answers I gave to your list of objections. I have no idea what a failure would look like, but I assume that if an organism failed to change itself, it would continue to look like itself, and would die looking like itself.

TONY: Let me ask the question in a different way:
Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that speciation ever occurred? Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that indicates common descent?

1) If we accept that species are different life forms that cannot interbreed (the definition you offer elsewhere), the evidence that speciation occurred is that there are different life forms that cannot interbreed.

2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

DHW: Most organisms devote most of their thought to “getting food and such”, and they use their intelligence to enhance their chances of survival.

TONY: Getting food and such is far, far, far different that "understanding the need for a change and how to best meet that need, understanding oneself enough to know what needs to change at a genetic level, applying that change, and keeping track of which changes didn't work so as not to repeat mistakes. […]

Amazingly, you have just described precisely what bacteria are able to do, as you will see from the list of examples I gave you on Saturday 11 August under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, which you appear to have missed.

DAVID (referring to Tony’s comment above): A beautifully expressed paragraph which describes the need for foresight and planning before a complexly changed organism can arrive! No itty-bitty steps, suggested by the dhw proposal, exist in the fossil record.

I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes – e.g. the pre-whale entered the water before its legs changed to fins – as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes - e.g. pre-whales lying on the shore while your God changes their legs to fins. Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, August 23, 2018, 13:15 (2035 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: You have not answered the crucial question I asked later in my post: “do you or do you not believe that life began with single cells, and that all subsequent life consists of different cell combinations?

I have answered your question, explicitly, and multiple times elsewhere. No, I do not believe in common descent from a single ancestor. The closest I could come to accepting common descent is from a single prototype for each type, and then variation within that type.

Dhw: If a similar genetic code is found across species “to achieve similar purposes”, how can you say there is no genetic coherency? There are some transitional fossils (e.g. horses, whales, humans) but you are right, there is no continuous line of fossils containing every single modification between species and their ancestors, and I don’t know if we can expect one. Nor do I know how a “failure” would produce a fossil since by definition it would never come into existence. Nor do I know how the lack of ongoing speciation disproves common descent. ... I assume that if an organism failed to change itself, it would continue to look like itself, and would die looking like itself.

There would, or should, be fossils with new bones that are half-formed, or malformed, that doesn't belong with any subsequently existing species. Obviously, if they failed, whatever species they were changing into would not exist.

TONY: Let me ask the question in a different way:
Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that speciation ever occurred? Without referencing similarity, what evidence do you possess that indicates common descent?

DHW: 1) If we accept that species are different life forms that cannot interbreed (the definition you offer elsewhere), the evidence that speciation occurred is that there are different life forms that cannot interbreed.

No, the existence of separate species proves that there are separate species, NOT that they were once the same species. I don't disagree that there ARE separate species, but rather that they were once the SAME species, which there is no observed evidence of.

2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

You have your proofs backwards. We can prove that there are species, that those species do not, and can not, successfully interbreed to produce viable, breed-able offspring of a new species. That is observed. If you want to claim that they can do something we HAVE NOT observed, i.e. speciation, then the burden of proof is on you.

DHW: Most organisms devote most of their thought to “getting food and such”, and they use their intelligence to enhance their chances of survival.

TONY: Getting food and such is far, far, far different that "understanding the need for a change and how to best meet that need, understanding oneself enough to know what needs to change at a genetic level, applying that change, and keeping track of which changes didn't work so as not to repeat mistakes. […]

DHW: Amazingly, you have just described precisely what bacteria are able to do, as you will see from the list of examples I gave you on Saturday 11 August under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, which you appear to have missed.

I would wager that any of the stuff on that list is explainable as (relatively)simple biochemical trigger/response mechanisms. I didn't see anything in that list that seemed to require prior planning or innate self-awareness beyond what might be described as self-preservation at the most basic level.


DAVID (referring to Tony’s comment above): A beautifully expressed paragraph which describes the need for foresight and planning before a complexly changed organism can arrive! No itty-bitty steps, suggested by the dhw proposal, exist in the fossil record.

DHW: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes – e.g. the pre-whale entered the water before its legs changed to fins – as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes - e.g. pre-whales lying on the shore while your God changes their legs to fins. Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

The problem with your proposal is, as we keep saying, that it would either have to happen to two creatures at the exact same time, both of which had to survive, and in a single geographical area, so that there would be a breed-able pair. Remember, species can't interbreed. Could God have done it that way, perhaps, except that there is no evidence that he did it that way. Genetic programming similarity is shared across species separated by geography, time, and vast species boundaries (Like human's and banana's). Please explain how you get that degree of similarity via common descent in a human, cat, chicken, fruit fly, and banana. There is no evolutionary path that will get you there.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 23, 2018, 19:41 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Amazingly, you have just described precisely what bacteria are able to do, as you will see from the list of examples I gave you on Saturday 11 August under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, which you appear to have missed.


I would wager that any of the stuff on that list is explainable as (relatively)simple biochemical trigger/response mechanisms. I didn't see anything in that list that seemed to require prior planning or innate self-awareness beyond what might be described as self-preservation at the most basic level.


DAVID (referring to Tony’s comment above): A beautifully expressed paragraph which describes the need for foresight and planning before a complexly changed organism can arrive! No itty-bitty steps, suggested by the dhw proposal, exist in the fossil record.

DHW: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes – e.g. the pre-whale entered the water before its legs changed to fins – as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes - e.g. pre-whales lying on the shore while your God changes their legs to fins. Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.


Tony: The problem with your proposal is, as we keep saying, that it would either have to happen to two creatures at the exact same time, both of which had to survive, and in a single geographical area, so that there would be a breed-able pair. Remember, species can't interbreed. Could God have done it that way, perhaps, except that there is no evidence that he did it that way. Genetic programming similarity is shared across species separated by geography, time, and vast species boundaries (Like human's and banana's). Please explain how you get that degree of similarity via common descent in a human, cat, chicken, fruit fly, and banana. There is no evolutionary path that will get you there.

Tony has raised the issue of Haldane's dilemma, not enough time for sexual reproduction to create enough new organisms with the new mutation to then produce a new species: noted here years ago: Saturday, March 29, 2008, 01:39. George Jellis suggested ways around it.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Friday, August 24, 2018, 11:41 (2034 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: […] “do you or do you not believe that life began with single cells, and that all subsequent life consists of different cell combinations?

TONY: I have answered your question, explicitly, and multiple times elsewhere. No, I do not believe in common descent from a single ancestor. […]

Sorry, that's not what I asked. I’m examining the logic. Regardless of common descent, do you believe modern science’s findings that the earliest forms of life were single-cell organisms?

Dhw: I assume that if an organism failed to change itself, it would continue to look like itself, and would die looking like itself.

TONY: There would, or should, be fossils with new bones that are half-formed, or malformed, that doesn't belong with any subsequently existing species. […]

Lucy was hailed as a huge discovery, and we marvel that we now have about 300 fossils of Australopithecus afariensis, who existed for about A MILLION YEARS. But you expect to find the fossil of a one-off failure.

DHW: 1) […] the evidence that speciation occurred is that there are different life forms that cannot interbreed.

TONY: No, the existence of separate species proves that there are separate species, NOT that they were once the same species. […]

I gave you a silly answer to a silly question! You wanted “evidence that speciation ever occurred”. Evidence for descent from the same species was your second question, answered below:
dhw: 2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

TONY: You have your proofs backwards. We can prove that there are species [..].That is observed. If you want to claim that they can do something we HAVE NOT observed, i.e. speciation, then the burden of proof is on you.

Agreed. The theory (outlined below) makes sense but cannot be proven. Please give us the proof of your own theory.

DHW: Amazingly, you have just described precisely what bacteria are able to do, as you will see from the list of examples I gave you on Saturday 11 August under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon” [...]

TONY: I would wager that any of the stuff on that list is explainable as (relatively)simple biochemical trigger/response mechanisms. I didn't see anything in that list that seemed to require prior planning or innate self-awareness beyond what might be described as self-preservation at the most basic level.

I see evolution as a RESPONSE to changing environments (not prior planning), and I don’t propose that bacteria share the “self-awareness” of humans. Self-preservation at the most basic level is what drives most organisms, and it requires intelligence to cope with or exploit changing conditions. Most organisms have eventually failed. Bacteria have survived, and clever humans struggle to outwit them. You may wager that they don’t know what they’re doing. I’ll wager that they do.

TONY: The problem with your proposal is, as we keep saying, that it would either have to happen to two creatures at the exact same time, both of which had to survive, and in a single geographical area, so that there would be a breed-able pair.

Why is that a problem? If local conditions change, one would expect organisms in that locality to change as well. I would not expect pre-whale Willy to dive into the water and live while pre-whale Wendy lay on the shore and died. Would you?

TONY: Genetic programming similarity is shared across species separated by geography, time, and vast species boundaries (Like human's and banana's). Please explain how you get that degree of similarity via common descent in a human, cat, chicken, fruit fly, and banana. There is no evolutionary path that will get you there.

The path I suggest is that life began with single-celled organisms, which linked up to form the first multicellular organisms about 600 million years ago. Using their possibly God-given intelligence, they multiplied, spread worldwide, and diversified as they adapted to or exploited all kinds of environments. 600 million years of intelligent cooperation between cell communities explains the evolutionary path to speciation. David asks if there was enough time. Discount random mutations, substitute intelligence, and Haldane’s dilemma disappears. Substitute God’s programming/dabbling, and again it disappears, but common descent doesn’t.

dhw: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

DAVID: You have, as usual, skipped over Tony's point and mine about the need for foresight and planning.

Not skipped. Please reread the above.

DAVID: As for climate, we have a definite example of how God might have changed environmental conditions and alter evolution in Chixculub.

A definite example of “might have”. Your theory has innovations planned beforehand, which means your God foresaw every related environmental change, local and global. So did he have a crystal ball, or did he manipulate every change?

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 24, 2018, 15:55 (2034 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I’m examining the logic. Regardless of common descent, do you believe modern science’s findings that the earliest forms of life were single-cell organisms?

Yes, but it's in the phrasing. Life began with single cells, or single cells were the first life forms. The first implies common descent. I believe they were the first life forms, absolutely.

DHW: Lucy was hailed as a huge discovery, and we marvel that we now have about 300 fossils of Australopithecus afariensis, who existed for about A MILLION YEARS. But you expect to find the fossil of a one-off failure.

No, I expect to find mostly failures if the evolutionary process is happening all the time, as should you. The successes would tend to put themselves in places where fossilization is unlikely. And if you believe in punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian layer should absolutely be chalk full of them.

One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. From dinosaurs to us, far more than 2,100 samples, and not a SINGLE example of a failed evolutionarily isolate one-off. Not even ONE. Who cares about Lucy? Look at the big picture and notice what is NOT in it!

dhw: 2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

Similarity and differences are not evidence for genetic differentiation through inheritance. Similarity is evidence for similarity. Separate species are evidence for separate species. See, evidence of similarity and differences. There IS no EVIDENCE of morphological change from one thing to another.

There is no argument about microbial single celled organisms being the original life. I have said as much often. That is a straw man. The REAL challenge is in the second (bolded) part. Challenge accepted: The Cambrian Explosion. Punctuated Equilibrium.

DHW: I see evolution as a RESPONSE to changing environments (not prior planning)..Self-preservation at the most basic level is what drives most organisms, and it requires intelligence to cope with or exploit changing conditions. Most organisms have eventually failed....

You jump from bacteria straight to humans. Extremophiles on both ends of the spectrum both in terms of intelligence and their ability to exploit the environment. We are the outliers, as are they. On the bell curve, 'most organisms' fall within the bigger part of the bell curve, being neither as metabolically simple and thus resilient as bacteria, nor as intelligent and 'handy' as humans.

Creatures other than humans do not 'exploit' their environment as humans do; they are slaves to it. Show me a woodland creature that regrows a burned forest. If anything, the fact that 'most organisms have eventually failed' is a nail in Darwin's coffin. If they are so clever at modifying their own genetics, why aren't there more 'successes' for each major environmental shift?

TONY: The problem with your proposal is... it would either have to happen to two creatures at the exact same time, both of which had to survive, and in a single geographical area, so that there would be a breed-able pair.

DHW: Why is that a problem?...

It's a problem because: We have no evidence of morphological change. We have overwhelming evidence of creatures being UNABLE to adapt, and simply dying off. That's why, as you said, 'most organisms fail'. Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

dhw: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.


I have expressed this thought repeatedly, also. I view it as: There is a grand design, of which we know only a minuscule fraction. Life has been used in furtherance of that design. The weather patterns are part of this design. They do need to be managed, but not micromanaged. The Sun, moon, geological processes, and life itself all contribute towards controlling the weather. Now, when we design a building, we design it with climate in mind. Ideal temperature and humidity. We might use some form of earth or wood for thermal mass(literally the earth and trees). We might put plants inside to help freshen the air, or an air conditioner (polar caps). That air conditioner would have an air handler/blower (oceans) We might use windows with curtains (atmosphere and clouds) to control heat intake. We might hire staff to clean, fertilize, and tend the home (Life). And if all do their part, the home thrives and is beautiful. God is the master of the house. He decides what the right conditions are and when. The staff implements. As needs change, sometimes the staff is replaced. We are like the evil butler killing off the house staff. Could he manipulate it himself, yes, but I do not think he does it directly the majority of the time.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Saturday, August 25, 2018, 10:50 (2033 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Regardless of common descent, do you believe modern science’s findings that the earliest forms of life were single-cell organisms?

TONY: Yes, but it's in the phrasing. Life began with single cells, or single cells were the first life forms. The first implies common descent. I believe they were the first life forms, absolutely.

I see no difference. If life began with single cells, then single cells were the first life forms!

DHW: Lucy was hailed as a huge discovery, and we marvel that we now have about 300 fossils of Australopithecus afariensis, who existed for about A MILLION YEARS. But you expect to find the fossil of a one-off failure.

TONY: No, I expect to find mostly failures if the evolutionary process is happening all the time, as should you. The successes would tend to put themselves in places where fossilization is unlikely. And if you believe in punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian layer should absolutely be chalk full of them.
One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. From dinosaurs to us, far more than 2,100 samples, and not a SINGLE example of a failed evolutionarily isolate one-off. Not even ONE. Who cares about Lucy? Look at the big picture and notice what is NOT in it!

I accept punctuated equilibrium: evolution (as speciation) does not happen all the time, and IS full of failures! 90%+ of species have died out. If you mean individuals, what do you imagine a one-off failure would look like? Would you recognize it if you saw it? And how did it accidentally embed itself in rock or ice or resin if it never lived? Yes, the further back you go, the rarer are the fossils. Lucy from just 3 million years ago caused a sensation, but you expect lots of fossils of one-offs from 500 million years ago!

dhw: 2) Similarity IS the evidential basis, but if you can supply evidence that the earliest life forms were NOT microorganisms and that organisms can spring from nowhere as opposed to springing from earlier organisms, then I will reconsider my belief in common descent.

TONY: Similarity and differences are not evidence for genetic differentiation through inheritance.

Of course not. Only the similarities indicate a common inheritance. If all organisms had the same genetic makeup, there would be only one species!

TONY: […] There IS no EVIDENCE of morphological change from one thing to another. […] The REAL challenge is in the second (bolded) part. Challenge accepted: The Cambrian Explosion. Punctuated Equilibrium.

Agreed. Nobody can explain speciation or the Cambrian, so we have theories. How does this provide evidence that organisms can spring from nowhere, i.e. not from other organisms?

TONY: Creatures other than humans do not 'exploit' their environment as humans do; they are slaves to it. Show me a woodland creature that regrows a burned forest. If anything, the fact that 'most organisms have eventually failed' is a nail in Darwin's coffin. If they are so clever at modifying their own genetics, why aren't there more 'successes' for each major environmental shift?

Food is scarce on land, but pre-whale Willy notices lots of goodies in the sea. He and pre-whale Wendy dive in and decide the sea is the place for them. The various documented changes from pre-whale to whale are the result of what I call exploiting a changed environment. Most organisms fail when the environment changes because they are NOT so clever at modifying their genes. Hence Darwin’s natural selection of the fittest. Perhaps you believe your God designed the failures. And why not? My hypothesis (logical explanation, not belief) is that if he exists, he could have designed cellular intelligence to create the free-for-all that characterizes the history of life – an ever-changing spectacle as species come and go. Logical objections?
[…]
TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

Back to Wendy and Willy, multiplied by millions. Environmental change leads to cell communities in that area also changing. Not one single organism, but multiple organisms, because if they don’t change they will die, or if the change offers new opportunities, they will ALL exploit them.

dhw (to David): I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

TONY: […] There is a grand design, of which we know only a minuscule fraction. Life has been used in furtherance of that design. The weather patterns are part of this design. They do need to be managed, but not micromanaged. […] Could he manipulate it himself, yes, but I do not think he does it directly the majority of the time.

With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 25, 2018, 15:37 (2033 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.


Back to Wendy and Willy, multiplied by millions. Environmental change leads to cell communities in that area also changing. Not one single organism, but multiple organisms, because if they don’t change they will die, or if the change offers new opportunities, they will ALL exploit them.

dhw (to David): I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

TONY: […] There is a grand design, of which we know only a minuscule fraction. Life has been used in furtherance of that design. The weather patterns are part of this design. They do need to be managed, but not micromanaged. […] Could he manipulate it himself, yes, but I do not think he does it directly the majority of the time.

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

My view is God developed seal-, sea lion-. and walrus-like forms of the whale series where the animals ere comfortable in both environments. Nothing else feels logical.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Friday, August 24, 2018, 22:56 (2033 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Why is that a problem? If local conditions change, one would expect organisms in that locality to change as well. I would not expect pre-whale Willy to dive into the water and live while pre-whale Wendy lay on the shore and died. Would you?

That assumes more than one entered the water.and mated when modifications happened. But there are no modifications in small amounts, only giant changes each stage!


TONY: Genetic programming similarity is shared across species separated by geography, time, and vast species boundaries (Like human's and banana's). Please explain how you get that degree of similarity via common descent in a human, cat, chicken, fruit fly, and banana. There is no evolutionary path that will get you there.

The path I suggest is that life began with single-celled organisms, which linked up to form the first multicellular organisms about 600 million years ago. Using their possibly God-given intelligence, they multiplied, spread worldwide, and diversified as they adapted to or exploited all kinds of environments. 600 million years of intelligent cooperation between cell communities explains the evolutionary path to speciation. David asks if there was enough time. Discount random mutations, substitute intelligence, and Haldane’s dilemma disappears. Substitute God’s programming/dabbling, and again it disappears, but common descent doesn’t.

dhw: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

DAVID: You have, as usual, skipped over Tony's point and mine about the need for foresight and planning.

Not skipped. Please reread the above.

DAVID: As for climate, we have a definite example of how God might have changed environmental conditions and alter evolution in Chixculub.

dhw: A definite example of “might have”. Your theory has innovations planned beforehand, which means your God foresaw every related environmental change, local and global. So did he have a crystal ball, or did he manipulate every change?

You keep asking God questions with no known answer. I gave you a possible example. Since He has purpose in His complex designs, He also has the foresight to make good designs, which only a planning brain can do..

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Saturday, August 25, 2018, 10:58 (2033 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If local conditions change, one would expect organisms in that locality to change as well. I would not expect pre-whale Willy to dive into the water and live while pre-whale Wendy lay on the shore and died. Would you?

DAVID: That assumes more than one entered the water.and mated when modifications happened. But there are no modifications in small amounts, only giant changes each stage!

Of course more than one would have entered the water! If conditions demanded change or offered improvements, the whole community would enter the water. And giant changes are the unsolved mystery, which you suggest is solved by a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or by your God getting all the pre-whales to lie on the shore while he turns their legs into fins, and then presumably diving into the water himself to make additional changes he never thought of in the first place.

DAVID: As for climate, we have a definite example of how God might have changed environmental conditions and alter evolution in Chixculub.

dhw: A definite example of “might have”. Your theory has innovations planned beforehand, which means your God foresaw every related environmental change, local and global. So did he have a crystal ball, or did he manipulate every change?

DAVID: You keep asking God questions with no known answer. I gave you a possible example.

I’m not asking God, I’m asking you. And you keep asking me questions with no known answer, such as how giant changes took place. I give you a theoretical answer.

DAVID: Since He has purpose in His complex designs, He also has the foresight to make good designs, which only a planning brain can do.

If he exists, I’m sure he has purpose in his complex designs, and I’m sure he has foresight and a planning brain. That doesn’t mean he has to follow the preprogramming/dabbling routine you have designed for him (as above), which demands either prior knowledge or personal manipulation of every environmental change that is accompanied by speciation.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 25, 2018, 15:43 (2033 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If local conditions change, one would expect organisms in that locality to change as well. I would not expect pre-whale Willy to dive into the water and live while pre-whale Wendy lay on the shore and died. Would you?

DAVID: That assumes more than one entered the water.and mated when modifications happened. But there are no modifications in small amounts, only giant changes each stage!

dhw: Of course more than one would have entered the water! If conditions demanded change or offered improvements, the whole community would enter the water. And giant changes are the unsolved mystery, which you suggest is solved by a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or by your God getting all the pre-whales to lie on the shore while he turns their legs into fins, and then presumably diving into the water himself to make additional changes he never thought of in the first place.

Your views of God are not of a God who knows what He is doing. He made transitional forms that fit the requirements from the beginning.


DAVID: Since He has purpose in His complex designs, He also has the foresight to make good designs, which only a planning brain can do.

dhw: If he exists, I’m sure he has purpose in his complex designs, and I’m sure he has foresight and a planning brain. That doesn’t mean he has to follow the preprogramming/dabbling routine you have designed for him (as above), which demands either prior knowledge or personal manipulation of every environmental change that is accompanied by speciation.

And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by dhw, Sunday, August 26, 2018, 08:42 (2032 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

DAVID: Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.

Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.

TONY: […] There is a grand design, of which we know only a minuscule fraction. Life has been used in furtherance of that design. The weather patterns are part of this design. They do need to be managed, but not micromanaged. […] Could he manipulate it himself, yes, but I do not think he does it directly the majority of the time.

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

DAVID: My view is God developed seal-, sea lion-. and walrus-like forms of the whale series where the animals ere comfortable in both environments. Nothing else feels logical.

We know these animals are comfortable in both environments. All you’re saying is that your God did it. We are talking about your belief that your God changed organisms BEFORE the environment changed (which requires a crystal ball or total control of the environment) – as opposed to the suggestion that environmental change triggered organismal change.

dhw: […] giant changes are the unsolved mystery, which you suggest is solved by a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or by your God getting all the pre-whales to lie on the shore while he turns their legs into fins, and then presumably diving into the water himself to make additional changes he never thought of in the first place.

DAVID: Your views of God are not of a God who knows what He is doing. […]

Not my view, but one implication of YOUR view, as above. What makes you think that a God who deliberately created a mechanism for autonomous evolution did not know what he was doing? Even you admit that it fits in with the ever changing history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Since He has purpose in His complex designs, He also has the foresight to make good designs, which only a planning brain can do.

dhw: If he exists, I’m sure he has purpose in his complex designs, and I’m sure he has foresight and a planning brain. That doesn’t mean he has to follow the preprogramming/dabbling routine you have designed for him (as above), which demands either prior knowledge or personal manipulation of every environmental change that is accompanied by speciation.

DAVID: And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!

Another of your straw men. In the past you have imposed limitations on him with your uncertainty as to the degree of control he exerts over the environment. The hypothesis I have proposed imposes no limitations whatsoever. Creating an evolutionary free-for-all is no different from creating free will – that would have been his choice, though of course he could intervene if he wished to.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 26, 2018, 13:30 (2032 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

DAVID: Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.

DHW: Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.

And what DHW is suggesting is so miraculous that he might as well be saying 'God did it'. How did the creatures survive long enough to determine what physiological and biochemical changes would be needed, and then how did they communicate that to the entire species? I mean, think of how much knowledge and information exchange (between members of the soon to be altered species) you are talking about, or the likelihood that they would ALL arrive at the same solution without communication.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 26, 2018, 15:59 (2032 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

DAVID: Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.

DHW: Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.


Tony: And what DHW is suggesting is so miraculous that he might as well be saying 'God did it'. How did the creatures survive long enough to determine what physiological and biochemical changes would be needed, and then how did they communicate that to the entire species? I mean, think of how much knowledge and information exchange (between members of the soon to be altered species) you are talking about, or the likelihood that they would ALL arrive at the same solution without communication.

Those that don't get the message remain the old species, I assume. Cells communicate automatically at the multicellular level, and that must be true or the organism would not live. The single cell is an all in one and must do everything. Communication is limited to quorum sensing and gene transfer, and I consider it almost all very automatic as a series of molecular reactions.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 27, 2018, 02:01 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

DAVID: Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.

DHW: Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.


Tony: And what DHW is suggesting is so miraculous that he might as well be saying 'God did it'. How did the creatures survive long enough to determine what physiological and biochemical changes would be needed, and then how did they communicate that to the entire species? I mean, think of how much knowledge and information exchange (between members of the soon to be altered species) you are talking about, or the likelihood that they would ALL arrive at the same solution without communication.


David: Those that don't get the message remain the old species, I assume. Cells communicate automatically at the multicellular level, and that must be true or the organism would not live. The single cell is an all in one and must do everything. Communication is limited to quorum sensing and gene transfer, and I consider it almost all very automatic as a series of molecular reactions.

To cells within a single organism, that is possible, however unlikely, but look at the rest of the question. How did one multi-cellular organism and another multi-cellular organism, or the cells inside them, all come to the SAME conclusion at the SAME time. It takes more than one multi-cellular organism to reproduce, in almost all cases.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Monday, August 27, 2018, 05:18 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Further, now you are not simply suggesting that microbes in a SINGLE organism create internal changes, but that they somehow communicate those changes to others of their kind WITHOUT reproduction (because speciation makes them incompatible).

DAVID: Horizontal gene transfer allows for modifications of attributes, but not new species. Tony makes a good point.

DHW: Tony was talking about single organisms communicating changes to others of their kind. I am pointing out that communities subjected to the same environmental conditions will make the same changes. Multiple pre-whales, male and female, would have entered the water, and so multiple pre-whales would have developed fins from legs – not just one passing its genes onto its neighbours. But nobody knows how speciation took place. Horizontal gene transfer may well have been an important factor.


Tony: And what DHW is suggesting is so miraculous that he might as well be saying 'God did it'. How did the creatures survive long enough to determine what physiological and biochemical changes would be needed, and then how did they communicate that to the entire species? I mean, think of how much knowledge and information exchange (between members of the soon to be altered species) you are talking about, or the likelihood that they would ALL arrive at the same solution without communication.


David: Those that don't get the message remain the old species, I assume. Cells communicate automatically at the multicellular level, and that must be true or the organism would not live. The single cell is an all in one and must do everything. Communication is limited to quorum sensing and gene transfer, and I consider it almost all very automatic as a series of molecular reactions.


Tony: To cells within a single organism, that is possible, however unlikely, but look at the rest of the question. How did one multi-cellular organism and another multi-cellular organism, or the cells inside them, all come to the SAME conclusion at the SAME time. It takes more than one multi-cellular organism to reproduce, in almost all cases.

How does a single mutation in one individual get spread into the group? Chance meeting for reproduction takes too long for the times involved in the record, and species appear only after huge gaps in phenotype.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 18:53 (1406 days ago) @ David Turell

A new article on extremeophiles below the surface of oceans:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-deep-undersea-rocks-life-thrives-without-the-sun-...

"Microbial life, almost unbelievably resilient, abides in boiling hot springs and bone-dry deserts, in pools of acid and polar ice, kilometers up into the sky and kilometers below the ocean floor. And while scientists are eager to uncover microbes in even less familiar territories beyond our solar system, it’s the last Earth-bound frontier on that list — the deep subsurface — where they’re now making exciting progress in their efforts to probe life’s extreme adaptability.

"Lightless, barren of essential nutrients and crushed under inconceivable pressures, the deep subsurface seems unrelentingly inhospitable, yet it is shaping up to be one of Earth’s biggest habitats. Moreover, its strangeness is forcing scientists to reckon with biological systems that operate on completely different energy sources and time scales from those that we surface dwellers are accustomed to.

***

"They’ve dug into sediments as far as 2,500 meters below the seafloor — where they’ve uncovered just a few cells per cubic centimeter, approaching the very limits of their detection ability.

"These cells barely seem alive, at least by our standards. They live very, very slowly, rarely dividing, their energy consumption at times six orders of magnitude lower than that of cells living in surface habitats. “It might take them 100 years or 1,000 years to divide just once,” said Martin Fisk, an ocean ecologist at Oregon State University. “They’re very slowly keeping themselves going.”

***

"Sherwood Lollar, along with Princeton University’s Tullis Onstott and other colleagues, have ventured into those mines to study what they call “the hidden hydro-geosphere,” systems of water isolated deep underground on long geological time scales. In some cases, they’ve found water that hasn’t been exposed to surface environmental factors in millions or even billions of years.

"And in that billion-year-old water, the researchers have found life.

"They’ve also found evidence that those microbes persist by getting energy from an abiotic process called radiolysis, during which radiation released by the rocks reacts with water in the system to release hydrogen, which the cells can then use in various forms as fuel. That’s posed an intriguing question for scientists: Could radiolysis be an alternative process driving much of subsurface life?

"Given that radiolysis occurs everywhere, “it could also be supporting the ocean deep life,” Orsi said. “No one knows.”

***

"...it’s possible that life might have gotten its start on the surface of the Earth, where it found creative ways to survive and spread, including to deeper environments. But it’s also possible that life began underground, at some fortuitous juncture between rock and water — eventually also making its way to the surface and figuring out how to harness the sun’s energy.

***

"A paper published in Nature in March, spearheaded by Edgcomb, detailed the results from one of the most ambitious such pushes to date. They drilled nearly 800 meters below the seafloor at a location where the lower ocean crust bulges up closer to the surface. There, they sampled gabbro rocks, which are formed when magma cools more slowly: They’re typically found beneath basalt and considered a sort of window into the mantle, as well as into what an earlier Earth’s rock environment might have looked like. And in those rocks, the scientists reported trace numbers of cells — which once again seemed to be surviving off nutrients they gleaned from the flow of seawater. Although other researchers, including Orsi, have raised concerns about the possibility that those samples were contaminated, they also expect future analyses to uncover life down there."

Comment: It is obvious. Life is designed to survive anywhere on Earth, but the key is in the design.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 26, 2018, 15:35 (2032 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

DAVID: My view is God developed seal-, sea lion-. and walrus-like forms of the whale series where the animals ere comfortable in both environments. Nothing else feels logical.

dhw:We know these animals are comfortable in both environments. All you’re saying is that your God did it. We are talking about your belief that your God changed organisms BEFORE the environment changed (which requires a crystal ball or total control of the environment) – as opposed to the suggestion that environmental change triggered organismal change.

Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing God need a crystal ball?


DAVID: And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!

dhw: Another of your straw men. In the past you have imposed limitations on him with your uncertainty as to the degree of control he exerts over the environment. The hypothesis I have proposed imposes no limitations whatsoever. Creating an evolutionary free-for-all is no different from creating free will – that would have been his choice, though of course he could intervene if he wished to.

Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 27, 2018, 01:46 (2031 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

DAVID: My view is God developed seal-, sea lion-. and walrus-like forms of the whale series where the animals ere comfortable in both environments. Nothing else feels logical.

dhw:We know these animals are comfortable in both environments. All you’re saying is that your God did it. We are talking about your belief that your God changed organisms BEFORE the environment changed (which requires a crystal ball or total control of the environment) – as opposed to the suggestion that environmental change triggered organismal change.


David: Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing God need a crystal ball?


DAVID: And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!

dhw: Another of your straw men. In the past you have imposed limitations on him with your uncertainty as to the degree of control he exerts over the environment. The hypothesis I have proposed imposes no limitations whatsoever. Creating an evolutionary free-for-all is no different from creating free will – that would have been his choice, though of course he could intervene if he wished to.


David: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't

Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.

I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Monday, August 27, 2018, 05:08 (2031 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also allow for sporadic divine dabbling. But David believes all innovations were preprogrammed or dabbled IN ADVANCE of environmental change. His pre-whales were given fins before they entered the water. Therefore either David's God has a crystal ball or he organizes EVERY environmental change.

DAVID: My view is God developed seal-, sea lion-. and walrus-like forms of the whale series where the animals ere comfortable in both environments. Nothing else feels logical.

dhw:We know these animals are comfortable in both environments. All you’re saying is that your God did it. We are talking about your belief that your God changed organisms BEFORE the environment changed (which requires a crystal ball or total control of the environment) – as opposed to the suggestion that environmental change triggered organismal change.


David: Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing God need a crystal ball?


DAVID: And why not have an unlimited God in what He knows and what He plans. You view Him as with human limitations!

dhw: Another of your straw men. In the past you have imposed limitations on him with your uncertainty as to the degree of control he exerts over the environment. The hypothesis I have proposed imposes no limitations whatsoever. Creating an evolutionary free-for-all is no different from creating free will – that would have been his choice, though of course he could intervene if he wished to.


David: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't


Tony: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.

I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.

I'm on your side

Natures wonders: fruit flies navigate with the sun

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 30, 2018, 19:48 (2028 days ago) @ David Turell

A recent study:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-common-fruit-sun.html

"'For flies crossing inhospitable territory, flying around in circles would be really dangerous—they're less likely to find any food or water," says postdoctoral scholar Ysabel Giraldo, the study's first author. "Surprisingly, fruit flies are seasonally found in environments like the Mojave Desert. They must get there from somewhere, and once there, they must figure out how to get around."

"Giraldo and her collaborators found that fruit flies navigate using the sun as a landmark. The researchers placed flies in a "flight simulator"—a kind of virtual reality where they are held in place but can still move their wings in response to visual stimuli. The researchers found that a fly will fix a small, bright spot (the simulated sun) in one position within its field of vision and fly straight with respect to that position. When the team removed this landmark and reintroduced it a few hours later, the same fly could remember and adopt its former orientation, or heading. Each fly they tested selected a different heading, suggesting that under natural conditions, flies in a group would disperse in many directions.

"The research also shows that these flies have so-called compass neurons in their brains that seem to be associated with this navigational behavior. Genetically silencing these neurons (rendering them unable to function) removed a fly's ability to create a heading based on the sun. Instead, the fly adopted a more simple, reflexive behavior of flying straight towards the light. Using genetic tools, Giraldo and her team were also able to modify these neurons so that they would fluoresce according to the neurons' activity levels. Then, by making a very tiny hole in the fly's head and using a powerful microscope, the researchers could watch neural activity while the fly was in the simulator.

"'Insects have been navigating for many millions of years, so we think of this as a very ancient toolkit," says Giraldo. "We know a fair bit about navigation in other insects like Monarch butterflies and locusts—seasonally migrating insects whose behaviors are noticeable or affect us directly. Although relatively little is known about how fruit flies navigate and disperse, the availability of genetic tools for Drosophila makes them a powerful system to understand the mechanisms underlying behavior. In fact, because the anatomy or architecture of Drosophila brains is very similar to these other insects' brains, what we learn from fruit flies is likely to be relevant to them.'"

Comment: It certainly helps in understanding monarch migration.

Natures wonders: fruit flies navigate with the sun

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, August 31, 2018, 04:35 (2027 days ago) @ David Turell

A recent study:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-common-fruit-sun.html

"'For flies crossing inhospitable territory, flying around in circles would be really dangerous—they're less likely to find any food or water," says postdoctoral scholar Ysabel Giraldo, the study's first author. "Surprisingly, fruit flies are seasonally found in environments like the Mojave Desert. They must get there from somewhere, and once there, they must figure out how to get around."

"Giraldo and her collaborators found that fruit flies navigate using the sun as a landmark. The researchers placed flies in a "flight simulator"—a kind of virtual reality where they are held in place but can still move their wings in response to visual stimuli. The researchers found that a fly will fix a small, bright spot (the simulated sun) in one position within its field of vision and fly straight with respect to that position. When the team removed this landmark and reintroduced it a few hours later, the same fly could remember and adopt its former orientation, or heading. Each fly they tested selected a different heading, suggesting that under natural conditions, flies in a group would disperse in many directions.

"The research also shows that these flies have so-called compass neurons in their brains that seem to be associated with this navigational behavior. Genetically silencing these neurons (rendering them unable to function) removed a fly's ability to create a heading based on the sun. Instead, the fly adopted a more simple, reflexive behavior of flying straight towards the light. Using genetic tools, Giraldo and her team were also able to modify these neurons so that they would fluoresce according to the neurons' activity levels. Then, by making a very tiny hole in the fly's head and using a powerful microscope, the researchers could watch neural activity while the fly was in the simulator.

"'Insects have been navigating for many millions of years, so we think of this as a very ancient toolkit," says Giraldo. "We know a fair bit about navigation in other insects like Monarch butterflies and locusts—seasonally migrating insects whose behaviors are noticeable or affect us directly. Although relatively little is known about how fruit flies navigate and disperse, the availability of genetic tools for Drosophila makes them a powerful system to understand the mechanisms underlying behavior. In fact, because the anatomy or architecture of Drosophila brains is very similar to these other insects' brains, what we learn from fruit flies is likely to be relevant to them.'"

Comment: It certainly helps in understanding monarch migration.

Anyone else find the fact that there was a backup plan interesting. When they killed those neurons, the fly automagically switched to a backup system and continued flight. Why didn't it render the fly helpless?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: fruit flies navigate with the sun

by David Turell @, Friday, August 31, 2018, 18:47 (2027 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Comment: It certainly helps in understanding monarch migration.


Tony: Anyone else find the fact that there was a backup plan interesting. When they killed those neurons, the fly automagically switched to a backup system and continued flight. Why didn't it render the fly helpless?

I think it is very likely a simpler system was superseded by a more complex one as evolution developed in the insect, and the simpler one was reactivated.

Natures wonders: nudibranches eat/steal their defence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 14:38 (2009 days ago) @ David Turell

Soft colorful sea slugs eat hydroids without difficulty to defend themselves with the hydroids own defences:

https://www.kqed.org/science/1929993/this-adorable-sea-slug-is-a-sneaky-little-thief

"The summer months bring low morning tides along the California coast, providing an opportunity to see one of the state’s most unusual inhabitants, sea slugs.

"Also called nudibranchs, many of these relatives of snails are brightly colored and stand out among the seaweed and anemones living next to them in tidepools.

“'Some of them are bright red, blue, yellow -- you name it,” said Terry Gosliner, senior curator of invertebrate zoology and geology at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. “They're kind of designer slugs.”

"But without a protective shell, big jaws or sharp claws, how do these squishy little creatures get away with such flamboyant colors in a habitat full of predators?

***

"Nudibranchs come in a staggering variety of shapes and sizes. Many accumulate toxic or bad-tasting chemicals from their prey, causing predators like fish and crabs to learn that the flashy colors mean the nudibranch wouldn’t make a good meal.

"But Gosliner and his graduate student assistants are particularly interested in a group of nudibranchs that sport dozens of long outgrowths on their backs called cerata, which resemble colorful dreadlocks. These species take stealing defenses from their prey to a whole new level.

"Many of these nudibranchs feed on hydroids, smaller relatives of jellies that stay attached to the rocky seafloor.

"According to Gosliner, most hydroids are about the size of half of your little finger, some a bit larger. “Some of them look like seaweed, while others have a branching pattern that resembles a bird’s feather,” he said.

"Like their free-swimming cousins, hydroids have tentacles armed with stinging cells to catch tiny plankton out of the water.

"Each one of those stinging cells contains a structure called a nematocyst that resembles a microscopic harpoon, tethered to the tentacle by a long hollow tube. It’s what gives jellies their sting.

“'If anything tries to nibble on the hydroids, they shoot out their nematocysts,” said Gosliner. “So the hydroids are able to capture their prey or defend themselves using the same structures.”

"But they’re not enough to stop nudibranchs from devouring the hydroids -- stinging tentacles and all. They seem unfazed, even as the nematocysts fire off in their mouths.

"But not all of the stinging nematocysts fire right away. Some that are not yet fully mature stay intact and travel through the nudibranch’s complex digestive tract to become a fearsome weapon.

"The nudibranch’s gut has fingerlike branches that extend up into the long cerata on its back. The unfired stingers travel up into the cerata and concentrate in little sacs at the tips, where they continue to develop.

"If a fish or crab tries to bite the nudibranch, it squeezes those sacs and shoots out the stingers, which immediately pop in the predator's mouth. It doesn’t take long for predators to avoid the brightly colored nudibranchs."

Comment: This is a complex arrangement which, if you think about it, cannot have developed by chance. The sea slugs had to develop a quick form of tolerance. Its gut has to extend into cerata which had to be evolved to provide a spot for the nematocysts to attack an enemy.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 18, 2018, 14:57 (2009 days ago) @ David Turell

This study looks at finding a new hive:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179592-honeybee-swarms-act-like-superorganisms-to...

"Colonies of European honeybees reproduce by releasing a queen from the nest accompanied by an entourage of colony workers. This swarm often attaches itself to the underside of a tree branch – taking on the shape of an inverted cone with the queen safely at the centre – while scout bees search for a good place to build a new nest.

"Researchers already know that the cone can withstand temperature changes and rain by changing its shape and appearance. During high winds the cone changes too, typically becoming flatter and hugging closer to the underside of the branch.

"To understand how individual bees work together to generate a swarm-wide response, Orit Peleg at Harvard University and his colleagues attached a bee cluster to the underside of a board hanging in their laboratory and shook the board horizontally to mimic the physical stress of high winds.

"As the board shook, the bee cluster began to sway from side to side, like a tree swaying in the wind, and the bee cluster started to flatten. The inverted cone was a few tens of centimetres tall before shaking but lost almost half of its height over the course of 30 minutes, becoming less prone to swaying in the process.

"By videoing the swarm and tracking the movement of individual bees, the physicists discovered that bees near the tip of the cluster slowly climbed up towards the base and spread out when it shakes, explaining why the structure flattens.

"But this doesn’t explain why the bees know how to respond to shaking by climbing up. It’s unlikely that the bees simply climb against gravity, says Peleg’s team, because it would be difficult to detect gravitational forces while the swarm is violently shaking from side to side.

"The researchers produced a model to simulate the physical processes individual bees experience when the swarm shakes. They showed that bees endure local physical strain as they try to cling together, and it’s the bees at the base of the cone — closer to the surface the cone is attached to — that experience the greatest stress.

"It’s possible, they say, that it’s this physical strain that acts as a cue. When individual bees experience strain they respond by climbing upwards – even though this means they are moving towards the high-stress area. By climbing, individual bees have to shoulder a greater workload, but the bees seem willing to do this for the greater good of the swarm."

Comment: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by dhw, Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 10:04 (2008 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? Preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God come and teach the ants and bees what to do every time there was a new threat? Or is it possible (theistic version) that your God endowed them with the intelligence to work out their own strategies and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 14:52 (2008 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

dhw: How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? Preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God come and teach the ants and bees what to do every time there was a new threat? Or is it possible (theistic version) that your God endowed them with the intelligence to work out their own strategies and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?

Automatic activity is not intelligence is my point.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by dhw, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 12:04 (2007 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

dhw: How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? [...]

DAVID: Automatic activity is not intelligence is my point.

Of course it isn’t. And my point is that it takes intelligence to solve problems and invent new strategies. So I can only repeat my earlier question: did your God preprogramme every ant and bee strategy 3.8 billion years ago, or did he come down and teach them every time there was a new threat? Or did they work things out for themselves and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?

TONY: I don't think that either David or myself have ever said that *everything* was preprogrammed.

DAVID: I have proposed that God could have pre-programmed all of evolution, or that He stepped in during the process and made adjustments, which I called dabbling. I've have never decided which one or both, but I feel God ran the entire process of evolution in some way.

I’ll watch with interest as you discuss your differences! There is an ongoing discussion between David and myself concerning the intelligence of other organisms. I believe that when, for instance, ants build rafts, design cities, develop farming techniques, solve problems set for them by researchers, they use their intelligence. Once a system or technique or strategy has proved successful, it will be passed on. In fact some studies show ants teaching other ants. Even with this bee example, there seems to be intelligent cooperation between the bees, and some sacrifice themselves for the sake of the colony: “By climbing, individual bees have to shoulder a greater workload, but the bees seem willing to do this for the greater good of the swarm." I suggest they know what they’re doing.

TÓNY: In https://www.quora.com/Are-bees-and-ants-close-on-the-evolutionary-tree It breaks down a list of creatures bearing one similar feature, a narrow waist. An because of this narrow waist, they MUST be related. [...]
Bees are bees. Ants are ants. Wasps are wasp. However, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between the species, because the closer you look, the more you realize that ancestral evolution between these three species is not really possible because the evolution's would have to be bi-directional, both in terms of anatomical and behavioral "adaptions".

I don’t know why you have changed the subject to evolution. We are talking about intelligence versus automaticity. I can only say that in the dispute between common descent and separate creation of species, I consider the similarities between bees, wasps and ants to be evidence of common descent, and can well believe that diversification will have occurred over millions and millions of years and generations and changing environments. (See also under “Junk DNA".)

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 17:35 (2007 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Automatic activity is not intelligence is my point.

dhw: Of course it isn’t. And my point is that it takes intelligence to solve problems and invent new strategies. So I can only repeat my earlier question: did your God preprogramme every ant and bee strategy 3.8 billion years ago, or did he come down and teach them every time there was a new threat? Or did they work things out for themselves and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?

TONY: I don't think that either David or myself have ever said that *everything* was preprogrammed.

DAVID: I have proposed that God could have pre-programmed all of evolution, or that He stepped in during the process and made adjustments, which I called dabbling. I've have never decided which one or both, but I feel God ran the entire process of evolution in some way.

I'll add only that I have no idea how termites worked it out, and coupled with God is charge, He played a role. Read this article for a wonderful description of term ite society:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/18/a-giant-crawling-brain-the-jaw-dropping-wo...

In the mound, most of the termites are eyeless and wingless, but the fertile termites who leave the mound on this night have eyes and what at first appears to be one single translucent teardrop-shaped wing. When they are ready to fly, this single wing, still soft and moist, fans out into four. Called “alates”, these termites are like fragile balsa-wood glider planes: just sturdy enough to cruise briefly before crash-landing their payloads of genes.

Male and female find each other and scuttle off to dig a burrow where they will mate. At first the two termites will be alone in their dark hole. Christine Nalepa, Theo Evans and Michael Lenz have written that termite parents bite off the ends of their antennae, which may make them better at raising their young. Antennae give termites lots of sensory information, and biting off the segments toward the ends could reduce that stimulation, making it easier to live in a tiny burrow with a few million children.

After she has laid her first eggs, the queen cleans them often to remove harmful fungi until they hatch as nymphs about three weeks later. The nymphs will moult grow and develop, but under the influence of the queen’s pheromone, most of them won’t fully mature, remaining permanent stay-at-home preteens – eyeless, wingless helpers.

Males and females alike will spend their time gathering food, tending eggs, building the nest deeper into the ground and eventually tending a fungus. As the family grows bigger, some morph into soldiers; their heads grow larger, dark-coloured and hard in a distinctive way, depending on their species. Thereafter they must be fed by their siblings the workers. Soldiers appear to return the favour by dosing the colony with antimicrobial secretions that help it resist disease.


dhw: I’ll watch with interest as you discuss your differences! There is an ongoing discussion between David and myself concerning the intelligence of other organisms. I believe that when, for instance, ants build rafts, design cities, develop farming techniques, solve problems set for them by researchers, they use their intelligence. Once a system or technique or strategy has proved successful, it will be passed on. In fact some studies show ants teaching other ants. Even with this bee example, there seems to be intelligent cooperation between the bees, and some sacrifice themselves for the sake of the colony: “By climbing, individual bees have to shoulder a greater workload, but the bees seem willing to do this for the greater good of the swarm." I suggest they know what they’re doing.

I propose they are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?


TÓNY: In https://www.quora.com/Are-bees-and-ants-close-on-the-evolutionary-tree It breaks down a list of creatures bearing one similar feature, a narrow waist. An because of this narrow waist, they MUST be related. [...]
Bees are bees. Ants are ants. Wasps are wasp. However, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between the species, because the closer you look, the more you realize that ancestral evolution between these three species is not really possible because the evolution's would have to be bi-directional, both in terms of anatomical and behavioral "adaptions".

dhw: I don’t know why you have changed the subject to evolution. We are talking about intelligence versus automaticity. I can only say that in the dispute between common descent and separate creation of species, I consider the similarities between bees, wasps and ants to be evidence of common descent, and can well believe that diversification will have occurred over millions and millions of years and generations and changing environments. (See also under “Junk DNA".)

Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 22:57 (2006 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.

If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. The non-protein coding section of the genome, which was largely ignored and is now becoming understood as important, probably contains as much behavioral modification data as anything.

Phenotype comparisons only became useless because they were trying to prove an invalid hypothesis to begin with. When the genetic data didn't support their conclusions, they through the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, though they still plop the muddy little bugger down as evidence when it suits them, regardless of genetics.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:15 (2006 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.


Tony: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. The non-protein coding section of the genome, which was largely ignored and is now becoming understood as important, probably contains as much behavioral modification data as anything.

Phenotype comparisons only became useless because they were trying to prove an invalid hypothesis to begin with. When the genetic data didn't support their conclusions, they through the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, though they still plop the muddy little bugger down as evidence when it suits them, regardless of genetics.

In the early days, phenotype was all they had. A genetic bush of life will not match the phenotype bush. The finding that at least 80% of DNA is functional is driving them nuts and sure looks designed.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:35 (2006 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.


Tony: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. The non-protein coding section of the genome, which was largely ignored and is now becoming understood as important, probably contains as much behavioral modification data as anything.

Phenotype comparisons only became useless because they were trying to prove an invalid hypothesis to begin with. When the genetic data didn't support their conclusions, they through the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, though they still plop the muddy little bugger down as evidence when it suits them, regardless of genetics.


David: In the early days, phenotype was all they had. A genetic bush of life will not match the phenotype bush. The finding that at least 80% of DNA is functional is driving them nuts and sure looks designed.

Indeed. But the proverbial nail in the Darwinian coffin will be shared information that can not possibly come through direct genetic inheritance. And this means both the genetic instructions for phenotypical similarities and the instructions for non-phenotypical behaviors.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 23:56 (2006 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.


Tony: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome. The non-protein coding section of the genome, which was largely ignored and is now becoming understood as important, probably contains as much behavioral modification data as anything.

Phenotype comparisons only became useless because they were trying to prove an invalid hypothesis to begin with. When the genetic data didn't support their conclusions, they through the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, though they still plop the muddy little bugger down as evidence when it suits them, regardless of genetics.


David: In the early days, phenotype was all they had. A genetic bush of life will not match the phenotype bush. The finding that at least 80% of DNA is functional is driving them nuts and sure looks designed.


Tony: Indeed. But the proverbial nail in the Darwinian coffin will be shared information that can not possibly come through direct genetic inheritance. And this means both the genetic instructions for phenotypical similarities and the instructions for non-phenotypical behaviors.

Poor Darwin did the best he could with the information he had. The problem is the vested interest the current Darwinists have in his antiquated chance theory.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by dhw, Friday, September 21, 2018, 15:22 (2006 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll add only that I have no idea how termites worked it out, and coupled with God is charge, He played a role.

If you have no idea, then it might be worth considering the possibility that your God’s role was to give them the intelligence to work it out for themselves

DAVID: Read this article for a wonderful description of termite society:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/18/a-giant-crawling-brain-the-jaw-dropping-wo...

Thank you. I love these articles.

DAVID: I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?

Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.

dhw to Tony): I don’t know why you have changed the subject to evolution. We are talking about intelligence versus automaticity.

TONY: So am I. There are some behaviors that are shared by wasps and bees, some by ants and wasps, and some by bees and wasps. My point was thatthe directionality of the information transfer would preclude this happening by evolutionary means. This firstly implies inherrently different 'design'. Secondly, I am proposing a multistep methodology for comparing and contrasting these three different groups, Wasps, Ants, and Bees, to help determine which, if any, behaviors are pre-programmed genetically or otherwise. It could well be that some of that non-coding DNA actually helps by an organism by creating a on-demand information resource.

Dhw: I can only say that in the dispute between common descent and separate creation of species, I consider the similarities between bees, wasps and ants to be evidence of common descent, and can well believe that diversification will have occurred over millions and millions of years and generations and changing environments. (See also under “Junk DNA".)

DAVID: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.

TONY: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome.

This is followed by more discussion of the different factors to be considered, and by the usual snipes at Darwin. Nobody knows what caused speciation (we agree that this refers to organisms that cannot interbreed). Here are four theories:

1) David’s belief that it was either preprogrammed by his God 3.8 billion years ago, or his God dabbled (which would still allow for common descent, as he would have dabbled with existing organisms).
2) Tony’s belief that his God created each species separately.
3) Darwin’s belief that it came about through chance mutations and gradual refinements, always taking place in existing organisms (common descent).
4) Dhw’s hypothesis that it came about (always in existing organisms = common descent) through cellular intelligence – possibly invented by your God – responding to the needs and opportunities offered by ever changing environmental conditions both local and global.

There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:13 (2005 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll add only that I have no idea how termites worked it out, and coupled with God is charge, He played a role.

If you have no idea, then it might be worth considering the possibility that your God’s role was to give them the intelligence to work it out for themselves

DAVID: Read this article for a wonderful description of termite society:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/18/a-giant-crawling-brain-the-jaw-dropping-wo...

Thank you. I love these articles.

DAVID: I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?

Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.

dhw to Tony): I don’t know why you have changed the subject to evolution. We are talking about intelligence versus automaticity.

TONY: So am I. There are some behaviors that are shared by wasps and bees, some by ants and wasps, and some by bees and wasps. My point was thatthe directionality of the information transfer would preclude this happening by evolutionary means. This firstly implies inherrently different 'design'. Secondly, I am proposing a multistep methodology for comparing and contrasting these three different groups, Wasps, Ants, and Bees, to help determine which, if any, behaviors are pre-programmed genetically or otherwise. It could well be that some of that non-coding DNA actually helps by an organism by creating a on-demand information resource.

Dhw: I can only say that in the dispute between common descent and separate creation of species, I consider the similarities between bees, wasps and ants to be evidence of common descent, and can well believe that diversification will have occurred over millions and millions of years and generations and changing environments. (See also under “Junk DNA".)

DAVID: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.

TONY: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome.

DHW: This is followed by more discussion of the different factors to be considered, and by the usual snipes at Darwin. Nobody knows what caused speciation (we agree that this refers to organisms that cannot interbreed). Here are four theories:

1) David’s belief that it was either preprogrammed by his God 3.8 billion years ago, or his God dabbled (which would still allow for common descent, as he would have dabbled with existing organisms).
2) Tony’s belief that his God created each species separately.
3) Darwin’s belief that it came about through chance mutations and gradual refinements, always taking place in existing organisms (common descent).
4) Dhw’s hypothesis that it came about (always in existing organisms = common descent) through cellular intelligence – possibly invented by your God – responding to the needs and opportunities offered by ever changing environmental conditions both local and global.

There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:54 (2005 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.


TONY: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome.

DHW: This is followed by more discussion of the different factors to be considered, and by the usual snipes at Darwin. Nobody knows what caused speciation (we agree that this refers to organisms that cannot interbreed). Here are four theories:

1) David’s belief that it was either preprogrammed by his God 3.8 billion years ago, or his God dabbled (which would still allow for common descent, as he would have dabbled with existing organisms).
2) Tony’s belief that his God created each species separately.
3) Darwin’s belief that it came about through chance mutations and gradual refinements, always taking place in existing organisms (common descent).
4) Dhw’s hypothesis that it came about (always in existing organisms = common descent) through cellular intelligence – possibly invented by your God – responding to the needs and opportunities offered by ever changing environmental conditions both local and global.

dhw:There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?


Tony: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

Basically the same answer I have written.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by dhw, Sunday, September 23, 2018, 13:26 (2004 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

TONY: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?

DAVID: There is irrefutable logic. The degree of complexity in the biology of life requires a designer. Chance cannot do it! Darwin's belief (3) is dead.

Darwin’s belief in common descent is absolutely not dead. You and I agree that his belief in randomness and gradualism is dead. Dawkins and his ilk agree that the God theory is dead. There is no universal consensus on anything. All we can be sure of, at least currently, is that we can be sure of nothing.

DAVID: I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?

dhw: Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.

DAVID: Automatic responses as shown by studies of individual ants show they automatically respond to local stimuli.

We all automatically respond to local stimuli. Studies of ants collectively show that they are able to solve problems, and you still haven’t explained how automatic responses enabled them to create their first cities, rafts, farming techniques etc.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 13:57 (2004 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

TONY: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?


Well, if they are 'certainly' there but are 'thing not beheld', then you are making a statement of faith. Also, I never said you NEED faith. It is perfectly acceptable not to have faith. However, the more you learn, eventually you reach a point where faith is a pre-requisite to learning anything more.

If you knew everything material reality could teach you without assuming the unknown, you would run into the wall of the unknowable, beyond which we can not see. That wall presents you with two choices: design or chance. Either choice is made on faith. Not blind faith; reasoned faith. This reasoned faith is, in a way, binding. It binds you to certain thought patterns, your priorities, your view of your own life and that of others, it grounds your particular morality and ethos.

If you choose faith in blind chance, then we are all meat sacks of chemical soup on a dirt ball of chemical soup interacting with other meat sacks of chemical soup. 'You' are not really 'you', but instead are an agent-less bundle of chemically induced illusions. Even the concept of 'you' is an illusion. You have no objective value, your choices have no meaning (because they are not really choices but simple chemical reactions to stimuli), others have no intrinsic value beyond how they excite your chemical soup. All life, including your own, is a random, purposeless event. Behave however you like, do whatever you want, how you want, to whom you want, because 'you' don't 'want' anything...its just chemical soup doing what chemical soup does, and you don't have a choice anyway. And death is just death, a decomposition of your chemical soup back into its constituent parts, which really doesn't matter because you are no more sentient than a paperclip, just more complex. Pain and pleasure, joy, love, sorrow, remorse....these are all just chemical responses, rendering the entirety of your existence and all of your experience and effort pointless. Why bother to do anything at all?

If you choose faith in a designer, regardless of your views of the designer, then there is at a minimum, purpose. You were designed with a purpose, even if that purpose was as entertainment or a slave. It also acknowledges something greater exists, to which, will we nil we, we are subject to as the rightful authority. After all, who has the property right the owner/creator of the property or the property itself? It presents the universe as 'not our property, as well as our lives and the lives of others. It means that we are accountable for how we behave towards and with this property, beholden to the properties owner. It means that there may be rules, laws, or orders that we should follow. It means that all things, great and small, are due at least the amount of respect that someone else's property deserves. It means we are obligated to something other than ourselves by virtue of our very existence. Respect and obligation(duty) are the foundation of love, which literally means 'to care for as a precious gift', if you trace the words back as far as we can. It forms the foundation of humility, appreciation, gratitude, and even purpose. If nothing else is known except that there is a designer, then at least part of your purpose is to care for their property, as if it were a precious gift.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 23, 2018, 16:05 (2004 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

TONY: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?

Well, if they are 'certainly' there but are 'thing not beheld', then you are making a statement of faith. Also, I never said you NEED faith. It is perfectly acceptable not to have faith. However, the more you learn, eventually you reach a point where faith is a pre-requisite to learning anything more.

If you knew everything material reality could teach you without assuming the unknown, you would run into the wall of the unknowable, beyond which we can not see. That wall presents you with two choices: design or chance. Either choice is made on faith. Not blind faith; reasoned faith. This reasoned faith is, in a way, binding. It binds you to certain thought patterns, your priorities, your view of your own life and that of others, it grounds your particular morality and ethos.

If you choose faith in blind chance, then we are all meat sacks of chemical soup on a dirt ball of chemical soup interacting with other meat sacks of chemical soup. 'You' are not really 'you', but instead are an agent-less bundle of chemically induced illusions. Even the concept of 'you' is an illusion. You have no objective value, your choices have no meaning (because they are not really choices but simple chemical reactions to stimuli), others have no intrinsic value beyond how they excite your chemical soup. All life, including your own, is a random, purposeless event. Behave however you like, do whatever you want, how you want, to whom you want, because 'you' don't 'want' anything...its just chemical soup doing what chemical soup does, and you don't have a choice anyway. And death is just death, a decomposition of your chemical soup back into its constituent parts, which really doesn't matter because you are no more sentient than a paperclip, just more complex. Pain and pleasure, joy, love, sorrow, remorse....these are all just chemical responses, rendering the entirety of your existence and all of your experience and effort pointless. Why bother to do anything at all?

If you choose faith in a designer, regardless of your views of the designer, then there is at a minimum, purpose. You were designed with a purpose, even if that purpose was as entertainment or a slave. It also acknowledges something greater exists, to which, will we nil we, we are subject to as the rightful authority. After all, who has the property right the owner/creator of the property or the property itself? It presents the universe as 'not our property, as well as our lives and the lives of others. It means that we are accountable for how we behave towards and with this property, beholden to the properties owner. It means that there may be rules, laws, or orders that we should follow. It means that all things, great and small, are due at least the amount of respect that someone else's property deserves. It means we are obligated to something other than ourselves by virtue of our very existence. Respect and obligation(duty) are the foundation of love, which literally means 'to care for as a precious gift', if you trace the words back as far as we can. It forms the foundation of humility, appreciation, gratitude, and even purpose. If nothing else is known except that there is a designer, then at least part of your purpose is to care for their property, as if it were a precious gift.

I agree faith is not needed to live a proper good life.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 17:29 (2004 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

TONY: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?

Well, if they are 'certainly' there but are 'thing not beheld', then you are making a statement of faith. Also, I never said you NEED faith. It is perfectly acceptable not to have faith. However, the more you learn, eventually you reach a point where faith is a pre-requisite to learning anything more.

If you knew everything material reality could teach you without assuming the unknown, you would run into the wall of the unknowable, beyond which we can not see. That wall presents you with two choices: design or chance. Either choice is made on faith. Not blind faith; reasoned faith. This reasoned faith is, in a way, binding. It binds you to certain thought patterns, your priorities, your view of your own life and that of others, it grounds your particular morality and ethos.

If you choose faith in blind chance, then we are all meat sacks of chemical soup on a dirt ball of chemical soup interacting with other meat sacks of chemical soup. 'You' are not really 'you', but instead are an agent-less bundle of chemically induced illusions. Even the concept of 'you' is an illusion. You have no objective value, your choices have no meaning (because they are not really choices but simple chemical reactions to stimuli), others have no intrinsic value beyond how they excite your chemical soup. All life, including your own, is a random, purposeless event. Behave however you like, do whatever you want, how you want, to whom you want, because 'you' don't 'want' anything...its just chemical soup doing what chemical soup does, and you don't have a choice anyway. And death is just death, a decomposition of your chemical soup back into its constituent parts, which really doesn't matter because you are no more sentient than a paperclip, just more complex. Pain and pleasure, joy, love, sorrow, remorse....these are all just chemical responses, rendering the entirety of your existence and all of your experience and effort pointless. Why bother to do anything at all?

If you choose faith in a designer, regardless of your views of the designer, then there is at a minimum, purpose. You were designed with a purpose, even if that purpose was as entertainment or a slave. It also acknowledges something greater exists, to which, will we nil we, we are subject to as the rightful authority. After all, who has the property right the owner/creator of the property or the property itself? It presents the universe as 'not our property, as well as our lives and the lives of others. It means that we are accountable for how we behave towards and with this property, beholden to the properties owner. It means that there may be rules, laws, or orders that we should follow. It means that all things, great and small, are due at least the amount of respect that someone else's property deserves. It means we are obligated to something other than ourselves by virtue of our very existence. Respect and obligation(duty) are the foundation of love, which literally means 'to care for as a precious gift', if you trace the words back as far as we can. It forms the foundation of humility, appreciation, gratitude, and even purpose. If nothing else is known except that there is a designer, then at least part of your purpose is to care for their property, as if it were a precious gift.


David: I agree faith is not needed to live a proper good life.

Agreed. Hell, even the bible agrees with that one, go figure. That is why it refers to faith as a shield that helps to fend off the flaming arrows of the evil one. Faith protects, grounds, shields. And if you are familiar at all with ancient military tactics, a group of people standing shoulder to shoulder, united in purpose, bearing a large shield is a formidable opponent.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 23, 2018, 15:29 (2004 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

TONY: No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?

dhw: There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?

DAVID: There is irrefutable logic. The degree of complexity in the biology of life requires a designer. Chance cannot do it! Darwin's belief (3) is dead.

dhw: Darwin’s belief in common descent is absolutely not dead. You and I agree that his belief in randomness and gradualism is dead. Dawkins and his ilk agree that the God theory is dead. There is no universal consensus on anything. All we can be sure of, at least currently, is that we can be sure of nothing.

Well, chance is dead, but common descent is reasonable from what we observe, and is not an idea that was exclusive with Darwin before and after his time. Darwin did he best he could with he information he had.


DAVID: I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?

dhw: Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.

DAVID: Automatic responses as shown by studies of individual ants show they automatically respond to local stimuli.

dhw: We all automatically respond to local stimuli. Studies of ants collectively show that they are able to solve problems, and you still haven’t explained how automatic responses enabled them to create their first cities, rafts, farming techniques etc.

Individuals reactions to local stimuli result in the overall endpoints. We all know ants and bees solve problems as groups. I think God helped, you think tiny ant brains collectively planned the activities. I'll stick with God.

Natures wonders: ants stop spread of illness

by David Turell @, Friday, November 23, 2018, 18:02 (1943 days ago) @ David Turell

They avoid the sick ones:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2186140-sick-ants-stay-clear-of-their-co-workers-t...

"Unlike some humans, ants seem to understand the importance of avoiding others when they are infected. When foraging ants are exposed to a fungal pathogen, they reduce their contact with workers inside the nest.

"Nathalie Stroeymeyt at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and colleagues studied colonies of Lasius niger ants using an automated ant-tracking system.

"Workers in these colonies are split into nurses, which work inside the nest caring for the brood, and foragers, which collect food outside the nest. Foragers are most likely to pick up infections, but they interact less with other ants, and come into contact with those inside the nest infrequently.

"The researchers exposed some of the foragers to spores of Metarhizium brunneum fungus. The spores attach to an ant’s cuticle and after a day or two, the fungus gets inside the ant and kills it.Within one day of exposure to the pathogen — before ants became sick — the separation between work groups was reinforced. Exposed foragers changed their behaviour, spending even more time outside the nest and decreasing their contact with other workers.Foragers that were not exposed to the pathogen also took steps to isolate themselves, and nurses moved the brood deeper inside the nest.It’s not clear how the ants recognise the infection, but they may be able to detect the spores on other ants as well as on their own bodies.

"Simulations show that these changes in behaviour reduce the spread of infections and protect healthy workers and the queen from disease.

"Responses like this are to be expected in social insects, since only the queen reproduces, so evolution favours individual behaviour that benefits the whole colony.

“'I think we could learn from the social insects about ways to decrease transmission of disease at the scale of the population,” says Stroeymeyt. Although she concedes that the ants are good role models only up to a point. “We can’t really ask sick people to sacrifice themselves by dying in isolation like the ants do.'”

Comment: What is not understood is how the ants recognize the infection, but there must be some stimulus that they recognize as a warning.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Friday, September 21, 2018, 20:31 (2005 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?

dhw: Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either.

Automatic responses as shown by studies of individual ants show they automatically respond to local stimuli.


DAVID: Phenotype comparisons are not as important as gene studies of relationship. Phenotype is old school.

TONY: If what you are looking for is evidence of a universal programming language, and evidence that the same code is being reused across non-ancestoral species divides, then you have to look at both the phenotypical AND behavioral data, and compare the results to the genome.

dhw: This is followed by more discussion of the different factors to be considered, and by the usual snipes at Darwin. Nobody knows what caused speciation (we agree that this refers to organisms that cannot interbreed). Here are four theories:

1) David’s belief that it was either preprogrammed by his God 3.8 billion years ago, or his God dabbled (which would still allow for common descent, as he would have dabbled with existing organisms).
2) Tony’s belief that his God created each species separately.
3) Darwin’s belief that it came about through chance mutations and gradual refinements, always taking place in existing organisms (common descent).
4) Dhw’s hypothesis that it came about (always in existing organisms = common descent) through cellular intelligence – possibly invented by your God – responding to the needs and opportunities offered by ever changing environmental conditions both local and global.

dhw: There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?

There is irrefutable logic. The degree of complexity in the biology of life requires a designer. Chance cannot do it! Darwin's belief (3) is dead.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 22:19 (2006 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

dhw: How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? [...]

DHW: ..my point is that it takes intelligence to solve problems and invent new strategies. So I can only repeat my earlier question: did your God preprogramme every ant and bee strategy 3.8 billion years ago, or did he come down and teach them every time there was a new threat? Or did they work things out for themselves and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?

TONY: I don't think that either David or myself have ever said that *everything* was preprogrammed.

DAVID: I have proposed that God could have pre-programmed all of evolution, or that He stepped in during the process and made adjustments, which I called dabbling. I've have never decided which one or both, but I feel God ran the entire process of evolution in some way.

DHW: ..they use their intelligence. Once a system or technique or strategy has proved successful, it will be passed on. In fact some studies show ants teaching other ants...some (bees) sacrifice themselves for the sake of the colony... I suggest they know what they’re doing.

TÓNY: In https://www.quora.com/Are-bees-and-ants-close-on-the-evolutionary-tree It breaks down a list of creatures bearing one similar feature, a narrow waist. An because of this narrow waist, they MUST be related. [...]
Bees are bees. Ants are ants. Wasps are wasp. However, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between the species, because the closer you look, the more you realize that ancestral evolution between these three species is not really possible because the evolution's would have to be bi-directional, both in terms of anatomical and behavioral "adaptions".

DHW I don’t know why you have changed the subject to evolution. We are talking about intelligence versus automaticity.

So am I. There are some behaviors that are shared by wasps and bees, some by ants and wasps, and some by bees and wasps. My point was thatthe directionality of the information transfer would preclude this happening by evolutionary means. This firstly implies inherrently different 'design'. Secondly, I am proposing a multistep methodology for comparing and contrasting these three different groups, Wasps, Ants, and Bees, to help determine which, if any, behaviors are pre-programmed genetically or otherwise. It could well be that some of that non-coding DNA actually helps by an organism by creating a on-demand information resource.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, September 20, 2018, 01:33 (2007 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 01:52

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? Preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God come and teach the ants and bees what to do every time there was a new threat? Or is it possible (theistic version) that your God endowed them with the intelligence to work out their own strategies and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?


I don't think that either David or myself have ever said that *everything* was preprogrammed. I know we have said that there is a mechanistic response, but the response systems are often generic. Danger!(invoke sympathetic nervous system response)Breeding Time(invoke breeding sequence)Magnetic Pull(null data; do nothing)A lot of things can be parented(programmatically) to lower level behaviors. He doesn't have to do as much programming as you think, because he can reuse code.

In https://www.quora.com/Are-bees-and-ants-close-on-the-evolutionary-tree It breaks down a list of creatures bearing one similar feature, a narrow waist. An because of this narrow waist, they MUST be related. And according to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102557.htm Bees are more closely related to Ants on a genetic level than they are to wasps. Think about WHY. Instead of making blanket statements like this, why not compare genetics of species from all 3 groups of insects that chair behaviors or physical characteristics for similar genes, and then contrast those groups with the others for similarity.

Bees are bees. Ants are ants. Wasps are wasp. However, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between the species, because the closer you look, the more you realize that ancestral evolution between these three species is not really possible because the evolution's would have to be bi-directional, both in terms of anatomical and behavioral "adaptions".

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: bees cooperate just as ants do

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2018, 02:41 (2007 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: Just like ant colonies, complete individual cooperation. It hasn't been studied but based on the ant studies I have presented, the indivivual bees act automatically to the stresses they experience.

dhw: How do you imagine all the different survival strategies of ants and bees originated? Preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or did your God come and teach the ants and bees what to do every time there was a new threat? Or is it possible (theistic version) that your God endowed them with the intelligence to work out their own strategies and pass them on to succeeding generations, just as humans do?>


Tony: I don't think that either David or myself have ever said that *everything* was preprogrammed. I know we have said that there is a mechanistic response, but the response systems are often generic. Danger!(invoke sympathetic nervous system response)Breeding Time(invoke breeding sequence)Magnetic Pull(null data; do nothing)A lot of things can be parented(programmatically) to lower level behaviors. He doesn't have to do as much programming as you think, because he can reuse code.

I have proposed that God could have pre-programmed all of evolution, or that He stepped in during the process and made adjustments, which I called dabbling. I've have never decided which one or both, but I feel God ran the entire process of evolution in some way. Certainly reusing code is reasonable and really obvious.


Tony: In https://www.quora.com/Are-bees-and-ants-close-on-the-evolutionary-tree It breaks down a list of creatures bearing one similar feature, a narrow waist. An because of this narrow waist, they MUST be related. And according to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102557.htm Bees are more closely related to Ants on a genetic level than they are to wasps. Think about WHY. Instead of making blanket statements like this, why not compare genetics of species from all 3 groups of insects that chair behaviors or physical characteristics for similar genes, and then contrast those groups with the others for similarity.

Bees are bees. Ants are ants. Wasps are wasp. However, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between the species, because the closer you look, the more you realize that ancestral evolution between these three species is not really possible because the evolution's would have to be bi-directional, both in terms of anatomical and behavioral "adaptions".

Your point about genetic comparisons is on target. Phenotypes can fool, genes do not.

Natures wonders: bee & wasp stinger designs

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 09, 2018, 18:30 (1988 days ago) @ David Turell

Soft and less painful entry to allow for venom delivery before being swatted:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-wasp-bee-stinger-pain.html

"Next time you're stung by a wasp or a honeybee, consider the elegantly designed stinger that caused you so much pain.

"In a new study, researchers found that the stingers of the two species are about five times softer at the tip than at the base to make it easier to pierce your skin. The stingers are harder closer to the insect's body so they don't bend too much, or break, as you yelp in agony.

"'Wasps and bees don't want to create too much pain to start with, and we believe the softer tip makes it less likely that you'll notice the initial insertion," said Bharat Bhushan, Ohio Eminent Scholar and Howard D. Winbigler Professor of mechanical engineering at The Ohio State University.

"'If you felt the pain right away, you would react and swat the insect away before it finished injecting its venom."

***

"When you really study these stingers, you see how elegant and mechanically durable they are," said Bhushan, who realizes "elegant" is probably not the first word a person thinks of after being stung.

"'Other words might come to mind first," he said with a laugh. "But when you're looking at it from an engineer's perspective, the stingers really are elegantly designed."

"The stingers of bees and wasps are different in some ways. The wasps' are curved, for instance, while those of the bees are straight. But they have much in common.

"In both species, the stingers have two serrated lancets (think needles) that project from the end of the stinger. The lancets move back and forth to pierce the skin. A channel between the two delivers venom.

"Imaging showed the stingers had hollow spaces to reduce weight while maintaining strength.

"'It is a clever design to optimize the mechanical properties of the stingers without being too heavy," Bhushan said.

"In addition to being softer at the tip, the study showed that the stingers were about seven times more elastic at the tip than at the base.

"'The differences in hardness and rigidity along the length of the stinger helps ensure it can penetrate as deep as possible while maintaining its structure," he said.

"Findings suggested that bees and wasps probably wouldn't sting straight down into a person's skin. The researchers calculated that the most efficient angle for penetration would be 6 degrees for the honeybee stinger and 10 degrees for the wasp stinger. These are the angles that would best maintain the structural stability of the stingers."

Comment: Such an elegant design cannot occur by chance mutation.

Natures wonders: control of soldier ant numbers in colonies

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 10, 2018, 19:43 (1987 days ago) @ David Turell

It occurs at the fetal level. A 5-10% ratio is maintained by a pheromone:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-ants-growth-seemingly-useless-huge.html

"Scientists at McGill have found the answer to a question that perplexed Charles Darwin. So much so, that it actually led him to doubt his own theory of evolution. He wondered, if natural selection works at the level of the individual, fighting for survival and reproduction, how can a single colony produce worker ants that are so dramatically different in size—from the "minor" workers with their small heads and bodies, to the large-headed soldiers with their huge mandibles—especially if, as in the genus Pheidole, they are sterile? The answer, according to a paper published today in Nature, is that the colony itself generates soldiers and regulates the balance between soldiers and "minor" workers thanks to a seemingly unimportant rudimentary "organ" which appears only briefly during the final stages of larval development. And only in some of the ants—the ones that will become soldiers.

***

"Rajendhran Rajakumar the first author adds, "What we discovered was that these rudimentary "organs" are not a secondary effect of hormones and nutrition, but are instead responsible for generating the soldiers. It is their passing presence that regulates the head and body of soldiers to grow at rapid rates, until you get these big-headed soldiers with huge mandibles and big bodies."

***

"Indeed, they found that they were able to scale the size of soldier ants by cutting away differing degrees of the imaginal wing discs, with a corresponding decrease in the size of the heads and bodies of the soldier ants. It was clear confirmation that the rudimentary wing discs play a crucial role in the development of soldier ants.

"The researchers also discovered that the colony as a whole maintains the balance between soldiers and minor workers by regulating the growth of the rudimentary wing discs in larvae. Earlier research had shown that the ratio of "minor" workers to soldiers remains constant in all colonies of the Pheidole genus, with a proportion of "minor" workers at 90-95 % to 5-10% soldiers. The McGill team has found that the soldier ants maintain this ratio by halting the growth of the rudimentary wing disc with an inhibitory pheromone when there are too many soldiers. However, the colony is able to ramp up the number of soldier ants very quickly if it is under threat or the numbers of soldiers have dropped for some reason, because the rudimentary wing discs that play such a crucial role in regulating the number of soldier ants appear only in the final stages of larval development."

Comment: This shows an automatic control over soldier numbers by a pheramone release. I can predict the next finding: the ant colony estimates the ratio of soldiers by analyzing the concentration of a pheramone the soldiers release within the colony and adjust fetal ratios appropriately. A great example of design.

Natures wonders: raising larvae on putrefying corpses

by David Turell @, Monday, October 15, 2018, 21:29 (1981 days ago) @ David Turell

The burying beetle stores up dead animals to use as food for their larvae. The problem is to prevent putrefaction and they have a solution:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-beetle-larvae-carrion.html

"The burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides buries the cadavers of small animals in soil to use them as a food source for its offspring. However, the carcass and thus the breeding site are highly susceptible to microbial decomposition and putrefaction, resulting in the production of toxic substances, the growth of microbial pathogens and nutrient loss. In a new study, researchers from the Max-Planck-Institute for Chemical Ecology, the University of Mainz and the University of Giessen, Germany, show that Nicrophorus vespilloides beetles are able to replace harmful microorganisms with their own beneficial gut symbionts, thus turning a carcass into a nursery with a microbial community that even promotes larval growth.

" A team of scientists has now found that the burying beetle Nicrophorus vespilloides preserves the food source for its offspring by inoculating it with beneficial microbes from its own gut.

***

"'Utilization of carcasses did not involve suppression of microbes, but the replacement of the native microbial community with the beetles' gut microbes. For example, tended carcasses showed suppression of a soil-associated mold but the growth of a beetle-associated yeast. This shift in microbial communities resulted in biochemical changes in beetle-tended carcasses," explains first author Shantanu Shukla from the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology.

***

"'Our study shows how insects can modify their habitats by culturing their symbionts both in their guts as well as outside on a breeding resource to increase fitness. The burying beetle is a fascinating example of symbiont-enabled exploitation of challenging resources," senior author Heiko Vogel summarizes."

Comment: The microbiome of the beetle gut controls the putrefaction of the carrion. One can only wonder how the beetle discovered this method of feeding its larvae. Could they have been guided or did they accidentally poop on the carcasses with a lucky result?

Natures wonders: attracting animals to eat fruit

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 16, 2018, 15:09 (1981 days ago) @ David Turell

It can be done by smell or color and help the plant to disperse seed as the animal defecates:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/science/fruit-color-evolution.html?emc=edit_th_18101...

"The monkeys and apes in Uganda have tricolor vision like humans, and the birds have even better vision. But most lemurs in Madagascar can only see the blue-yellow spectrum — they’re red-green colorblind, and rely more on their strong senses of smell for many behaviors.

"So the researchers collected ripe and unripe fruits and foliage and analyzed their colors with a spectrometer. With a model based on the visual capacities of the seed-dispersing animals, they also determined who was most likely to detect different fruit colors contrasting against an assortment of backgrounds.

"They found the colors of each fruit were optimized against their natural backdrops to meet the demands of the visual systems of their primary seed dispersers. In Uganda, fruits contrasting with foliage in colors on the red-green spectrum — say that red berry in a green cluster — popped for birds and monkeys whose eyes can see them.

"But in Madagascar, fruit with blue-yellow contrasts — like those yellow berries — could be best detected by red-green colorblind lemurs (and some birds, too).

"In Dr. Nevo’s scent study, his team collected hundreds of ripe and unripe fruits from Ranomafana — about a third dispersed solely by visually challenged lemurs and the rest by other lemurs and the park’s few visually gifted birds. He suspected the lemur-eaten fruits would have a greater difference in odor after they ripened than the bird-eaten fruits.

"To find out, he extracted their odors using the “semi-static headspace technique.” Sealed in oven bags, chemical fruit odors built up and were then pumped out, trapped and analyzed.

"They confirmed that fruits dispersed solely by lemurs produced more chemicals and a greater assortment of compounds upon ripening. And in the wild, lemurs spent more time sniffing these same fruits with big differences in ripe versus unripe odors. To the researchers, this suggested the differences could signal, “I’m here. Eat me,” to creatures otherwise possibly unable to see them.

"These results may only be extreme, localized cases supporting the hypothesis that plants and seed-dispersers evolve together. But the researchers see additional clues in a relationship between forest elephants in the Uganda park and Balanites wilsoniana, a tree that might not be able to survive without them.

"When ripe, Dr. Valenta said she could detect the “fermented gym sock” odor of the tree’s large fruits for miles. Elephants — with huge noses and more olfactory receptor genes than any other known animal on Earth — gobble up the fallen fruits (they may make them feel tipsy too).

"Only elephants can swallow the fruits and defecate the equally large seeds whole. And this plant won’t reproduce unless it passes through an elephant’s gut, Dr. Valenta said. This type of mutual dependence is seen in well-established flower-pollinator relationships, but it’s rare to find in fruit-seed-disperser relationships.

***

"In other parts of the world, related birds of paradise plants produce red or yellow coated seeds easily detectable to birds. But in Madagascar, where traveler’s palm is native, the seeds are brilliant blue and particularly detectable to aye-ayes, a kind of rat-cat-bat-looking lemur with an enhanced capacity to detect ultraviolet light, according to Dr. Valenta.

***

"The seeds of many plants — the traveler’s palm likely included — also contain a laxative, urging whatever eats them to hastily expel them, undigested, “with a nice pile of runny fertilizer,” said Jonathan Drori, author of “Around the World in 80 Trees.”

"Aye-ayes and other lemurs are also pollinators, using their strength to open the palm’s sturdy nectar packages, ensuring the plant can produce seeds in the first place.

“'If something happened to those lemurs, those trees, at least in the wild, would become extinct,” Mr. Drori said."

Comment: Fascinating interdependence in the balance of nature, which is beautifully illustrated in this article. Note 'red in tooth and claw' is not involved. Lots of balance in nature is not competitive killing.

Natures wonders: attracting animals to eat fruit

by dhw, Wednesday, October 17, 2018, 10:39 (1980 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: Fascinating interdependence in the balance of nature, which is beautifully illustrated in this article. Note 'red in tooth and claw' is not involved. Lots of balance in nature is not competitive killing.

It’s about time you caught up with Lynn Margulis, who pointed out 50 years ago that cooperation was just as important as competition.

Natures wonders: attracting animals to eat fruit

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 17, 2018, 15:04 (1980 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID’s comment: Fascinating interdependence in the balance of nature, which is beautifully illustrated in this article. Note 'red in tooth and claw' is not involved. Lots of balance in nature is not competitive killing.

dhw: It’s about time you caught up with Lynn Margulis, who pointed out 50 years ago that cooperation was just as important as competition.

I been touting balance of nature all along, and you've down played it!

Natures wonders: some birds sleep in flight

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 18, 2018, 18:18 (1979 days ago) @ David Turell

Especially true in sea birds:

http://maxplanck.nautil.us/article/326/first-evidence-of-sleep-in-flight?utm_source=Nau...

"It is known that some swifts, songbirds, sandpipers, and seabirds fly non-stop for several days, weeks, or months as they traverse the globe. Given the adverse effect sleep loss has on performance, it is commonly assumed that these birds must fulfill their daily need for sleep on the wing.

"How might a bird sleep in flight without colliding with obstacles or falling from the sky? One solution would be to only switch off half of the brain at a time, as Rattenborg showed in mallard ducks sleeping in a dangerous situation on land. When sleeping at the edge of a group, mallards keep one cerebral hemisphere awake and the corresponding eye open and directed away from the other birds, toward a potential threat. Based on these findings and the fact that dolphins can swim while sleeping unihemispherically, it is commonly assumed that birds also rely on this sort of autopilot to navigate and maintain aerodynamic control during flight. (my bold)

"How might a bird sleep in flight without colliding with obstacles or falling from the sky? One solution would be to only switch off half of the brain at a time, as Rattenborg showed in mallard ducks sleeping in a dangerous situation on land. Based on these findings and the fact that dolphins can swim while sleeping unihemispherically, it is commonly assumed that birds also rely on this sort of autopilot to navigate and maintain aerodynamic control during flight.

***

"To actually determine whether and how birds sleep in flight, the researchers needed to record the changes in brain activity and behavior that distinguish wakefulness from the two types of sleep found in birds: slow wave sleep (SWS) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Niels Rattenborg teamed up with Alexei Vyssotski (University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH) who developed a small device to measure electroencephalographic changes in brain activity and head movements in flying birds.

" the team focused on great frigatebirds nesting on the Galápagos Island. Frigatebirds are large seabirds that spend weeks flying non-stop over the ocean in search of flying fish and squid driven to the surface by predatory fish and cetaceans. The researchers temporarily attached the small “flight data recorder” to the head of nesting female frigatebirds. The birds then carried the recorder during non-stop foraging flights lasting up to 10 days and 3,000 kilometers. During this time, the recorder registered the EEG activity of both brain hemispheres and movements of the head, while a GPS device on the birds’ back tracked their position and altitude. After the birds were back on land and had had some time to recover, they were re-caught and the equipment was removed.

"The flight data recorder revealed that frigatebirds sleep in both expected and unexpected ways during flight. During the day the birds stayed awake actively searching for foraging opportunities. As the sun set, the awake EEG pattern switched to a SWS pattern for periods lasting up to several minutes while the birds were soaring. Surprisingly, SWS could occur in one hemisphere at a time or both hemispheres together. The presence of such bihemispheric sleep indicates that unihemispheric sleep is not required to maintain aerodynamic control. Nonetheless, when compared to sleep on land, SWS was more often unihemispheric in flight. By carefully examining the movements of the frigatebirds, the researchers discovered clues to why they sleep unihemispherically in flight. When the birds circled on rising air currents the hemisphere connected to the eye facing the direction of the turn was typically awake while the other was asleep, suggesting that the birds were watching where they were going. “The frigatebirds may be keeping an eye out for other birds to prevent collisions much like ducks keep an eye out for predators,” says Rattenborg.

***

"Perhaps the greatest surprise was that despite being able to engage in all types of sleep on the wing, on average frigatebirds slept only 42 minutes per day. In contrast, when back on land they slept for over 12 hours per day. In addition, episodes of sleep were longer and deeper on land. Collectively, this suggests that frigatebirds are actually sleep deprived in flight. “Why they sleep so little in flight, even at night when they rarely forage, remains unclear,” says Rattenborg. As previous studies have shown that frigatebirds follow ocean eddies predictive of good foraging conditions throughout the day and night, perhaps this is what they are up to. Interestingly, the low amount of sleep in flight suggests that this task requires more attention than that afforded by sleeping with one half of the brain at a time. As such, frigatebirds face ecological demands for full attention 24/7 while at sea."

Comment: This ability in birds and dolphins cannot be developed by chance attempts. I can only conceive of the phenomenon as designed. If this happens in dolphins, I assume it is true for whales, manatees and other sea going mammals. It adds to the complexity of land to sea conversions. Why bother?

Natures wonders: how dandelion seeds fly

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 18, 2018, 18:35 (1979 days ago) @ David Turell

By using air vortices from their filament shapes :

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07084-8?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...

"When some animals, aeroplanes or seeds fly, rings of circulating air called vortices form in contact with their wings or wing-like surfaces. These vortices can help to maintain the forces that lift the animal, machine or seed into the air.

"Dandelion seeds bear filaments that radiate out from a central stalk like the spokes on a bicycle wheel, a feature that seems to be the key to their flight. Many insects harbour such filter-like structures on their wings or legs, suggesting that the use of detached vortices for flight or swimming might be relatively common, says study co-author Naomi Nakayama, a plant scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK

***

"To find the answer, Nakayama and her colleagues put dandelion seeds in a vertical wind tunnel and used a laser to illuminate particles that helped to visualize the airflow around the seed.

"That’s when they saw the vortex floating above the seeds. The amount of open space between the seed’s spokes seems to be the key to the stability of these detached vortices, says study co-author Cathal Cummins, an applied mathematician at the University of Edinburgh. Pressure differences between the air moving through the spokes and the air moving around the seed creates the vortex ring.

"Previous studies have found that dandelion seeds always have between 90 and 110 bristles, says Nakayama. It’s “scary consistent”, and that consistency turns out to be very important.

"When the team designed small silicon discs to imitate these spokes, they produced models with a range of openings: from solid discs to ones that were 92% air, like the structures on the dandelion seeds. When the researchers tested these model seeds in their wind tunnel, they found that only the discs that best approximated dandelion seeds could maintain the detached vortex.

"If the number of openings in the discs was even 10% off of those in dandelion seeds, the vortex destabilized. The seed looks inefficient for flight because it has so much open space, says Nakayama, but these openings are what allow the unattached vortex ring to remain stable."

Comment: It is not possible that the exact design of the filaments occurred by chance. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: powerful mantis shrimp punch

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 18, 2018, 23:46 (1978 days ago) @ David Turell

Like hit with a .22 caliber bullet:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2182882-mantis-shrimps-punch-with-the-force-of-a-b...

The mantis shrimp packs a mean punch, smashing its victims’ shells with the force of a .22 caliber bullet. But that’s not because it has particularly powerful muscles – instead of big biceps, it has arms that are naturally spring-loaded, allowing it to swing its fistlike clubs to speeds up to 23 metres per second.

"We know that the key part of a mantis shrimp’s punch is a saddle-shaped structure on the arm just above the shrimp’s club. This shape works a bit like a bow and arrow, says Ali Miserez at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore: the muscles pull on the saddle to bend it like an archer’s bow, and when it is released that energy transfers into the club.

"Miserez and his colleagues used a series of tiny pokes and prods, as well as a computer model, to examine exactly how the shrimp’s saddle holds all that energy without snapping. They found that it works because of a two-layer structure. The top layer is made of a ceramic material similar to bone, and the bottom is made of mostly plastic-like biopolymers.

"When the saddle is bent, the top layer gets compressed and the bottom layer is stretched. The ceramic can hold a lot of energy when it is compressed, but is brittle when bent and stretched. The biopolymers are stronger and stretchier, so they hold the whole thing together.

“'It explains how the shrimps’ appendage breaks things without breaking itself,” says Foivos Koukouvinis at City University of London in the UK.

"The researchers also found that the saddle shape itself is important: a strip cut out of a mantis shrimp saddle could not store nearly as much energy, and the strain was concentrated in certain spots rather than spread out evenly. The saddle had a smooth distribution of strain, so no single spot was more likely to break."

Comment: It is used to break shelled sea creatures in order to eat. It is made of clever materials. Since this provided food for the shrimp, how did they survive before the claw was developed? More than likely when the shrimp appeared they were designed this way.

Natures wonders: powerful mantis shrimp punch

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 18, 2018, 23:51 (1978 days ago) @ David Turell

Like hit with a .22 caliber bullet:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2182882-mantis-shrimps-punch-with-the-force-of-a-b...

The mantis shrimp packs a mean punch, smashing its victims’ shells with the force of a .22 caliber bullet. But that’s not because it has particularly powerful muscles – instead of big biceps, it has arms that are naturally spring-loaded, allowing it to swing its fistlike clubs to speeds up to 23 metres per second.

"We know that the key part of a mantis shrimp’s punch is a saddle-shaped structure on the arm just above the shrimp’s club. This shape works a bit like a bow and arrow, says Ali Miserez at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore: the muscles pull on the saddle to bend it like an archer’s bow, and when it is released that energy transfers into the club.

"Miserez and his colleagues used a series of tiny pokes and prods, as well as a computer model, to examine exactly how the shrimp’s saddle holds all that energy without snapping. They found that it works because of a two-layer structure. The top layer is made of a ceramic material similar to bone, and the bottom is made of mostly plastic-like biopolymers.

"When the saddle is bent, the top layer gets compressed and the bottom layer is stretched. The ceramic can hold a lot of energy when it is compressed, but is brittle when bent and stretched. The biopolymers are stronger and stretchier, so they hold the whole thing together.

“'It explains how the shrimps’ appendage breaks things without breaking itself,” says Foivos Koukouvinis at City University of London in the UK.

"The researchers also found that the saddle shape itself is important: a strip cut out of a mantis shrimp saddle could not store nearly as much energy, and the strain was concentrated in certain spots rather than spread out evenly. The saddle had a smooth distribution of strain, so no single spot was more likely to break."

Comment: It is used to stun sea creatures and break shells in order to eat. It is made of clever materials. Since this provided food for the shrimp, how did they survive before the claw was developed? More than likely when the shrimp appeared they were designed this way.

Natures wonders: insect hibernation

by David Turell @, Monday, October 22, 2018, 21:37 (1974 days ago) @ David Turell

Only its called diapause:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-insects-prepare-for-winter/?utm_s...

"Insect diapause is a lot like hibernation, but there are some differences. The main difference is that mammals remain active until winter is well established and temperatures are frigid, but insects that enter diapause become dormant in the autumn well before it gets too cold for them to function. Another difference is that mammals can sometimes rouse themselves for short periods of activity during the winter, but once an insect enters diapause it will remain dormant until spring even though the weather might be suitable for normal growth and development.

***

"When insects enter diapause, they stop developing and spend a prolonged period in a single developmental stage. All insects start as embryos inside an egg and proceed through their life cycle becoming larvae, pupae (when metamorphosis occurs) and finally adults. As a group, insects can enter diapause at any stage, but the stage when each species enters diapause is programmed in their genes. The Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, which is involved in spreading diseases like dengue fever, and the silkworm, Bombyx mori, which is important for silk production, both enter diapause as embryos. The corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea, which can put a damper on your summer barbecue if you find one in your ear of corn, enters diapause in the pupal stage. The mosquito Culex pipiens, which spreads West Nile virus, enters diapause during the adult stage; and it is only the females that can survive the winter.

"In addition to developmental arrest, entering diapause includes a reduction in metabolic rate that is sometimes so extreme that oxygen consumption is almost undetectable. This, together with arrested development, reduces the insect’s need burn the stores of fats and carbohydrates that are built up before they become dormant. This makes fuel stores last longer and insures there is enough gas in the tank, so to speak, when it is time to restart normal activities in the spring. The energy saved can also be channeled toward producing proteins, sugar alcohols and other substances that act like antifreeze and keep delicate membranes and other structures in the body from being damaged by cold, dehydration or insufficient oxygen.

***

"Knowledge of genome structure and function has led to some significant breakthroughs in our understanding of the specific genes or gene networks that are turned on and off before, during and after diapause. We know, for example, that changes in how insulin is produced and used is important for diapause. We’ve also learned that changes in the regulation of proteins that govern the circadian clock (the internal system that measures day length) are important for deciding if it is time to prepare for diapause."

Comment: This process is not fully understood but is under study. This process saves insects over the hard time of winter. It could not have developed stepwise by chance or the insects would not have survived. with the necessary complex metabolic changes involved, Only design explains this.

Natures wonders: spider silk magical strength

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 24, 2018, 20:13 (1972 days ago) @ David Turell

It depends on certain protein structures too complex for us to imitate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/22/secret-superstrong-webs-traced-tiny-s...

" A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals the building blocks of these fibers within the glands of black widow spiders, Latrodectus hesperus.

"The researchers observed that globs of proteins aggregate into never-before-seen complex structures. They’re tiny aggregations, some no more than 200 nanometers in diameter. But when spiders squeeze these teensy globs through their faucet-head-like nozzles, called spinnerets, at the base of their abdomen, the clumps become fibers that stretch for foot after foot.

“'Spider silk materials are better than any of the polymers we have in terms of their material properties,” said Gregory Holland, an analytical chemist at San Diego State University and one of the authors of the new report. These materials are “completely biodegradable,” he said, and have the potential to replace plastic “any place you see it.”

***

"Researchers predicted that silk proteins while floating loose in the spider glands might clump together in bubbles called micelles. The authors of the new report found something more complex. They described the structures as “nanoscale hierarchical assemblies.” Put another way, they found bubbles, as predicted, but the bubbles had clumped together in an unexpected fashion.

"Nature uses hierarchical assemblies all the time. Gianneschi offered a simplified example: “This would be almost like looking at a single petal on a flower. The single individual petals have structure, and they’re very interesting on their own, but when we see them in nature, we see them as an array.” If a micelle was a petal, the assembly was the flower.

"Currently, researchers can synthesize spider silk proteins, which are purified into a powder. These proteins are mixed with liquid, like adding water to cake mix. The trick is trying to spin the protein batter into fibers as strong as a spider’s.

"In early 2017, a team of researchers announced that it had created a process to spin long artificial spider silk fibers. The technique could produce strands a kilometer in length. Janne Johansson and Anna Rising, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who helped develop the method, wrote a joint statement to The Washington Post to evaluate the research released this week: This study paints “a more detailed picture of how spider silk proteins” go from a dissolved substance in the glands to a fiber, Johansson and Rising said.

"Even with this study, scientists won’t be able to create better spider silk tomorrow. “But it will definitely provide models which the research community now can use to formulate new hypotheses for how to design [spider proteins] that can be produced in the laboratory and how to treat them and spin them,” Johansson and Rising said."

Comment: As usual nature is smarter than we are. This complex system certainly looks designed.

Natures wonders: caterpillar to snake like shape

by David Turell @, Monday, October 29, 2018, 21:37 (1967 days ago) @ David Turell

This little guy if disturbed mimics a pit viper down to the white spots. See video:

https://youtu.be/ZzpY3gJgXQw

Not by chance!

Natures wonders: spider web shapes evolved

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 20:04 (1965 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders have been around for a very long time an d have chased insects as they learned to fly:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sticky-science-the-evolution-of-spider-webs/...

"It may seem silly to fear a little spider—but the predator’s appearances in horror movies make more sense when you consider the precision, skill and creativity it employs to target its prey. Spiders’ venom-injecting fangs and the pointy claws tipping their segmented legs are menacing enough, but their innovative use of silk to ensnare victims may be the biggest reason to be grateful they are small.

“'They’re absolute masters of using silk,” says Paul Selden, an arachnologist and paleontologist at the University of Kansas. Other creepie-crawlies make the stuff, too—silkworms use it pupate in, some ants make nests from it—but, says Selden, “they don’t have the great variety of uses that spiders do.”

"Orb weavers, sometimes classified along with their descendants into a grouping called Orbiculariae, comprise about a quarter of the more than 45,000 known spider species. Their webs typically feature the classic concentric circle and spoke-like strands that radiate from a hub. But some Orbiculariae members spin novelties.

***

"Scientists are still working to classify this diversity and understand how it got here, says Selden, who coauthored a review on spider web evolution in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. This picture from the review hints at a general evolutionary progression as one moves up the tree, and highlights a pivotal event: As insects took to flight, spiders chased up after them, placing their snares higher in the air.

"The webs continued to diversify as insects evolved ways to escape this clade of predators. Scoloderus’ ladder web, which sports an elongated, crosshatched netting above a typical, circular orb, is specialized to target moths, which would normally escape a sticky web by shedding protective scales. The ladder portion keeps the moth tumbling—and will trap it when the scales have all flaked off. The triangle spider (Hyptiotes) optimizes its attack by releasing the long-thread portion of its web when an insect hits the main, cone-shaped portion. As a result, the web collapses and envelops the target, like a camping tent that has suddenly lost its poles.

***

"Clues about the evolution of web-building behavior have come in part from fossil evidence. Webs and other silken structures typically don’t fossilize well (though occasionally, scientists have found strands of silk and clumps of web preserved in amber), so researchers often rely on the connections they can make between present-day spider morphology and behavior to tell them something about spiders and proto-spiders of the past.

"For example, today’s sheet web builders (such as the Agelena group pictured, and funnel-web spiders of the Ischnothele genus) lay blankets of webbing across grass and other vegetation and tend to exhibit unusually long spinnerets. Just this year, scientists noted similarly long spinnerets in the recently discovered fossilized remains of ancient arachnids. Thus, “at least one hypothesis would be that they built a type of sheet web,” says Bond. “Maybe sheet webs are the type of web that’s ancestral for all spiders.”

***

"The mind-boggling diversity of spider strategies shouldn’t come as such a surprise when one considers that they have had hundreds of millions of years to evolve—researchers have found fossils of spiders that were scuttling around more than 150 million years before the dinosaurs.

“'You’re talking about 50,000 species of things that are all nearly exclusively predatory,” says Bond. “Spiders have devised all sorts of ways of killing insects.'”

Comment: The intricate geometric designs of the webs suggest these guys were helped in their designs as ell as the different forms of their silk..

Natures wonders: spider web shapes evolved

by dhw, Thursday, November 01, 2018, 11:17 (1965 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The intricate geometric designs of the webs suggest these guys were helped in their designs as ell as the different forms of their silk..

Wonderful article. Thank you. And yes, I can just imagine God popping in to give web-design lessons to “help” 50,000 classes of spiders (essential for his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens). But I can also imagine spiders working out for themselves the best ways to trap whatever prey they are after. Can’t you?

Natures wonders: spider web shapes evolved

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 01, 2018, 18:17 (1965 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The intricate geometric designs of the webs suggest these guys were helped in their designs as ell as the different forms of their silk..

dhw: Wonderful article. Thank you. And yes, I can just imagine God popping in to give web-design lessons to “help” 50,000 classes of spiders (essential for his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens). But I can also imagine spiders working out for themselves the best ways to trap whatever prey they are after. Can’t you?

Spiders have no relation to human brains other than they are part of the necessary balance of nature. God's purpose is much grander than brains. The entire human organism is an amazing advance over the apes. The only way spiders could design their webs on their own is trial and error. With enough errors spiders would not have survived. I suspect each type appeared with a web designed for them.

Natures wonders: spider web shapes evolved

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, November 02, 2018, 15:30 (1964 days ago) @ David Turell

Comment: The intricate geometric designs of the webs suggest these guys were helped in their designs as ell as the different forms of their silk..

Spiders are truly amazing, as are the mental gymnastics for the evolutionary claims here. Based solely on elongated spinnerettes, they are laying out groundwork for the ancestral behavior of the species 150 MA.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: spider web shapes evolved

by David Turell @, Friday, November 02, 2018, 19:39 (1963 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David Comment: The intricate geometric designs of the webs suggest these guys were helped in their designs as ell as the different forms of their silk..


Tony: Spiders are truly amazing, as are the mental gymnastics for the evolutionary claims here. Based solely on elongated spinnerettes, they are laying out groundwork for the ancestral behavior of the species 150 MA.

An amazingly complex organ with an amazing product. Not by chance!

Natures wonders: caterpillar fungus combined attack

by David Turell @, Monday, November 05, 2018, 21:14 (1960 days ago) @ David Turell

By accident or by design thev two organisms help each other to attack plants:

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-caterpillar-fungus-cahoots-threaten-fruit.html

"New research reveals that Aspergillus flavus, a fungus that produces carcinogenic aflatoxins that can contaminate seeds and nuts, has a multilegged partner in crime: the navel orangeworm caterpillar, which targets some of the same nut and fruit orchards afflicted by the fungus. Scientists report in the Journal of Chemical Ecology that the two pests work in concert to overcome plant defenses and resist pesticides.

"'It turns out that the caterpillar grows better with the fungus; the fungus grows better with the caterpillar," said University of Illinois entomology professor and department head May Berenbaum.

***

"'The fungus is an incredibly opportunistic pathogen. It infects all kind of plants. It also infects animals on occasion, including humans," Berenbaum said. "And it's very, very good at breaking down toxins."

"The caterpillar, Amyelois transitella, also is an opportunistic feeder. Unlike most insect larvae, it somehow overcomes the defenses of a variety of host plants, including almonds, pistachios and figs. The caterpillar chews its way in and contaminates the fruits and nuts with its excrement and webbing. It also opens the door to A. flavus infection. Unlike many other insects, the navel orangeworm caterpillar can metabolize aflatoxin, making it immune to this toxic fungal byproduct, Berenbaum said.

"Prior to the new study, researchers and growers had observed coinfection with the fungus and the caterpillar, but did not know whether the two simply tolerated one another or worked together in a mutualistic partnership.

***

"The tests revealed that the caterpillars developed much more rapidly in the presence of the fungus, regardless of the natural or man-made toxins that were also present. Larvae exposed to the plant defensive compound xanthotoxin developed nearly twice as fast when the fungus was also present. Larvae fed a diet containing xanthotoxin or bergapten—another phytochemical in the same class as xanthotoxin—also lived much longer in the presence of the fungus than when exposed to the chemicals alone.

"The caterpillars differed in their response to pesticides—with and without their fungal partner. The pesticide-susceptible caterpillars had higher mortality in the presence of the pesticide and fungus than when exposed to the pesticide alone. Pesticide-resistant caterpillars were unaffected by the pesticide, whether or not the fungus was present.

"When the researchers incubated the fungus with the pesticide bifenthrin before the caterpillars came on the scene, however, caterpillar mortality went down. This suggests A. flavus detoxifies bifenthrin, which helps the caterpillar, the researchers wrote.

"'It's very likely that this caterpillar has managed to colonize so many new crops because its partner fungus can break down the chemical defenses of the tree crops that it encounters," Berenbaum said. "It's also giving this caterpillar an extra edge because the fungus is breaking down some of the pesticides that growers are using to combat the caterpillar.'"

Comment: A most unusual partnership math many well have developed by chance.

Natures wonders: moth fur protects them from bats

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 08, 2018, 23:37 (1957 days ago) @ David Turell

New research removed the fur and showed the purpos:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181106171822.htm

"While some moths have evolved ears that detect the ultrasonic calls of bats, many types of moths remain deaf. In those moths, Neil has found that the insects developed types of "stealth coating" that serve as acoustic camouflage to evade hungry bats.

***

"In his presentation, Neil will focus on how fur on a moth's thorax and wing joints provide acoustic stealth by reducing the echoes of these body parts from bat calls.

"'Thoracic fur provides substantial acoustic stealth at all ecologically relevant ultrasonic frequencies," said Neil, a researcher at Bristol University. "The thorax fur of moths acts as a lightweight porous sound absorber, facilitating acoustic camouflage and offering a significant survival advantage against bats." Removing the fur from the moth's thorax increased its detection risk by as much as 38 percent.

"Neil used acoustic tomography to quantify echo strength in the spatial and frequency domains of two deaf moth species that are subject to bat predation and two butterfly species that are not.

"In comparing the effects of removing thorax fur from insects that serve as food for bats to those that don't, Neil's research team found that thoracic fur determines acoustic camouflage of moths but not butterflies.

"'We found that the fur on moths was both thicker and denser than that of the butterflies, and these parameters seem to be linked with the absorptive performance of their respective furs," Neil said. "The thorax fur of the moths was able to absorb up to 85 percent of the impinging sound energy. The maximum absorption we found in butterflies was just 20 percent."

***

"'Moth fur is thin and lightweight," said Neil, "and acts as a broadband and multidirectional ultrasound absorber that is on par with the performance of current porous sound-absorbing foams.'"

Comment: The authors say this evolved in typical Darwin fashion. I don't know how they know since there is no series of moth fossils. Logically if moths and bats coexisted from the beginning, the moths came designed with their fur, or we wouldn't find any moths.

Natures wonders: termite mounds in huge area of Brazil

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 20, 2018, 15:05 (1946 days ago) @ David Turell

With deforestation an area the size of Great Britain is found in Brazil:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/4000-year-old-termite-mounds-visible-from-space

"Thanks to deforestation, scientists have spotted an expanse of termite mounds in Brazil that are each about 2.5 metres tall, nine metres across, and regularly spaced across an area the size of Great Britain.

"Described in the journal Current Biology, the mounds, still in use, are so large that they can be easily seen on Google Earth.

“'This is apparently the world's most extensive bioengineering effort by a single insect species,” says co-author Roy Funch of Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana in Brazil.
“Perhaps most exciting of all, the mounds are extremely old — up to 4000 years, similar to the ages of the pyramids."

"Over thousands over years, the termites, from the genus Orthognathotermes, excavated roughly 10 cubic kilometres of soil while digging “a network of interconnected underground tunnels” and depositing the soil into these mounds.

"Funch and colleagues estimate there are some 200 million mounds, which are located in the scrubby and thorny “caatinga” forests of northeastern Brazil, where 50% of the original tree cover has been altered for agriculture use, particularly pasture.

"After being exposed, the mounds caught the eye of the scientific community.
The researchers speculated that the “strangely regular” pattern of the mounds could have been the result of competition between termites. But when they conducted behavioural tests, they found “little aggression at the mound level”.

"Instead, they propose that the pattern is the result of “self-organisational processes”.
The reason behind the mound spacing remains a mystery, according to the researchers. They note that a queen chamber has yet to be found, so it is unclear how the colonies are physically structured."

Comment: Apparently never disturbed by environmental or human events.

Natures wonders: nursing spiders feed young

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 29, 2018, 22:21 (1936 days ago) @ David Turell

Mammals are not the only nursing mothers:

https://gizmodo.com/spider-mothers-produce-milk-for-their-young-incredible-1830740895

"Jumping spider mothers provide milk to their spiderlings far into development, according to a new study that might turn your understanding of invertebrate parenting on its head.

***

"Then, they noticed that spiderlings didn’t leave the nest until they were around 21 days old, during which time the mother was never observed bringing back food while the young spiders grew larger.

***

"They looked more closely and noticed that the mother was secreting a liquid from its upper abdomen onto the surface of the nest, which the spiderlings ate. After a week, the spiderlings sucked the milk directly from the mother. Even though they were able to leave the nest and feed themselves after 20 days, they continued suckling the milk for another 18 days. If these were humans, they’d be featured on a cable TV program. Once the spiderlings matured, the mother attacked the males that returned while females were still allowed in, perhaps to prevent inbreeding, according to the study published today in Science.

***

"Scientists have observed other non-mammals producing milk-like secretions before, such as pigeons, cockroaches, and tsetse flies; earwigs also provide extended care to their young, said Joshua Benoit, also an assistant professor from the University of Cincinnati who was not involved with the study. He was impressed with and convinced by the research, but thought that maybe it’s time we rethink who we attribute nursing young to. After all, invertebrates make up over 95 percent of the Earth’s species.

“'Production of milk-like system may have evolved more times in invertebrate systems than in vertebrates,” said Benoit.

***

"The work serves as a reminder that mammals aren’t the only animals that care for their young, and others do so in ways that should be appreciated. Morehouse felt it was time to look for more examples of milk production in invertebrates. He said: “The take-home message for me is that this study punctures the specialness of mammals.'”

Comment: Just more evidence of convergence

Natures wonders: insect ears are like ours

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 01, 2018, 01:40 (1935 days ago) @ David Turell

More evidence of convergence:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/awesome-ears-the-weird-world-of-insect-heari...

"The renown of this katydid rests not on its looks, though, but on its hearing. Montealegre-Z’s meticulous studies of the magnificent insect revealed that it has ears uncannily like ours, with entomological versions of eardrums, ossicles and cochleas to help it pick up and analyze sounds.

"Katydids—there are thousands of species—have the smallest ears of any animal, one on each front leg just below the “knee.” But their small size and seemingly strange location belie the sophisticated structure and impressive capabilities of these organs: to detect the ultrasonic clicks of hunting bats, pick out the signature songs of prospective mates, and home in on dinner. One Australian katydid has capitalized on its auditory prowess to capture prey in a very devious way: It lures male cicadas within striking distance by mimicking the female part of the cicada mating duet—a trick requiring it to recognize complex patterns of sound and precisely when to chip in.

***

"When insects first appeared some 400 million years ago, they were deaf, Göpfert tells me. These ancestral insects went on to diversify into more than 900,000 species, and while most remain as deaf as their ancestors, some gained the means to hear. Of the 30 major insect orders, nine (at last count) include some that hear, and hearing has evolved more than once in some orders—at least six times among butterflies and moths. The 350,000 species of that most dazzlingly diverse group, the beetles, are almost all deaf, yet the few that have ears acquired them through two separate lines of evolution. All told, insect ears arose more than 20 separate times, a sure-fire recipe for variety.

***

"Katydid ears, as so neatly demonstrated by Montealegre-Z and his colleagues, are unique both in their complexity and their similarity to a mammal’s. Using a micro-CT scanner, the scientists reconstructed the insect’s entire hearing system, discovering two previously unknown organs in the process. The first is a small, hard plate behind the eardrums; the second, a fluid-filled tube containing a line of sensory cells. Through painstaking investigation that included shining lasers at the eardrum and recording the light bouncing back, the team showed that the small plate transmits vibrations in the insect’s eardrum to the fluid in the tube—the same role played by the bones in our middle ear. The signal then travels in a wave along the tube and over sensory cells tuned to different frequencies—making this organ a miniature, uncoiled version of our own, snail-shaped cochlea.

***

"Katydids solved the problem (again, in a unique way) by enlarging a breathing tube that runs from a pore in the side of the chest to the knee; sound reaches the eardrums both from outside the body and from the inside via the tube. Montealegre-Z and his colleagues showed that sound travels this inner, back route more slowly—so each sound hits the eardrum twice, but at slightly different times, dramatically improving the insect’s ability to locate the source.

***

"In modern insects, one of the primary functions of ears is to hear the approach of a predator in time to take action and avoid it. For night-flying insects, the greatest threat comes from insectivorous bats that detect and track prey with ultrasonic sonar, and so their hearing is tuned to the frequencies of the bats’ echolocating clicks. The insects then respond with characteristic moves to escape the sonar beam: sharp turns, loop-the loops, air-to-ground power dives. Certain tiger moths even jam the bat sonar with clicks of their own. Experiments have shown that bat-detecting ears dramatically improve an insect’s prospects of surviving attack: In one study, mantises escaped 76 percent of bat attacks, but that number fell to 34 percent when they were deafened."

Comment: An amazing example of convergence. I think God sets patterns which he uses over and over creating this parallelacism of results. There is lots more of interest in this giant article about insect hearing and how sound receptors are placed in all sorts of spots on the body.

Natures wonders: Dracula ant jaw speed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 18:51 (1924 days ago) @ David Turell

200 mph to stun prey:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181211192143.htm

" According to a new study, the Dracula ant, Mystrium camillae, can snap its mandibles at speeds of up to 90 meters per second (more than 200 mph), making it the fastest animal movement on record.

"'The high accelerations of Mystrium strikes likely result in high-impact forces necessary for predatory or defensive behaviors," the researchers wrote in a report of their findings in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

***

"Unlike trap-jaw ants, whose powerful jaws snap closed from an open position, Dracula ants power up their mandibles by pressing the tips together, spring-loading them with internal stresses that release when one mandible slides across the other, similar to a human finger snap, the researchers said.

"'The ants use this motion to smack other arthropods, likely stunning them, smashing them against a tunnel wall or pushing them away. The prey is then transported back to the nest, where it is fed to the ants' larvae," Suarez said.

"'Scientists have described many different spring-loading mechanisms in ants, but no one knew the relative speed of each of these mechanisms," Larabee said. "We had to use incredibly fast cameras to see the whole movement. We also used X-ray imaging technology to be able to see their anatomy in three dimensions, to better understand how the movement works."

***

"'Our main findings are that snap-jaws are the fastest of the spring-loaded ant mouthparts, and the fastest currently known animal movement," Larabee said. "By comparing the jaw shape of snapping ants with biting ants, we also learned that it only took small changes in shape for the jaws to evolve a new function: acting as a spring."

"The team's future work includes examining how the ants use their mandibles in the field.
"Their biology, how they capture prey and defend their nests, is still in need of description," Smith said."

Comment: What yet is not known is how the jaws protect themselves from the force they use. They had to be developed at the same time the spring mechanism was formed. For example the woodpecker's brain is protected from pecking, previously described here.

Natures wonders: gulls change wing shape

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 02, 2019, 18:19 (1903 days ago) @ David Turell

Helps them glide and fly i n different ways:

https://techxplore.com/news/2019-01-zoologists-reveal-gulls-wing-morph.html

"Although a gliding bird's ability to stabilize its flight path is as critical as its ability to produce lift, relatively few quantitative studies on avian flight stability have been completed. This is what brought UBC researchers Christina Harvey, Vikram Baliga and Professor Doug Altshuler to Lavoie's wind tunnel lab at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS).

"The researchers measured the lift and drag on 12 different wing shapes, all with slightly different elbow and shoulder angles. They determined that with a simple adjustment of a gull's elbow joints—either to expand its wings outwards or inwards—gulls are able to transition across a broad range of wing shapes to stabilize glide. When soaring, the wings are fully extended and have a more rounded shape, which increases their stability. When taking off or landing they are tucked in more and have a flatter shape.

"'If you can change the shape of the wings, you can create more stable configurations with lower drag when you want more endurance," says Lavoie. "Gulls can use updrafts to increase altitude so they don't have to flap their wings as much to conserve energy. But if they need to make quick maneuvers, like diving to catch fish, they can change the shape of the wing for that particular purpose.'"

Comment: It is not known if the original gulls had this ability from the beginning or developed it over time. If it wasn't present in the beginning they had trouble hunting over the oceans so one can wonder how they survived until they developed these adaptations of elbow joints which require exact design.

Natures wonders: archerfish recognize faces

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 08, 2019, 21:17 (1896 days ago) @ David Turell

The y shoot water at insects so they have the ability to recognize distant targets that have an insect shape. Trained by researchers they can pick out a particular person:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fishy-smarts-archerfish-can-recognize-human-...

"University of Oxford zoologist Cait Newport suspected the archerfish she was studying could recognize her. The tropical fish—known to spit jets of water at insect prey—would take aim at her when she walked into the laboratory.

"Newport and her colleagues showed in 2016 that her fish could indeed remember human visages. She trained them to spew water at a head-on view of a specific computer-rendered face, which they picked out 77 to 89 percent of the time. But the researchers did not know what would happen if the fish encountered a familiar face from unfamiliar angles. Now, in a study described last November in Animal Behaviour, they have demonstrated that the fish can recognize the same face turned to the side by 30, 60 and 90 degrees—a nontrivial task.

"The experiments were intended to probe how fish perceive three-dimensional objects, and faces are particularly interesting examples. “They’re complicated, they’re quite difficult to [process] even for computers and people—and when you rotate them, they change in a really interesting way,” Newport says.

***

"Archerfish might have different brain machinery from humans, but they are still able to extrapolate how objects might look from different angles—a crucial skill for hunting, navigating and spotting predators.

"Schluessel’s team and others have highlighted the visual capabilities of other fish: grey bamboo sharks can recognize shapes and navigate mazes from memory; the Ambon damselfish can see ultraviolet patterns invisible to humans on the faces of other fish; and angelfish can count. Now that we know some fish see us more clearly than we thought, maybe that should change how we see them."

Comment: As they spit drops of water at a moving insect, they have to also account for speed and trajectory. I suspect they were developed with this ability intact, as one can otherwise wonder how they ate before they developed this capacity for hunting, and what induced the development which needs great precision to perform. Perhaps designed by God makes sense.

Natures wonders: scuba-diving lizards

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 09, 2019, 20:12 (1895 days ago) @ David Turell

Found in Costa Rica. They rebreathe bubbles:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2189067-scuba-diving-lizard-can-stay-underwater-fo...

"A lizard that lives next to streams in the mountains of Costa Rica appears to have evolved a kind of scuba tank to help it stay underwater for long periods. It can remain submerged for at least 16 minutes, and blows out and re-inhales a large bubble of air while underwater.

***

"By breathing out a big bubble that envelops these air pockets and taking it back in, Swierk thinks the lizard may be extracting the oxygen from the pockets. “They are probably extracting lower concentrations of oxygen every time they’re respiring the air bubble, but it might just be enough to keep them underwater for long enough that they can escape a threat,” she says.

"Even though the bubble is relatively large, it remains attached to the lizard’s head rather than floating off to the surface. “The bubble is pretty huge,” says Swierk. “The shape of the head could be an adaptation to hold the air bubble in place.”

"Several aquatic insects and spiders have special adaptations that allow them to take bubbles of air underwater. In some cases, it has been shown that these bubbles actually function as gills — oxygen diffuses into the bubble from the surrounding water while carbon dioxide diffuses out.They don’t allow animals to stay underwater indefinitely, however, as the bubbles shrink as the nitrogen in them dissolves into the water.

"It is possible that the lizard’s bubble functions as a gill too, says Swierk, but she is not convinced this is the case. She is now looking for collaborators to carry out further studies.

"Swierk first noticed the lizards (Anolis aquaticus) in 2015 while walking near mountain streams in Costa Rica. “They would jump into the water as we approached.”

"Her team also noticed they would sometimes dive and remain underwater for long periods. Analysis of their stomach contents revealed that some were feeding on insects found almost exclusively underwater.

"So Swierk bought an underwater camera to see what they were doing. She has not seen the lizards catch any prey underwater, but did record the bubble-blowing.

"There is little doubt that the lizards swim and dive to avoid predators like birds. The longest dive the team has recorded so far is 16 minutes – and that individual swam away after they disturbed it. So it’s possible they can remain underwater even longer.

***

"Many amphibians can absorb oxygen from water through their skins, but there is no reason to think these lizards can do this, Swierk says."

Comment: learned behavior or designed? I can't see this learned bit by bit, and if the skull has a special shape for the bubble, as suggested, modification had to occur in one stage to allow for a learning curve in handling the bubble.

Natures wonders: dragonflies migrate like monarchs

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 20:45 (1894 days ago) @ David Turell

Same story over three generations:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/green-darner-dragonflies-migrate-bit-monarch-butter...

"The monarch butterfly isn’t the only insect flying up and down North America in a mind-boggling annual migration. Tests show a big, shimmering dragonfly takes at least three generations to make one year’s migratory loop.

***

"The study reveals that a first generation of insects emerges in the southern United States, Mexico and the Caribbean from about February to May and migrates north. Some of those Anax junius reach New England and the upper Midwest as early as March, says Hallworth, of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center headquartered in Washington, D.C.

"Those spring migrant darners lay eggs in ponds and other quiet waters in the north and eventually die in the region. This new generation migrates south from about July until late October, though they have never seen where they’re heading. Some of these darners fly south in the same year their parents arrived and some the next year, after overwintering as nymphs.

"A third generation emerges around November and lives entirely in the south during winter. It’s their offspring that start the cycle again by swarming northward as temperatures warm in the spring. With a wingspan as wide as a hand, they devote their whole lives to flying hundreds of kilometers to repeat a journey their great-grandparents made.

***

"Although the darners’ north-south migration story is similar to that of monarchs (Danaus plexippus), there are differences, says evolutionary biologist Hugh Dingle of the University of California, Davis, who has long studied these butterflies. Monarchs move northward in the spring in stepwise generations, instead of one generation sweeping all the way to the top of its range.

"Also, Dingle says, pockets of monarchs can buck the overall scheme. Research suggests that some of the monarchs in the upper Midwest do a whole round trip migration in a single generation. As researchers discover more details about green darners, he predicts, the current basic migration scheme will turn out to have its quirky exceptions, too."

Comment: from uncommon descent website: "The question that it raises is, how do the insects “know” that they should migrate over several generations? When a larva becomes a pupa, the body completely dissolves and is reconstituted as an adult. Where and how exactly does the information survive? Reside?" I couldn't phrase the dilemma any better and remember it is the same for monarchs. These insects could not have worked this out stepwise. Only design fits. Obviously the genes survive the metamorphosis in the liquid phase.

Natures wonders beetle lives and eats larvae in an ant nest

by David Turell @, Friday, January 18, 2019, 22:46 (1886 days ago) @ David Turell

A neat arrangement of life for the beetle:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/meet-the-beetle-that-lives-and-eats-in-ant-nests

"Living off ants is not unknown. Indeed, it even has a name: myrmecophily.

"Beetles in the Paussus genus, aptly named ant nest beetles, are the recognised poster-insects for the process. They live inside the nests of their prey, and have a wide range of morphological, chemical and acoustical adaptations for this lifestyle.

"Essentially, it adds up to a somewhat nefarious combination of suitable armour, pheromone trickery and even the production of attractive substances as a form of bribe. The nearly immobile Paussus larvae lie around in their chosen ant nests, and feed simply by leaning over and sucking the juices from their neighbouring ant brood.

***

"Essentially, it adds up to a somewhat nefarious combination of suitable armour, pheromone trickery and even the production of attractive substances as a form of bribe. The nearly immobile Paussus larvae lie around in their chosen ant nests, and feed simply by leaning over and sucking the juices from their neighbouring ant brood.

***

"The beetles live in riparian oak woodland in Arizona, and are rarely seen. Over the past two decades, only six specimens of Ozaena lemoulti have been collected by the lead author. Ozaena samples collected included a live adult female who laid a single egg which subsequently hatched.

"Moore and Di Guilio’s examination of the first instar larva of O. lemoulti revealed morphological adaptations completely different to other larvae of the Ozaena genus. It had mouthparts similar to those of ant nest beetle larvae, suitable for soft prey, like baby ants. But unlike the nearly immobile ant nest beetle larvae, O. lemoulti had long legs. The researchers hypothesised that the young feed by running around within the ant nest – a previously unknown feeding strategy for ant nest parasite beetles.

"Examination of egg morphology, and comparison with the Goniotropis beetle egg, also suggested O. lemoulti remained in the ant nest environment even at the first stage of life. The egg case lacked the spongy air layer of Goniotropis eggs which protects against extreme weather conditions. It is thus well suited to the humid environment of the nest.

"The gut sampling of O. lemoulti adults revealed that the beetles appear to exclusively feed on ant fluids, unlike Goniotropis adults – and just like the ant nest beetles."

Comment: It is surprising the ants with the live-in beetles have accepted them so completely. The beetles must have marvelous defenses if they were battled by the ants in the beginning. Each beetle species is well adapted to its lifestyle

Natures wonders: large penis to save abode

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 21:45 (1885 days ago) @ David Turell

It seems the hermit crab has evolved a large penis to use to save his shell home:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/larger-hermit-crab-penises-may-prevent-shell...

"Because the special shells take effort to create and are tough to grip onto, C. compressus often steal them from each other. Male crabs are especially vulnerable to losing their homes during mating, when they must emerge partway to ejaculate into a female’s shell.

“'If they lose that shell and they don’t have it for twenty-four hours, they’re basically doomed to dessicate and die,” Laidre explains.

While examining preserved specimens in museums, Laidre was struck by the diversity of penis-like structures, also called sexual tubes, in hermit crabs. In particular, he noticed that C. compressus sexual tubes are “gigantic relative to its body size.” He hypothesized that larger penises may have evolved in this species, which uses extensively remodeled shells and for which sex is particularly dangerous, to minimize the distance they need to come out of their shells in order to mate.

***

"While Coenobita penis size doesn’t come close to matching barnacles, which can have penises eight or nine times their body length, it’s a far larger penis-to-body-size ratio than sported by gorillas, which have tiny penises only about an inch and a half long.

"Another important part of the story, according to Laidre, is the coconut crab, Birgus latro. These gigantic hermit crabs—up to nine pounds and three feet across—give up their shells as juveniles and recalcify their own abdomens, rather than finding a shell for protection. These big guys have a relatively miniscule penis that’s less than 20 percent of their body size.
“What it suggests is that these [crabs] that have no danger of losing any property whatsoever have basically put virtually zero investment into this structure,” he says.

“'I love his hypothesis and his data does support it,” says Christopher Tudge, a reproductive biologist at American University in Washington, DC, who did not participate in the study. He adds that one open question is whether the idea extends to other groups of crustaceans, particularly the aquatic hermit crabs, some of which also have sexual tube structures, but whose reproductive behavior is less well understood.

***

"Kelly says that it was Charles Darwin who first recognized that “many traits that improved access to mates would actually probably decrease survival in nature, so there’s this inherent conflict between the actions of sexual selection for access to mates versus natural selection for improved survival, and this is a really great example of that'”

Comment: Acts as a huge anchor and a safe sex tool to stay in shell while copulating. A great natural wonder.

Natures wonders: slimy hagfish

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 22, 2019, 00:36 (1883 days ago) @ David Turell

A weird relative of eels:

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-fossilized-slime-million-year-old-hagfish-vertebrate.html

"Modern-day hagfish are known for their bizarre, nightmarish appearance and unique defense mechanism. They don't have eyes, or jaws or teeth to bite with, but instead use a spiky tongue-like apparatus to rasp flesh off dead fish and whales at the bottom of the ocean. When harassed, they can instantly turn the water around them into a cloud of slime, clogging the gills of would-be predators.

***

"Keratin, as it turns out, is a crucial part of what makes the hagfish slime defense so effective. Hagfish have a series of glands along their bodies that produce tiny packets of tightly-coiled keratin fibers, lubricated by mucus-y goo. When these packets hit seawater, the fibers explode and trap the water within, turning everything into shark-choking slop. The fibers are so strong that when dried out they resemble silk threads; they're even being studied as possible biosynthetic fibers to make clothes and other materials."

Comment: If the animal is blind and defenseless it has to have this mechanism or something similar to defend itself. It had to appear with all of these attributes present. It must have been designed/

Natures wonders: geckos look like dead leaves

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 26, 2019, 04:36 (1879 days ago) @ David Turell

How did this develop to hang around as a dead leaf looking gecko, only to come very alive= looking and eat:

https://earther.gizmodo.com/newly-discovered-gecko-species-is-extremely-good-at-bei-183...

As night falls on the lowland rainforests in Madagascar, dead, decaying leaves find new life, slowly unfurling in the vanishing light. But as four scaly feet and wide, unblinking eyes emerge from behind the crinkly veil, the leaves reveal their true identities: these are leaf-tailed geckos, unparalleled masters of disguise. Now, researchers have described a species of these secretive lizards totally new to science, discovered in a protected corner of the island.

***

Well over a dozen species have evolved on the island, and all are equipped with impressive camouflage. In the ultimate RPG of Life, these reptiles have maxed out their stealth skill trees, appearing indistinguishable from an old leaf when at rest. Their tails are flattened and leaf-shaped, and their skin has blotchy colors and textures, even incorporating ragged edges on skin folds for that authentic, “brittle decay” look.

"This intense mimicry is almost certainly a strategy to avoid predators, said Mark Scherz, herpetologist and PhD candidate.

“'During the day, [they] sit among dead leaves with their tails covering part of their bodies, sometimes with a leg stuck out at a funny angle to look like a twig,” Scherz explained. “But at night … they are very active hunters.”

***

"It didn’t take long for the research team to note that the geckos Raselimanana first collected from low-lying areas of the park were weird. They were very large when compared with what appeared to the most similar species, the ominously-named satanic leaf-tailed gecko. In 2016, the team went out at night and collected more of these big, unplaceable leafy boys. Through careful measurements of their physical features, the team found that the reptiles were indeed unique.

"At about four inches long, the new geckos are 50 percent larger than their satanic cousins, and have a proportionally shorter tail. The new geckos also have purely scarlet red tissue in their mouths, potentially a last-minute warning to predators; in their close relatives, the mouth is more black. When the team analyzed the geckos’ genetics, their results aligned with the physical conclusions that the Marojejy lizards warranted classification as a new species, Uroplatus finaritra."

Comment: Just bow does this evolve with a resemblance so exactly a copy of a real desiccated leaf? Only a designer can do this.

Natures wonders: locusts poison birds

by David Turell @, Monday, January 28, 2019, 19:31 (1876 days ago) @ David Turell

They carry proteins which will poison birds that try to eat them:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaav5495?rss=1

"Many aggregating animals use aposematic signals to advertise their toxicity to predators. However, the coordination between aposematic signals and toxins is poorly understood. Here, we reveal that phenylacetonitrile (PAN) acts as an olfactory aposematic signal and precursor of hypertoxic hydrogen cyanide (HCN) to protect gregarious locusts from predation. We found that PAN biosynthesis from phenylalanine is catalyzed by CYP305M2, a novel gene encoding a cytochrome P450 enzyme in gregarious locusts. The RNA interference (RNAi) knockdown of CYP305M2 increases the vulnerability of gregarious locusts to bird predation. By contrast, the elevation of PAN levels through supplementation with synthetic PAN increases the resistance of solitary locusts to predation. When locusts are attacked by birds, PAN is converted to HCN, which causes food poisoning in birds. Our results indicate that locusts develop a defense mechanism wherein an aposematic compound is converted to hypertoxic cyanide in resistance to predation by natural enemies.

***

"In summary, our results reveal an unprecedented antipredator mechanism in the migratory locust. PAN has a dual role in antipredator defense as an honest olfactory aposematic signal and as an indicator of HCN toxicity. The dual roles of PAN increase the resistance of gregarious locusts to predation. The increased predator resistance of locusts, in turn, likely contributes to the development of locust swarms. Genetic engineering strategies for the biological control of locust populations may target the CYP gene that encodes for the rate-limiting enzyme in PAN biosynthesis to eliminate the defense mechanisms of gregarious locusts.

Comment: Hydrogen cyanide is a poison but the locusts tolerate it. Only when they swarm and birds are around do they produce it. How this evolved is an issue since HCN can kill.

Natures wonders: parasitic wasp larvae control spiders

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 05, 2019, 20:58 (1868 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like fungi control ants:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parasitic-wasp-larvae-force-young-social-spi...

"Talk about a raw deal: deadly parasitic wasps ruin the lives of adolescent spiders by taking over their minds, forcing them to become hermits and then eating them alive.

***

"Fernandez-Fournier recently observed a wasp species—not previously named or described in the scientific literature—that can bend these social spiders to its will in an even more nightmarish way. This parasitic puppet master camps out beside the web, apparently waiting for a young spider to stray from its colony. The wasps may prefer juveniles because of their softer shells and “less feisty” natures, according to Fernandez-Fournier, lead author of a study describing the strange parasitism, published online last November in Ecological Entomology.

"Scientists do not know how a wasp larva ends up on the spider—but once there it starts feeding on the arachnid’s abdomen. As the larva grows, it starts to control the spider’s brain, inducing it to leave the safety of its colony. Then the young spider weaves a ball of silk that seals it off from the outside world. The larva completes its life cycle by eating the rest of the spider, using the conveniently surrounding web to build its own cocoon and pupate into an adult wasp.

"Fernandez-Fournier believes the wasp larvae most likely release a chemical that activates specific genes in their hosts, triggering antisocial behavior. Other related spiders are less social, leaving their colonies when they are young. Andrew Forbes, an associate professor of biology at the University of Iowa, who was not involved in Fernandez-Fournier’s research, says the mind-controlling wasp larvae may be tapping into this latent genetic pathway. The spiders may have evolved toward social living for protection from predators, but the parasites could be pulling the genetic strings in their favor. “You can think of it,” Forbes says, “as an evolutionary arms race between the spider and the parasitoid.”

Comment: Same result with brain control developed through guided or designed evolution. I cannot think of a way this arrangement developed by chance stepwise.

Natures wonders: defensive glues

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 16:59 (1861 days ago) @ David Turell

A slug glues frogs in defense:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193804-slime-fighting-slug-can-superglue-enemy-fr...

"Biologists have shown that the red triangle slug (Triboniophorus graeffei) produces a special kind of mucus when threatened. Unlike the thin, slippery slime it secretes as it moves, the special defensive mucus is extremely sticky – strong enough to glue down predators for days.

"John Gould of the University of Newcastle, Australia, made the discovery when he spotted a green tree frog stuck to a branch right next to a red triangle slug (pictured, above) in the Watagans Mountain Range in New South Wales. After 10 minutes it still hadn’t freed itself, so he took both animals back to the lab.

"A day later the frog was still stuck fast. The researchers prised it free, but it still had mucus stuck on its skin and kept getting stuck to the sides of the container it was placed in. Any frog stuck for so long in the wild would probably fall victim to predators or die from lack of water.

"At least two other species of slug also produce sticky mucus, but these have only been studied in the lab. “As far as we can tell, no one has actually seen its use in the wild before,” says team member Jose Valdez of Aarhus University in Denmark.

"What is unusual about slug glue is that it adheres strongly in wet conditions and loses its stickiness as it dries.

"Many animals produce adhesive glue for defence, says Valdez, but in most cases it is thought to merely distract predators as they try to remove the glue from their face or body. Only a few are known to actually glue down predators, including one salamander that can immobilise a snake for up to 48 hours.

"One mystery remains: how does the slug avoid getting stuck down by its own glue?

“'That is the big question,” says Valdez. “The answer is that no one knows, not only for this species, but all other species which produce adhesives for defence or predation.'”

Comment: That it doesn't get stuck by its own glue means the glue and the defense from being stuck had to develop at the same time. Only design can do this.

Natures wonders: how cassowaries lose heat

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 17:09 (1861 days ago) @ David Turell

A fan-like organ on their heads:

"Cassowaries, the second largest birds in the world after ostriches, have a fin-like structure on their heads that has long been a mystery. Now biologists have determined that it acts like a radiator, helping them to shed heat in Australia’s sweltering summers.

"Many functions have been proposed for the cassowary head fin, called a casque. Some thought it was a weapon, but since it is flexible, that seemed unlikely.

"Danielle Eastick of La Trobe University, Australia, and colleagues had another idea: it could be a “thermal window” – an organ that helps to regulate body temperature. Such organs have a large surface area and a rich blood supply that can be turned up when the animal needs to lose heat, or restricted when it needs to retain heat. Rodents’ tails, elephants’ ears and toucans’ bills all work in this way.

"To investigate, Eastick took readings with a thermal imaging device on 20 cassowaries in zoos and wildlife parks from Victoria to Queensland, in temperatures from 5 to 36°C.

"In cold weather, the birds restricted blood flow to the casque, allowing it to drop almost to ambient temperature. In hot weather, blood flow in the casque increased. At the highest temperatures, 8 per cent of heat exchange over the cassowary’s body was through the casque – a lot for a small organ.

"With large, round bodies covered in feathers, losing heat is a struggle for cassowaries. Emus and ostriches lose some heat by flapping their wings, but cassowaries’ wings are so small that they are little help.

"Several dinosaurs had similar-looking features on their heads, including Anzu wyliei, the recent discovery corythoraptor and some members of the “duck-billed” hadrosaurid family.

"We don’t know whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded like modern birds and mammals, or cold-blooded like modern reptiles, or something in between. But it’s plausible that those with crests used them for heat exchange too.

“'These structures are so similar to the ones that you see on dinosaurs,” says Eastick. “It makes you think if cassowaries are using them for thermoregulation, it’s really possible that dinosaurs did as well.'”

Comment: If these birds developed this mechanism gradually, it is probable they migrated gradually from a cooler region. Otherwise itv is possible they ere designed for this hot region.

Natures wonders: antarctica flies use antifreeze

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 23, 2019, 02:20 (1851 days ago) @ David Turell

To protect eggs and larvae in summer:

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-antarctic-flies-fragile-eggs-antifreeze.html

"University of Cincinnati biologist Joshua Benoit traveled to this Land of the Midnight Sun to learn how Antarctica's only true insect can survive constant freezing and thawing. He found that the midges have surprising adaptations for life in their wintry realm.

***

"For his latest project, Benoit examined the molecular mechanisms underlying the fly's reproduction. Like other midges, adult flies mate in big swarms during the brief Antarctic summer. The females lay eggs that hatch about 40 days later. Then the newborn flies spend the next two years developing as larvae, entombed for much of the year in ice.

"It's only in their last week of life that they spread their wings, so to speak, as fully formed adults. They die just days after mating.

***

"...during the Antarctic summer, daily temperatures can soar into the 40s and dip well below freezing. UC researchers wanted to know how the midge's eggs tolerate such big temperature swings.

"'The females secrete this clear jelly around the eggs. Essentially, it's like antifreeze," UC student and study lead author Geoffrey Finch said. "It acts as a temperature buffer against those fluctuations to help them survive."

"The gel also helps the eggs survive Antarctica's other defining climate feature—its dryness. Antarctica is home to the world's biggest desert. Belgica can survive even after losing more than 70 percent of its water content. By comparison, studies have found that people begin to suffer cognitive impairments when we lose as little as 2 percent of our water content through dehydration.

"'So having all these unique adaptations is what allows them to live in this extreme environment," Benoit said.

"UC's researchers found that the flies begin synthesizing components found in the temperature-resistant gel they they will use to protect their eggs many months in advance as mere larvae.

"'That was kind of interesting," Finch said. "The gel has a lot of unique components. We found some of them were already being manufactured in the larval stage.'"

Comment: Another form of extremophile. This had to designed all at once, or the flies ere there when Antarctica was warm and hey had time to invent these methods and adapted, probably with God's help.

Natures wonders: taste mimicry fools predators

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 24, 2019, 22:41 (1849 days ago) @ David Turell

In this case two butterfly species look alike because one tastes bad and since predators can't distinguish between them, the copycat doesn't get eaten. But there is a twist:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190222101314.htm

"The viceroy butterfly is a mimic, modeling its orange-and-black colors after the queen butterfly, a bug that tastes so disgusting predators have learned not to eat it or anything that looks like it, including viceroys. The apparent dependence of mimics on their models made biologists wonder if the fates of the two species are forever intertwined. If so, then what happens when the mimic and the model part ways?

"A study recently published in Communications Biology and led by Katy Prudic, an assistant professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Arizona, has found an interesting answer. Viceroy butterflies living in northern Florida, far away from the southern-dwelling queen butterflies, are not only more abundant than their southern kin, but they have also developed their own foul flavor.

***

"All over Florida, the viceroy caterpillar feeds on the same kind of plant: the Carolina willow. The tree arms itself against pests with phenolic glycosides, chemical relatives of aspirin.

***

"The classical theory, called Batesian mimicry, posits that one animal, known as the mimic, looks like another animal -- the model that predators recognize as "unpalatable." An unpleasant experience trying to munch on the model species convinces predators to avoid both species, since they cannot reliably tell the difference between the two.

***

"Prudic's study found that the viceroy thrives where the queen is not found, because it has evolved the ability to taste bad.

***

"This discovery changes the way biologists must think about mimicry.

"The relationship between viceroy and queen butterflies once fell into the Batesian mimicry category, but when one of Prudic's co-authors, David Ritland, first discovered that viceroys had the ability to be nasty, the butterflies' relationship was recategorized as "Mullerian." There are no models in this mimicry theory, only "co-mimics:" two different animals that look the same and are both unpalatable.

"But Prudic's study proves that the viceroy butterfly does not fit neatly into either mimicry category."

Comment: Amazing change. Butterflies don't eat each other, so how would the mimic even know the other tasted so bad and start making the noxious chemical, which is related to aspirin?
Even the trees that are nibbled on use similar compounds to drive off the insects. Trees and insects are not related. Is this a pattern or convergence built into the instructions for evolution.

Natures wonders: migrating bats on cruise control

by David Turell @, Friday, March 01, 2019, 01:48 (1845 days ago) @ David Turell

They may fly up to 2,000 km:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/a-bat-released


'This is a Nathusius bat (Pipistrellus Nathusii) flying, and not at all stressed.

"Researchers Sara Troxell and Christian Voigt from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Germany recently tested a number of the bats in the field and in wind tunnels to determine the energy they expended while aloft.

"They discovered, in effect, that they are equipped with a form of cruise control. In different circumstances, the animals all selected the flight speed that would allow them to cover maximum distance and minimum energy cost.

"For the Nathusius bat, the optimal flight speed was around 27 kilometres an hour. The species, which is resident in Europe, is known to undertake journeys of as long as 2000 kilometres to reach hibernation sites.

***

"ABSTRACT
Aerial migration is the fastest, yet most energetically demanding way of seasonal movement between habitats. However, for many taxa, and bats in particular, we lack a clear understanding of the energy requirements for migration. Here, we examined the energetic cost and flight speed of the long-distance migratory Nathusius’ bat (Pipistrellus nathusii). We measured flight metabolism in relation to airspeed in a wind tunnel, inferred the optimal traveling speed over long distances, i.e. maximum range speed, and compared this value with flight speed measured in wild conspecifics. Body mass and wing morphologies were similar in captive and wild bats, indicating that the body condition of captive bats was similar to that of migratory bats. Nine out of the 12 captive bats exhibited a U-shaped relationship between flight metabolic power and airspeed when flying in the wind tunnel. The flight metabolic rate across all airspeeds averaged 0.98±0.28 W, which corresponds well to established allometric relationships between flight metabolic rate and body mass for bats. During summer migration, P. nathusii traveled at an average speed of 6.9±0.7 m s−1, which was significantly higher than the minimum power speed (5.8±1.0 m s−1), yet within the range of expected maximum range speed inferred from wind tunnel experiments. This suggests that P. nathusii may migrate at an energetically optimal speed and that aerial refueling does not substantially lower migratory speed in P. nathusii.{"

Comment: An adaptation like soaring birds on updrafts.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 03, 2019, 19:17 (1842 days ago) @ David Turell

Raid another colony of different ants and steal larvae:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190228113617.htm

"Temnothorax americanus is a slavemaking ant found in northeastern America. These tiny social insects neither rear their offspring nor search for food themselves. Instead, they raid nests of another ant species, Temnothorax longispinosus, kidnap their larvae and pupae to bring these back to their own nest. Once these have reached adulthood, the abducted ants must feed the brood of the slavemaking species, search for food, feed the slavemakers, and even defend their nest. A colony of slavemakers, consisting of a queen and two to five workers, can keep 30 to 60 slaves. In a new study, biologists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) examined the special relationship between the parasites and their host and made an exciting discovery: The ability of the host ants to defend themselves depends crucially on whether the raiding slavemakers come from an area with a successful or less successful parasite population. If the slavemakers come from a site where slavemakers are rare, the host ants react aggressively to the invaders. If, in contrast, the intruders come from an area where slavemakers are common, the hosts do not recognize them and, as a result, do not respond aggressively. The study also revealed that this difference in how they react is also reflected in how active the genes associated with aggression are in the brain of the ants.

"Similar to avian brood parasites such as cuckoos, T. americanus belongs to a class of parasites known as social parasites that do not directly harm the bodies of their hosts, but manipulate their social or brood care behavior instead. The social parasites and their hosts are engaged in a "co-evolutionary arms race": The parasites perfect the exploitation of their hosts, while the hosts continually develop better defensive strategies. When parasitic pressure is low, T. longispinosus reacts to an attack with coordinated combat, but, in sites where parasitism is more prevalent, its defense strategy shifts from fight to flight. It was the precise nature of this relationship, and the corresponding reactions, that Professor Susanne Foitzik's work group at the JGU Institute for Organismic and Molecular Evolution (iOME) investigated in the new study.

***

"Significantly, major changes in ant behavior can be triggered by individual genes. One particularly important gene is Vitellogenin-like A, which is very active in brood carers. If this gene is downregulated, the workers stop caring for the colony's offspring and spend more time caring for adult nestmates. The findings of the researchers from Mainz show that the gene Vitellogenin-like A influences the workers' sensitivity to brood odors. If the ants no longer sense the brood, they stop caring for them. These experiments show how the division of labor in social insect societies is regulated in that group members react in different ways to specific stimuli associated with distinct tasks in the ant society. (my bold)'

Comment: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Monday, March 04, 2019, 13:19 (1842 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Significantly, major changes in ant behavior can be triggered by individual genes. (David's bold) One particularly important gene is Vitellogenin-like A, which is very active in brood carers. If this gene is downregulated, the workers stop caring for the colony's offspring and spend more time (dhw's bold) caring for adult nestmates. The findings of the researchers from Mainz show that the gene Vitellogenin-like A influences the workers' sensitivity to brood odors. If the ants no longer sense the brood, they stop caring for them. These experiments show how the division of labor in social insect societies is regulated in that group members react in different ways to specific stimuli associated with distinct tasks in the ant society.

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Monday, March 04, 2019, 14:55 (1842 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Significantly, major changes in ant behavior can be triggered by individual genes. (David's bold) One particularly important gene is Vitellogenin-like A, which is very active in brood carers. If this gene is downregulated, the workers stop caring for the colony's offspring and spend more time (dhw's bold) caring for adult nestmates. The findings of the researchers from Mainz show that the gene Vitellogenin-like A influences the workers' sensitivity to brood odors. If the ants no longer sense the brood, they stop caring for them. These experiments show how the division of labor in social insect societies is regulated in that group members react in different ways to specific stimuli associated with distinct tasks in the ant society.

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.

Natures wonders: shark skin built to increase speed

by David Turell @, Monday, March 04, 2019, 17:46 (1842 days ago) @ David Turell

It has helpful 'denticles' which respond to water flows.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2195435-worlds-fastest-shark-gets-a-burst-of-speed...

Millions of tiny “loose teeth” covering the mako shark’s skin could be the secret to its incredible speed. Mako sharks are known as the cheetahs of the ocean, rocketing through the water at speeds of up to 68 kilometres per hour. New research shows that patches of flexible, scale-like denticles on the shark’s skin allow it to glide more efficiently through the water.

Stroke a shark from nose to tail, and its skin feels smooth. Rub it up the wrong way, however, and a shark feels sandpaper rough. That is due to being covered in millions of the tiny, protruding denticles.

“The mako has translucent denticles about 0.2 millimetres in size,” says Amy Lang at the University of Alabama. “It turns out that the mako has very flexible denticles. These sit like little loose teeth. If water flow begins to reverse, the scales pop up.”

The streamlining effect of denticles has already been copied for applications such as Speedo’s famous “shark skin” LZR swimsuit. Lang suspected that the highly flexible denticles were key to reducing another kind of drag: flow separation. After passing the widest part of a shark’s body – typically its gills – the flow of water slows, which leads to a pressure drop and can result in eddies and vortices. The same phenomenon explains why whirlpools appear at the edges of paddling oars.

By studying the flow of water over shark skin in the lab, Lang saw that the loose denticles prevent this flow separation happening by bristling up in the swirling water. “It’s entirely passive, and happens in about 0.2 milliseconds,” she says. The most flexible scales are seen in areas that experience the most flow separation: the flank behind the gills, and the trailing edges of a shark’s pectoral fins.

The shape-shifting skin could have applications in aeronautics. For instance, flow separation on top of helicopter rotor blades makes them less efficient. These blades and the wings of fighter jets could benefit from shark-inspired microstructures.

Lang and her team have already 3D printed models of the flexible mako denticles and shown they work as well in air as they do in water. “We can probably manufacture these on the order of shark skin, 0.2 millimetres in size,” says Lang. “We’re definitely moving forward to being able to replicate it.”

Comment: Note the swimsuit adaptation which I've mentioned before. Not by chance. How does evolution know about the engineering principles in flow separation? And to add the denticles at just the right spots? Another great biomimetic adaptation for us.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Tuesday, March 05, 2019, 10:57 (1841 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Significantly, major changes in ant behavior can be triggered by individual genes. (David's bold) One particularly important gene is Vitellogenin-like A, which is very active in brood carers. If this gene is downregulated, the workers stop caring for the colony's offspring and spend more time (dhw's bold) caring for adult nestmates. The findings of the researchers from Mainz show that the gene Vitellogenin-like A influences the workers' sensitivity to brood odors. If the ants no longer sense the brood, they stop caring for them. These experiments show how the division of labor in social insect societies is regulated in that group members react in different ways to specific stimuli associated with distinct tasks in the ant society.

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

DAVID: I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.

I’m pretty sure they can’t answer my questions. In which case, this is anything but “complete evidence for automatic behaviour controlled by their genes”. Such a conclusion is what some people would call hyperbole.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 05, 2019, 14:40 (1841 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Significantly, major changes in ant behavior can be triggered by individual genes. (David's bold) One particularly important gene is Vitellogenin-like A, which is very active in brood carers. If this gene is downregulated, the workers stop caring for the colony's offspring and spend more time (dhw's bold) caring for adult nestmates. The findings of the researchers from Mainz show that the gene Vitellogenin-like A influences the workers' sensitivity to brood odors. If the ants no longer sense the brood, they stop caring for them. These experiments show how the division of labor in social insect societies is regulated in that group members react in different ways to specific stimuli associated with distinct tasks in the ant society.

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

DAVID: I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.

dhw: I’m pretty sure they can’t answer my questions. In which case, this is anything but “complete evidence for automatic behaviour controlled by their genes”. Such a conclusion is what some people would call hyperbole.

If they altered genes and behavior changed, that is pretty direct evidence that altering genes altered behavior. I know you want ants to operate independent of their genes, but there is lots of evidence they are individually automatic forming rafts and bridges.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Wednesday, March 06, 2019, 10:05 (1840 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

DAVID: I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.

dhw: I’m pretty sure they can’t answer my questions. In which case, this is anything but “complete evidence for automatic behaviour controlled by their genes”. Such a conclusion is what some people would call hyperbole.

DAVID: If they altered genes and behavior changed, that is pretty direct evidence that altering genes altered behavior.

Why have you ignored the rest of this post? Of course if you alter genes you will alter behaviour. But we know that altered behaviour can also alter genes. If you and the experts can’t answer my questions, then neither you nor they can tell us whether in life the decision to change behaviour has altered the genes, or vice versa, and you most certainly can't claim that this is "complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes". I propose that since the changed behaviour of the ants is clearly the result of need, the more likely explanation is that the decision to change behaviour is the cause and not the result of the changes.

David: I know you want ants to operate independent of their genes, but there is lots of evidence they are individually automatic forming rafts and bridges.

I do not believe their genes direct them to build rafts and bridges and whole cities and farming communities and societies in which different members play different roles. I propose that just like other organisms including humans, ants make intelligent decisions, and their bodies make the necessary adjustments to implement their decisions.

Natures wonders: an anus comes and goes

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 06, 2019, 15:28 (1840 days ago) @ dhw

One jellyfish-like organism has an anus appearing only when needed:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2195656-animal-with-an-anus-that-comes-and-goes-co...

"A jellyfish-like creature has a neat trick that makes it unique among animals: its anus forms only when it needs to defecate, then disappears without a trace.

“'That is the really spectacular finding here,” says Sidney Tamm of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, who made the discovery. “There is no documentation of a transient anus in any other animals that I know of.”

"Tamm thinks the discovery might represent an intermediate stage in evolution.

"In some simple animals, such as jellyfish, the gut has only one opening, which functions as the mouth and anus.

"It has been known since 1850 that comb jellies – which superficially resemble jellyfish, but belong to a separate group called ctenophores – have a through-gut, with a separate mouth and anus. Some even have more than one anus.

"But when Tamm studied the warty comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi), he could not find its anus. Only when the animals are actually defecating does a tiny opening appear – and it disappears again straight afterwards.

“'It is not visible when the animal is not pooping,” says Tamm. “There’s no trace under the microscope. It’s invisible to me.”

"His observations show there is no permanent connection between the gut and the rear of the body. Instead, as waste accumulates, part of the gut starts to balloon out until it touches the outer layer, or epidermis.

"The gut then fuses with the epidermis, forming an anal opening. Once excretion is complete, the process is reversed and the anus vanishes.

"Because both the gut and epidermis are just a single cell layer thick, this can happen relatively easily and quickly. The animals defecate at regular intervals: once an hour in the 5-centimetre-long adults, and once every 10 minutes or so in the larvae.

"Tamm thinks this process of the gut bulging and fusing with the epidermis to form an anus is how the anus evolved in the first place. The intermittent anus may represent an intermediate stage in which the structure has yet to become permanent.

"Today, the transient anus may be unique to the warty comb jelly. Tamm is now looking at other species of comb jelly, but so far they appear to have permanent anuses."

Comment: The bush of life has some strange twigs.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 06, 2019, 19:19 (1839 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time” (bolded). So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

DAVID: I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.

dhw: I’m pretty sure they can’t answer my questions. In which case, this is anything but “complete evidence for automatic behaviour controlled by their genes”. Such a conclusion is what some people would call hyperbole.

DAVID: If they altered genes and behavior changed, that is pretty direct evidence that altering genes altered behavior.

dhw: Why have you ignored the rest of this post? Of course if you alter genes you will alter behaviour. But we know that altered behaviour can also alter genes. If you and the experts can’t answer my questions, then neither you nor they can tell us whether in life the decision to change behaviour has altered the genes, or vice versa, and you most certainly can't claim that this is "complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes". I propose that since the changed behaviour of the ants is clearly the result of need, the more likely explanation is that the decision to change behaviour is the cause and not the result of the changes.

You have altered our conversation by not fully recognizing the authors modified behavior by tailoring genes, nothing more. Of course ant behavior can alter DNA by epigenetics.


David: I know you want ants to operate independent of their genes, but there is lots of evidence they are individually automatic forming rafts and bridges.

dhw: I do not believe their genes direct them to build rafts and bridges and whole cities and farming communities and societies in which different members play different roles. I propose that just like other organisms including humans, ants make intelligent decisions, and their bodies make the necessary adjustments to implement their decisions.

And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown..

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Thursday, March 07, 2019, 10:28 (1839 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes.

dhw: We know that behaviour can alter genes and genes can alter behaviour. Does the “downregulation” force them to change jobs or does it occur BECAUSE the ants have decided to change jobs? They would hardly do that if there wasn’t a need for them to do it. I would also like to know what changes occur in the genes that are sensitive to adult nestmates as well as when these changes occur in relation to the new behaviour. I am suspicious of “spend more time”. So do they all spend some time caring for the brood? Or do some ants go on caring for the brood, but others change their jobs according to need?

DAVID: I don't think the researchers can answer your questions. It appears that they controlled the gene expression to see how the ants reacted.[/i]

dhw: I’m pretty sure they can’t answer my questions. In which case, this is anything but “complete evidence for automatic behaviour controlled by their genes”. Such a conclusion is what some people would call hyperbole.

DAVID: If they altered genes and behavior changed, that is pretty direct evidence that altering genes altered behavior.

dhw: Why have you ignored the rest of this post? Of course if you alter genes you will alter behaviour. But we know that altered behaviour can also alter genes. If you and the experts can’t answer my questions, then neither you nor they can tell us whether in life the decision to change behaviour has altered the genes, or vice versa, and you most certainly can't claim that this is "complete evidence for automatic behavior controlled by their genes". I propose that since the changed behaviour of the ants is clearly the result of need, the more likely explanation is that the decision to change behaviour is the cause and not the result of the changes.

DAVID: You have altered our conversation by not fully recognizing the authors modified behavior by tailoring genes, nothing more. Of course ant behavior can alter DNA by epigenetics.

I have not altered anything, and your second comment vindicates everything I have said. We know that scientists can change behaviour by messing about with parts of the brain or body of any organism. This does not mean that in nature those parts of the brain/body spontaneously change themselves BEFORE the organism (in this case ants) adjust their behaviour to suit the needs of the moment. That is why I suggest it is far more likely than in nature the changed behaviour of the ants was the cause and not the result of genetic change.

DAVID: I know you want ants to operate independent of their genes, but there is lots of evidence they are individually automatic forming rafts and bridges.

dhw: I do not believe their genes direct them to build rafts and bridges and whole cities and farming communities and societies in which different members play different roles. I propose that just like other organisms including humans, ants make intelligent decisions, and their bodies make the necessary adjustments to implement their decisions.

DAVID: And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown.

You have not previously shown any such thing. It is your fixed belief that your God either popped in to teach ants how to build rafts and bridges, or he supplied the first living cells with a 3.8-billion-year old programme for ant rafts and ant bridges to be passed on along with his programme for ant-making and for every other life form and natural wonder (though the programmes mysteriously bypassed bacteria, which only inherited programmes for bacteria). I propose that when ants first built rafts and bridges, they used their combined intelligences to do so. Once they had succeeded, this knowledge was passed on.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 07, 2019, 20:46 (1838 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: You have altered our conversation by not fully recognizing the authors modified behavior by tailoring genes, nothing more. Of course ant behavior can alter DNA by epigenetics.

dhw: I have not altered anything, and your second comment vindicates everything I have said. We know that scientists can change behaviour by messing about with parts of the brain or body of any organism. This does not mean that in nature those parts of the brain/body spontaneously change themselves BEFORE the organism (in this case ants) adjust their behaviour to suit the needs of the moment. That is why I suggest it is far more likely than in nature the changed behaviour of the ants was the cause and not the result of genetic change.

I've agreed ants can alter their DNA and behavior through epigenetic coding. But that doesn't get around the fact that whatever behavior exists at any given time is due to the DNA that exists at that time.


DAVID: I know you want ants to operate independent of their genes, but there is lots of evidence they are individually automatic forming rafts and bridges.

dhw: I do not believe their genes direct them to build rafts and bridges and whole cities and farming communities and societies in which different members play different roles. I propose that just like other organisms including humans, ants make intelligent decisions, and their bodies make the necessary adjustments to implement their decisions.

DAVID: And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown.

dhw: You have not previously shown any such thing.

Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

dhw: It is your fixed belief that your God either popped in to teach ants how to build rafts and bridges, or he supplied the first living cells with a 3.8-billion-year old programme for ant rafts and ant bridges to be passed on along with his programme for ant-making and for every other life form and natural wonder (though the programmes mysteriously bypassed bacteria, which only inherited programmes for bacteria). I propose that when ants first built rafts and bridges, they used their combined intelligences to do so. Once they had succeeded, this knowledge was passed on.

We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Friday, March 08, 2019, 13:29 (1838 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've agreed ants can alter their DNA and behavior through epigenetic coding. But that doesn't get around the fact that whatever behavior exists at any given time is due to the DNA that exists at that time.

We are not talking about the behaviour at any given time, but about the changes that are made to existing behaviour! Here the scientists changed ant behaviour by messing about with existing DNA. You agree, however, that new behaviour can change DNA. I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour.

DAVID: And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown.

dhw: You have not previously shown any such thing.

DAVID: Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

If it were true that the article opted for divine preprogramming, I would say it is another example of confirmation/conclusion bias, but it even leaves open the possibility that ants are not confined to robotic behaviour. You obviously haven't read the conclusion (my bold)


QUOTE: A second [challenge] is that it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.
“We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University working on swarm robotics.


dhw: It is your fixed belief that your God either popped in to teach ants how to build rafts and bridges, or he supplied the first living cells with a 3.8-billion-year old programme for ant rafts and ant bridges to be passed on along with his programme for ant-making and for every other life form and natural wonder (though the programmes mysteriously bypassed bacteria, which only inherited programmes for bacteria). I propose that when ants first built rafts and bridges, they used their combined intelligences to do so. Once they had succeeded, this knowledge was passed on.

DAVID: We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.

When I asked if the warty comb jelly’s disappearing anus was dabbled or preprogrammed, or designed by its own cell community, you replied: “How could I answer or know?” But here we go again, with your rigid beliefs stated as if they were facts. How can you know that bridge-building ants have been preprogrammed or taught by your God and, when they first started bridge-building, did not combine their intelligences and pass on the information? And let me repeat my request on the “genome complexity” thread: please tell us how ant-evolving and bridge-building instructions could have been passed on from the first living cells, if unicellular life forms only contained a library of instructions for themselves. I look forward to your explanation.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Friday, March 08, 2019, 19:42 (1837 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've agreed ants can alter their DNA and behavior through epigenetic coding. But that doesn't get around the fact that whatever behavior exists at any given time is due to the DNA that exists at that time.

dhw: We are not talking about the behaviour at any given time, but about the changes that are made to existing behaviour! Here the scientists changed ant behaviour by messing about with existing DNA. You agree, however, that new behaviour can change DNA. I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour.

You know I accept epigenetic abilities.


DAVID: And I repeat, each individual ant does his programmed individual thing as previously shown.

dhw: You have not previously shown any such thing.

DAVID: Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

dhw: If it were true that the article opted for divine preprogramming, I would say it is another example of confirmation/conclusion bias, but it even leaves open the possibility that ants are not confined to robotic behaviour. You obviously haven't read the conclusion (my bold)>

QUOTE: A second [challenge] is that it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.

“We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University working on swarm robotics.[/i]

I agree that we don not fully understand them but all the article showed were individuals we programmed to have their own individual responses once the activity started. I realize there had to be an ant who decided to start the bridge when at the lead of the column. His decision could very well be automatic or either/or: straight on or go arou nd.


DAVID: We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.

dhw: When I asked if the warty comb jelly’s disappearing anus was dabbled or preprogrammed, or designed by its own cell community, you replied: “How could I answer or know?” But here we go again, with your rigid beliefs stated as if they were facts. How can you know that bridge-building ants have been preprogrammed or taught by your God and, when they first started bridge-building, did not combine their intelligences and pass on the information? And let me repeat my request on the “genome complexity” thread: please tell us how ant-evolving and bridge-building instructions could have been passed on from the first living cells, if unicellular life forms only contained a library of instructions for themselves. I look forward to your explanation.

Explained elsewhere today. As for the come and go anus, it may well be designed as a simple molecular reaction. Your reliance on built in intelligence is used as a substitute for God and re mains totally theoretical, while as research advances, more an more reactions are seen as automatic. My expectation is my view will prevail.

Natures wonders: learning how Euglena move

by David Turell @, Friday, March 08, 2019, 21:10 (1837 days ago) @ David Turell

Just the beginning of research into this single-celled animal:

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-motility-euglena.html

"The large-amplitude and coordinated body deformations observed in Euglena are typically referred to as 'euglenoid movement,' or 'metaboly.' Metaboly varies greatly between species and sometimes even within a species, ranging from a rounding and gentle bend or twist to periodic and highly concerted peristaltic waves that travel along the cell body.

***

"Dilute cultures of Euglena cells generally swim using their flagellum and without changing their body shape. Arroyo and his colleagues, however, observed that as time passed and the fluid under the microscope evaporated, their culture became more crowded and cells started to develop metaboly.

"'Inspired by these observations and amateur YouTube videos, we hypothesized that the cell deformations could be triggered by contact with other cells or boundaries in a crowded environment, and that under these conditions, metaboly could be useful to crawl, rather than swim," Antonio De Simone, another researchers involved in the study, told Phys.org.

"Confirming this hypothesis was remarkably easy. As soon as we slightly pressed cells between two glass surfaces, or drove them into thin capillaries, they started to systematically perform metaboly, which resulted in the fastest crawling by any cell type, as far as we know," added Giovanni Noselli, the first author of the study.

***

"'We found that, thanks to their peristaltic deformations, Euglena can push either on the walls or on the fluid to move forward, making of metaboly a remarkably robust mode of confined locomotion," De Simone said. "They can actually move displacing very little fluid in a 'stealthy' propulsion mode, and they cannot be stopped even if the hydraulic resistance in the capillary is increased substantially."

***

"'If crawling by metaboly is so advantageous, one may wonder why it is not conserved amongst other species," Arroyo said. "The answer is that it requires an intricate machinery, the pellicle, which is a striated envelope made out of elastic strips connected by molecular motors. This selectively deformable surface lies somewhere the rigid wall of plant cells and the fluid envelope of animal cells. Beyond biology, we think that the underlying physical/geometric principles that enable shape changes of this envelope can be applied to artificial engineered systems, e.g. in soft robotics.'"

Comment: It may be found that Euglena move like bacteria do since so much of evolution is mimicry as in the so-called convergence.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Saturday, March 09, 2019, 12:42 (1837 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour.

DAVID: You know I accept epigenetic abilities.

So do you accept my now bolded suggestion?

DAVID: Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

dhw: If it were true that the article opted for divine preprogramming, I would say it is another example of confirmation/conclusion bias, but it even leaves open the possibility that ants are not confined to robotic behaviour. You obviously haven't read the conclusion (my bold)

QUOTE: A second [challenge] is that it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.

We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University working on swarm robotics.

DAVID: I agree that we do not fully understand them but all the article showed were individuals we programmed to have their own individual responses once the activity started. I realize there had to be an ant who decided to start the bridge when at the lead of the column. His decision could very well be automatic or either/or: straight on or go arou nd.

I doubt if it was one ant. They work cooperatively and collectively, just as our own cell communities do. You drew my attention to the article, but it clearly leaves open the possibility that there is more to ant behaviour than mere algorithms and automaticity.

DAVID: We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.

dhw: […] here we go again, with your rigid beliefs stated as if they were facts. How can you know that bridge-building ants have been preprogrammed or taught by your God and, when they first started bridge-building, did not combine their intelligences and pass on the information?

DAVID: […] Your reliance on built in intelligence is used as a substitute for God and remains totally theoretical, while as research advances, more an more reactions are seen as automatic. My expectation is my view will prevail.

My hypothesis does not in any way “substitute” intelligence for God, but allows for God to have a different purpose and method from those which you attribute to him in your own totally theoretical hypotheses. I’m sure more and more automatic reactions will be discovered, as scientists probe the mechanics of sensing and movement and material action in all forms of life, including ourselves. But the material means of gathering information and performing material actions will not explain how organisms ranging from bacteria to humans process the information and make their decisions to perform the material actions. As a self-professed dualist, you champion the cause of autonomous intelligence, but for some strange reason, you think this only applies to large organisms.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 09, 2019, 18:32 (1837 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour.

DAVID: You know I accept epigenetic abilities.

So do you accept my now bolded suggestion?

Yes.


DAVID: Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

dhw: If it were true that the article opted for divine preprogramming, I would say it is another example of confirmation/conclusion bias, but it even leaves open the possibility that ants are not confined to robotic behaviour. You obviously haven't read the conclusion (my bold)

QUOTE: A second [challenge] is that it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.

We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing. Yes, they’re simple, but maybe they’re not as simple as people think,” said Melvin Gauci, a researcher at Harvard University working on swarm robotics.

DAVID: I agree that we do not fully understand them but all the article showed were individuals we programmed to have their own individual responses once the activity started. I realize there had to be an ant who decided to start the bridge when at the lead of the column. His decision could very well be automatic or either/or: straight on or go around.

dhw: I doubt if it was one ant. They work cooperatively and collectively, just as our own cell communities do. You drew my attention to the article, but it clearly leaves open the possibility that there is more to ant behaviour than mere algorithms and automaticity.

Without describing any.


DAVID: We've covered this many times. God is in control with pre-programming/ and or dabbling. Each stage of evolution has a set of rules to follow. They carry instructions for future steps but aren't privy to it.

dhw: […] here we go again, with your rigid beliefs stated as if they were facts. How can you know that bridge-building ants have been preprogrammed or taught by your God and, when they first started bridge-building, did not combine their intelligences and pass on the information?

DAVID: […] Your reliance on built in intelligence is used as a substitute for God and remains totally theoretical, while as research advances, more an more reactions are seen as automatic. My expectation is my view will prevail.

dhw: My hypothesis does not in any way “substitute” intelligence for God, but allows for God to have a different purpose and method from those which you attribute to him in your own totally theoretical hypotheses. I’m sure more and more automatic reactions will be discovered, as scientists probe the mechanics of sensing and movement and material action in all forms of life, including ourselves. But the material means of gathering information and performing material actions will not explain how organisms ranging from bacteria to humans process the information and make their decisions to perform the material actions. As a self-professed dualist, you champion the cause of autonomous intelligence, but for some strange reason, you think this only applies to large organisms.

Once again you want to imply some degree of our special intelligence to organisms with no brains. Design for the future forms in evolution require a designing brain, which fits perfectly our experience. I have a very clear explanation for intelligent results that cells create, intelligent instructions they follow.

Natures wonders: ants who are slave owners

by dhw, Sunday, March 10, 2019, 10:34 (1836 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I suggest that if some ants are required by a particular situation to change their behaviour, it is likely that the change of behaviour will change the DNA rather than the DNA forcing them to change their behaviour.

DAVID: You know I accept epigenetic abilities.

dhw: So do you accept my now bolded suggestion?

DAVID: Yes.

Thank you.

DAVID: Reread this website presented on Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:44
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

DAVID: I agree that we do not fully understand them but all the article showed were individuals we programmed to have their own individual responses once the activity started. I realize there had to be an ant who decided to start the bridge when at the lead of the column. His decision could very well be automatic or either/or: straight on or go around.

dhw: I doubt if it was one ant. They work cooperatively and collectively, just as our own cell communities do. You drew my attention to the article, but it clearly leaves open the possibility that there is more to ant behaviour than mere algorithms and automaticity.

DAVID: Without describing any.

You thought the article would prove that ants are robots automatically obeying instructions. It clearly doesn’t since it explicitly leaves other possibilities open.

DAVID: […] Your reliance on built in intelligence is used as a substitute for God and remains totally theoretical, while as research advances, more an more reactions are seen as automatic. My expectation is my view will prevail.

dhw: My hypothesis does not in any way “substitute” intelligence for God, but allows for God to have a different purpose and method from those which you attribute to him in your own totally theoretical hypotheses. I’m sure more and more automatic reactions will be discovered, as scientists probe the mechanics of sensing and movement and material action in all forms of life, including ourselves. But the material means of gathering information and performing material actions will not explain how organisms ranging from bacteria to humans process the information and make their decisions to perform the material actions. As a self-professed dualist, you champion the cause of autonomous intelligence, but for some strange reason, you think this only applies to large organisms.

DAVID: Once again you want to imply some degree of our special intelligence to organisms with no brains. Design for the future forms in evolution require a designing brain, which fits perfectly our experience. I have a very clear explanation for intelligent results that cells create, intelligent instructions they follow.

My thanks for abandoning the above attempt to pretend that my hypothesis seeks to be a substitute for God, and my regret that you’ve ignored the difference between decision-making and the automatic processes that precede and follow it. (You continue to focus only on automatic processes under “Biological complexity”. Fair enough, but not an answer to the points I have raised above.) Ants, of course, have brains, but yes, in common with an increasing number of modern scientists (see “Genome complexity”), I do propose that organisms with no brains have a degree of intelligence. You are quite right, however, that if every form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder was designed at the beginning of life, and stored in programmes to be passed on by bacteria who somehow only pick out their own bacterial programme, but somehow automatically pass the weaverbird and nest-building programme on to pre-weaverbird cells (multiply the example by a few billion), it would require...oh, now here’s a problem...not a designing brain, unless you think your God has a brain, but a designing mind. However, if every single multicellular life form etc. arose in response to and not in crystal-ball anticipation of changing conditions, it is possible that the cell communities (using a perhaps God-given form of intelligence) might have done the designing themselves.

Natures wonders: whiteflies fool tomato plant defenses

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 04, 2019, 21:27 (1810 days ago) @ dhw

They are caused to release the wrong danger signal:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/major-crop-pest-can-make-tomato-plants-lie-their-ne...

"Don’t blame the tomato. Tiny pests called silverleaf whiteflies can make a tomato plant spread deceptive scents that leave its neighbors vulnerable to attach.

"Sap-sucking Bemisia tabaci, an invasive menace to a wide range of crops, are definitely insects. Yet when they attack a tomato plant, prompting a silent shriek of scents, the plant starts smelling as if bacteria or fungi have struck instead. Those phony odors prime neighboring tomato plants for an attack, but not from an insect, an international research team found.

"Those plants prepare to mount a fast and strong resistance against an incoming pathogen. But that high alert suppresses the plants’ chemistry for resisting insects and “leaves them far more vulnerable to the whiteflies when they arrive,” says Xiao-Ping Yu, an entomologist at China Jiliang University in Hangzhou.

"Tomato plants that spent 24 hours in a chamber with just the odor of a major whitefly attack managed to produce only half the surge of an insect-fighter hormone as plants taken by surprise by an insect attack, Yu and colleagues report March 25 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Plant defense chemistry often poses this one-or-the-other dilemma. To put up a good fight against insects, plants typically rev up a system of defenses controlled by the hormone jasmonic acid, or JA. But throwing that system into full gear suppresses the defenses controlled by salicylic acid, SA, which are more useful against pathogens.

"The pathogen prep may not be a complete waste of effort for the plants. Whiteflies function like mosquitoes for plants, spreading viruses and other diseases. Even drops of whitefly pee, sometimes called honeydew, attract sooty mold.

“'Maybe the plant is more worried about diseases,” says study coauthor Ted Turlings, a chemical ecologist at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland. In the short term, the deceptive signal costs the neighbor plants because whitefly infestations get off to a strong start. But the diseases whiteflies bring may mean the SA defenses could be useful in the end.
“We will try to explore this in follow-up research,” he says."

Comment: As the article explains this may be an overreaction of the plant rather than a deliberate action by he pest. The important point really is plans have strong defenses as they sense danger. Plants are not as inert as they appear.

Natures wonders: fish warn danger with released chemical

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 18, 2019, 23:44 (1796 days ago) @ David Turell

Especially if among fish in their species:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190418141739.htm

"The USask researchers discovered that wild fish release chemicals called 'disturbance cues' to signal to other fish about nearby dangers, such as predators.

***

"Fish signaled most when in the presence of familiar fish, but signaled far less or not at all when in the presence of strangers, or when on their own.
The signals provoked a 'fright response' in fish they knew, including freezing, dashing about and then shoaling tightly together. Fish use this behavior to defend themselves against predators.

"'When minnows were present alongside familiar minnows, they were much more likely to produce signals that initiated close grouping of nearby fish, a strategy used to avoid being eaten by predators," said Bairos-Novak, who is now at James Cook University, Australia.
Disturbance cues are voluntarily released by prey after being chased, startled or stressed by predators.

"One of the main constituents of the signal is urea, found in fish urine.

"Fathead minnows, caught at a lake, were placed in groups with familiar fish, unfamiliar fish or as isolated individuals. The research team then simulated a predator chase. The fish responded by shoaling, freezing and dashing when they received a signal from a group they knew. But they did not take significant defensive action when receiving cues from unfamiliar fish or isolated minnows.

"Disturbance cues are voluntarily released by prey after being chased, startled or stressed by predators."

Comment: Plants warn of danger by releasing gases. It is not surprising that evolution has provided a similar mechanism in fish, certainly an example of convergence.

Natures wonders: sling shot spiders

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 19, 2019, 05:32 (1766 days ago) @ David Turell

They re tiny but use their webs powerfully:

https://www.livescience.com/65491-spider-web-slingshot.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&am...

"Does the idea of a spider using its web to catapult itself at high speeds give you the willies? Then be forewarned: the triangle weaver spider (Hyptiotes cavatus) does just that. Which makes it the only known creature, besides humans, to employ a strategy known as "external power amplification, a new study finds.

"The concept of external power amplification is simple. Basically, an animal uses an external device (in this case, the spider's web) to store energy, like a person storing energy in a bow with a pulled-back arrow. Once the energy is released, the spider is flung forward like a slingshot, greatly exceeding the speeds at which the arachnid could otherwise travel.

"This crafty trick helps the spider survive. The triangle weaver spider doesn't have venom, so it uses this slingshot method to help it swiftly catch prey that land on its web, the researchers said.

***

"The videos revealed that after the spider builds a triangular web, it retreats to the web's corner, where the long lines of its web join together. Then it takes the web's anchor line, the main strand that connects the web to something stable, like a branch, and cuts the line in two.

"Then, the spider does its trick: it uses its body to bridge the now-loose, cut strand of web. It holds the far end (the end closest to the branch) with its hind legs and the front end with its front legs. Next, the spider walks backward "in a 'leg-over-leg' motion, pulling the web taut," the researchers wrote in the study.

"As the spider walks backward, it's essentially storing energy in the web, much like a little kid pulling back a slingshot. The spider can wait like this for hours. Then, when the spider feels a stimulus on itself or the web, it lets go of the rear anchor line and shoots forward with alarming speed.

"All of that stored elastic energy causes a recoil and it [the spider and the web] just flings forward, kind of like when you let go of the rubber band," said study co-researcher Daniel Maksuta, a doctoral student studying polymer science at the University of Akron in Ohio. "It really works out too. [If] the prey is massive in comparison to the web and the spider, the web kind of just flings around it. So, that's how [the prey] gets all tangled up."

"The maneuver is so fast, the spider can be hurled forward at accelerations of about 2,535 feet/second squared (772 meters/s^2), the researchers found.

"The spider and the web move a lot before the prey really starts moving," Maksuta told Live Science. In other words, the prey doesn't even know what hit it, and by the time it does, it's too late.

"The tiny spider then works to ensnare the prey with more iterations of this slingshot method until the hapless victim is completely wrapped in silk. All of this is done without the spider having to get close to the prey, which protects the eight-legged critter from possible injury.

"'It's pretty good at catching prey without having to touch it, unlike a lot of spiders," Maksuta said.

"Other animals use power amplification, but it's usually powered by their own muscles, meaning it isn't external like the spider's. Classic examples of this are the jumping mechanisms of fleas, froghopper insects and frogs; the deadly strike of the mantis shrimp; and the tongue projection of chameleons, the researchers wrote in the study."

Comment: If this developed by trial and error (Darwin), the spiders would never have survived to perfect the method. Only design fits the process of development

Natures wonders: fungus oxidizes Gold

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 28, 2019, 14:54 (1757 days ago) @ David Turell

Found in Australia:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/fungus-found-in-australian-soil-can-oxidize-...


"Fungi present in soil of the so-called Golden Triangle Gold Prospect zone of Australia can oxidize the metal, researchers reported May 23 in Nature Communications. The reaction dissolves gold, after which the fungi precipitate the metal on their surfaces, a process that may help move the metal from deeper deposits in the Earth’s crust closer to the surface.

"The result represents a previously unknown role for fungi in biogeochemical cycling, Saskia Bindschedler, a microbiologist from the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland who was not involved in the work, tells the ABC. “What I really like about this paper is that it shows that not only bacteria are able to oxidise inactive metals,” she says.

“'Fungi are well-known for playing an essential role in the degradation and recycling of organic material, such as leaves and bark, as well as for the cycling of other metals, including aluminium, iron, manganese and calcium,” coauthor Tsing Bohu of CSIRO tells the Australian Associated Press. “But gold is so chemically inactive that this interaction is both unusual and surprising—it had to be seen to be believed.”

"Bohu and his colleagues sampled the surface soil of the region that was a gold “hot spot,” as they call it in their paper, and scanned for microbes that might be oxidizing the metal. That introduced them to an isolate of Fusarium oxysporum called TA_pink1. Experiments in the lab revealed that the fungal isolate could dissolve the metal, then precipitate nanoparticles of gold on its surface.

“'There is an underlying biological benefit from this reaction,” Bohu tells the ABC. “We found gold-loving fungi can grow faster and bigger relative to other fungi that don’t work with gold.'” (my bold)

Comment: Noble metal not so noble. Seems as if there is cycle to process everything on Earth. On a living Earth everything is used.

Natures wonders: salmon exercise enzyme

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 04, 2019, 20:49 (1749 days ago) @ David Turell

When hey have to migrate upstream to reproduce, this enzyme helps the circulatory system:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-salmon-major-athletic-boost-enzyme.html

"Salmon species, known for undertaking arduous upstream migrations, appear to owe a good deal of their athletic ability to the presence of a single enzyme.

"New research indicates that plasma-accessible carbonic anhydrase (paCA)—an enzyme anchored to the walls of salmons' blood vessels—helps reduce how hard their hearts have to work during exercise by up to 27 percent.

"'Salmon species get one shot at reproduction, and we know cardiovascular performance can be a limiting factor during migration," says zoologist Till Harter, who led the study while a researcher at the University of British Columbia (UBC).

"'It appears paCA plays a key role in enhancing the animal's ability to extract oxygen from their blood, making salmon great aerobic athletes and giving them a much-needed edge during migration."

"The researchers also found the paCA enzyme kicked in when the fish were exposed to low water oxygen levels—hypoxia—and helped the salmon recover faster from exercise.

"'Like hypoxia, increases in water temperature are also thought to limit aerobic performance," says UBC researcher Colin Brauner, senior author on the paper.

"'If elevated temperature recruits paCA like hypoxia does, there may be levels at which fish can acclimate and be better prepared to deal with elevated temperatures associated with climate change."

"'Like hypoxia, increases in water temperature are also thought to limit aerobic performance," says UBC researcher Colin Brauner, senior author on the paper.

"'If elevated temperature recruits paCA like hypoxia does, there may be levels at which fish can acclimate and be better prepared to deal with elevated temperatures associated with climate change.'"

Comment: A reminder. Enzymes are giant complex molecules which facilitate speed in protein reactions. How did chance evolution find this specific molecule? Since salmon have such a complex migratory reproduction system, this system and enzyme must have been designed.

Natures wonders: beewolf egg uses nitric oxide

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 11, 2019, 19:33 (1743 days ago) @ David Turell

The eggs produce nitric oxide to preserve food supply for larvae:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-beewolves-gas-food.html

"Scientists from the Universities of Regensburg and Mainz and the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology discovered that the eggs of the European beewolf produce nitric oxide. The gas prevents the larvae's food from getting moldy in the warm and humid brood cells.

***

"The European beewolf Philanthus triangulum, a solitary wasp species whose females hunt honey bees, has evolved a successful method of food preservation. A female takes up to five honey bees into its brood cells where they serve as food for a young beewolf. Female beewolves prefer to build their nests in sunlit and sandy places. The nests are deep and therefore the brood cells are warm and humid. Such conditions are favorable for the development of the beewolf larvae; however, they also foster the growth of mold fungi. As a matter of fact, bees stored under such conditions in the lab were overgrown by mold within one to three days. Surprisingly, the mold risk for bees was much lower in the nests of beewolves, so that most beewolf larvae were able to finish their eight to ten-day development until they spin a cocoon.

***

"Bioassays showed that beewolf eggs emit a gas that efficiently kills mold fungi. A chemical analysis revealed the surprising result that the gas is nitric oxide (NO). The eggs produce nitric oxide in large quantities and release it to the air where is reacts with atmospheric oxygen to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The measured NO2 concentrations in the brood cells exceed both the occupational exposure limits of NO and NO2 as well as the EU maximum permissible values in cities.

***

"Although beewolf eggs produce enormous amounts of NO, they use the same enzymes, NO synthases, which are also used by other organisms. Also, the responsible NO synthase gene in beewolves does not have any special characteristics. However, the researchers found a modification in the translation of the gene into the protein, which may be responsible for the unusually high synthesis rate of NO in beewolf eggs. "Due to so-called alternative splicing the enzyme in the beewolf eggs lacks a segment which may be responsible for regulation.

***

The most amazing aspect of the defense strategy of beewolf eggs is the fact that the eggs are obviously able to survive the extremely toxic conditions they produce themselves. Which mechanism the eggs deploy is the subject of current investigations. (my bold)

Comment: The bolded paragraph points out a key issue. The ability to produce nitric oxide had to develop at the same time as a protective mechanism was provided. Otherwise the eggs would not have survived. This can only originate by design, not by stepwise development.

Natures wonders: spider silk 10X stronger than Kevlar

by David Turell @, Friday, July 26, 2019, 01:12 (1698 days ago) @ David Turell

The spider spins huge webs over rivers in Madagascar:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/madagascar-spider-silk-10-times-stronger-than-kevlar...

"Darwin’s bark spider (Caerostris darwini), native to Madagascar, produces the largest orb-shaped webs in the world, with diameters up to 2.8 metres.

"The species exploits insect prey that fly above rivers, positioning webs midway between the banks, suspended from silk “bridge-lines” that can be as long as 25 metres. (my bold)

Gram for gram, spider silk is an extremely tough and flexible material,

***

"Darwin’s bark spider, however, takes tensile strength an entirely new level. Its dragline silk – the type that forms the energy-absorbing primary spokes of the orb-web – is twice as strong as that of any other silk thus far tested, and an astonishing 10 times stronger than Kevlar.

"... scientists led by Jessica Garb from the University of Massachusetts Lowell in the US might have found the answer. In a paper published in the journal Communications Biology, they report that the silk is the result of “a suite of novel traits from the level of genes to spinning physiology to silk biomechanics”.

"When Garb and colleagues analysed the structure of bark spider dragline silk they made an unexpected discovery. All orb spiders produce silk containing two distinct sets of repetitive proteins, called spindroins, known as MaSp1 and MaSp2. The number of repeats, and the ratio between the two types, govern the properties of the various types of silk each spider produces.

"The dragline silk of Darwin’s bark spider, however, contains a third spindroin, which the researchers dubbed MaSp4a. This protein set lacks some of the components of the other two, but is unusually rich in a type of amino acid called proline, which is associated with elasticity.

"This, the researchers suggest, “may in part explain the greater extensibility and toughness” of the fibre.

"Dragline silk is produced in all spiders from glands known as major ampullae. The researchers found that these glands in the Darwin’s bark spider are “unusually long” – an evolutionary adaptation, they suggest, that may influence the structure and tensile strength of the silk, although exactly how, they add, “remains an important open question'”.

Comment: It is impossible to imagine this silk developed by trail and error. Note my bold to see the size of the construction these spiders had to learn how to do across small rivers. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: spider silk 10X stronger than Kevlar

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 29, 2019, 17:22 (1695 days ago) @ David Turell

Psalms 8

LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens. 2 Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. 3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? 5 You have made them a little lower than the angelsand crowned them with glory and honor. 6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild, 8 the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. 9 LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Psalms 139:14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Natures wonders: jumping using velcro-like hairs

by David Turell @, Monday, August 12, 2019, 01:45 (1681 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

The jumps are 20-30 times body length:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/that-looks-a-bit-like-velcro?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Mas...

"The three-millimetre larva of the goldenrod gall midge can “jump” 20 to 30 body lengths in a tenth of a second despite not having any legs.

"It attaches its head to its tail, then squeezes internal fluids into its tail section, swelling it and raising the pressure like an inner tube. When the bond between the head and tail can no longer hold, the tension is sprung, launching the worm into a high, tumbling flight.

"That’s impressive, if a little reckless, but it’s not new. It’s been in the scientific literature for 50 years.

"What is new – and this image helps explain – is a better understanding of how they do it.

"By capturing the process with a 20,000-frames-per-second video camera and scanning electron microscopes, researchers from Duke University, US, discovered rows of one-micron scales on patches of skin, which allow the head and tail to stick together even as the pressure builds.

"They are similar to the sticky pads on a gecko’s feet, the researchers say, though it’s not yet clear if they work in exactly the same way."

Comment: No way this developed by chance,

Natures wonders: high speed cone snail harpoons

by David Turell @, Friday, August 30, 2019, 19:38 (1663 days ago) @ David Turell

As fast as a speeding bullet:

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientist-cone-snail-quickest-animal.html

"With the use of ultra-high-speed videography, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Associate Professor Emanuel Azizi and colleagues from Occidental College Los Angeles have shed light on the hunting mechanism of the cone snail Conus catus. Published online in Current Biology - Cell Press, the researchers identified the snail's hydraulically propelled feeding structure as the quickest movement among mollusks by an order of magnitude.

"Most people may not equate snails with speed, but members of the aquatic species C. catus have been found to possess some of the quickest movement among the animal kingdom. While many land snails use their radula, or feeding structure, to munch on plants, members of C. catus use their chitinous radula to catch fast moving fish and other marine animals with remarkable speed. And Professor Azizi and his colleagues were interested in determining just how fast their harpooning radula could function.

"'When studying movement in animals, we found that latch and muscular sphincter structures like the one found in the cone snail's hydraulically propelled radula are capable of producing movements at remarkable speeds. By evaluating the anatomy and functional limits of these structures, we hope to uncover insights into how they evolve and how their design could inspire new forms for robots or medical devices," said Professor Azizi.

"When searching for food, cone snails use their radula as a projectile and conduit for the delivery of powerful venom. Scientists believe that the high speed of the movement is necessary to deliver the venom quick enough to exceed the escape time of potential prey, which include fast swimming fish. Using high-speed videography, the researchers determined that the radular harpoon can be propelled into prey within 100 microseconds, with a peak acceleration exceeding 280,000 m/s2 and a maximal acceleration exceeding 400,000 m/s2. These extreme speeds are similar to a fired bullet."

Comment: It would seem, if these snails need this mechanism to stun prey, they had to have had this ability from the beginning of their existence in order to survive. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: protecting baby giraffes

by David Turell @, Friday, August 30, 2019, 20:02 (1662 days ago) @ David Turell

The mothers do a good job:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829152017.htm

"'Like all herbivores, giraffes need to find quality food to survive, but also need to avoid lions, or at least see them coming," said Monica Bond, PhD candidate from the University of Zürich and lead author of the paper. "Giraffes in our huge, unfenced study area can choose from among many different places to spend their time -- places with different kinds of trees and bushes, places deep inside protected parks, or places closer to farming towns or ranchlands where people live.

***

"The study found that groups composed of only adult giraffes were food-focused and not affected by predation risk. These adult groups formed the largest groups -- up to 66 individuals -- in the rainy season when food is plentiful, but formed smaller groups during the dry season when food is harder to find. In contrast, predation risk was a very important factor influencing groups of giraffes with calves.

***

"The researchers showed that in areas with the most lions, groups with calves were found more often in dense bushes than in open grasslands, and that those groups were smaller in size. This observation supports the idea that giraffe mothers and calves have a strategy of hiding in dense bushes, rather than staying in open areas to better see lions or gathering in large groups to dilute the predation risk. Dense bushlands are therefore important habitat for giraffe calves that the researchers suggest should be protected. Some cattle ranchers promote shrub removal to encourage grass for their livestock, but this thinning of brush could be detrimental to giraffes and other animals that share the rangelands.

"The study also explored the influence of humans on giraffe grouping behaviors.

"'Outside the parks, the human population has been rapidly expanding in recent years," said Derek Lee, associate research professor of biology at Penn State and co-author of the study.
"Therefore, we felt it was important to understand how human presence affected grouping behavior, as natural giraffe habitat is ever-more dominated by people."

"Interestingly, adult females with calves were more likely to be found closer to traditional pastoralist compounds called bomas, made by livestock-keeping, non-farming people.

"'We suspect this is because the pastoralists may disrupt predator behaviors to protect their livestock and this benefits the giraffe calves," said Lee.

"Conversely, groups with calves avoided areas close to the larger towns of farming people, suggesting a difference between traditional bomas versus more densely populated human settlements for giraffe mothers seeking food and safety for themselves and their calves."

Comment: Not a surprising result. Animal mothers are very careful to protect their offspring.

Natures wonders: spiders hydraulic legs

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 01, 2019, 00:33 (1661 days ago) @ David Turell

A marvelous design of movement with some muscles and some parts moving b y liquid presdsures:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spiders-legs-are-hydraulic-masterpieces-11567088612?mod=se...

"A spider going for a walk is deeply impressive. Each leg has seven segments, so with eight legs, that’s 56 individual body parts to coordinate. Spiders have an exoskeleton, an external frame made of chitin and protein with no internal bones. There are muscles inside the exoskeleton that pull on it to flex the legs and bend them inward. But for two of the major joints in each leg, there are no extensor muscles, which means there’s no muscular way to pull the legs outward again. This is where the spider’s internal plumbing comes in handy.

"All eight legs are attached to the front part of the spider, the prosoma or cephalothorax, which also carries the eyes and mouthparts. Inside the prosoma there’s a fluid called hemolymph that takes the place of blood. Like our blood, it’s a transport system, carrying oxygen and nutrients. But instead of flowing through pipes like our veins and arteries, it just fills the spaces between other organs.

"Hemolymph is mostly water, and that gives it a useful characteristic: It can’t be compressed. You can’t squeeze it and make it smaller. Just like a water-filled balloon, if you try to squeeze it in one place, it will push into the surroundings somewhere else so that its overall volume stays the same.

"This is the key point about any hydraulic system: As the fluid is pushed into another space, it transmits a force. So instead of using muscles to extend its major leg joints, the spider squeezes on the fluid in its prosoma; the hemolymph is forced out and down the legs, pushing the leg joints outward. When the spider relaxes the internal pressure, the extra fluid flows back into the prosoma and the spider is ready for the next step. Using fluid pressure like this is so effective that it has been called a “hydraulic skeleton.”

"This is why dead spiders are found with their legs curled up: The tension in the flexor muscles pulls the legs inward, and there is no longer any internal pressure in the hemolymph to push them back out.

"Like any system, hydraulics has its advantages and disadvantages, the most obvious being the possibility of a puncture. Spiders do have mechanisms for sealing the hole if they lose a leg and can run around quite happily afterward, but they’re very vulnerable to punctures at sites that can’t be easily sealed.

"We tend to associate hydraulics with heavy machinery, but the spider is a living demonstration that it has far more delicate and intricate possibilities. Scientists and engineers have already been inspired by spiders to design tools for use in space that operate using a similar hydraulic system."

Comment: What has evolved can always teach us new tricks. This setup had to be designed by a designer.

Natures wonders: sea snake breathes with its head:

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 05, 2019, 00:30 (1657 days ago) @ David Turell

Vessels under the skin act like gills:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/this-sea-snake-gathers-oxygen-through-its-forehead?u...

"Only fish have gills, right? Wrong. Meet Hydrophis cyanocinctus, a snake that can breathe through the top of its own head.

"The 3m species, which is native to Australian and Asian coastal waters, can draw in oxygen with the help of a unique set of blood vessels below the skin in its snout and forehead.

"The network of blood vessels works very similarly to a fish’s gills, and represents a newly discovered addition to the extraordinary range of adaptations that sea snakes use to thrive below the waves.

"In evolutionary terms, sea snakes are relative newcomers to aquatic life, having evolved from land-based snakes only about 16 million years ago. This is much more recent than marine mammals such as whales and dugongs, which arose around 50 million years ago.

***

"These images revealed that this snake does not have a pineal eye. What actually goes through the mysterious hole in its skull is a large blood vessel (sometimes paired). This blood vessel then travels forward and branches into a complex network of veins and sinuses immediately under the skin of the forehead and snout.

"We then examined other snakes, both terrestrial and marine, using the same methods, and realised that this network of blood vessels in H. cyanocinctus is unique.

"While a network of blood vessels is expected to be present under the skin of all snakes, what is special about H. cyanocinctus is the greatly exaggerated size of the blood vessels and the fact that they converge towards a single large vein that goes into the brain.

"This strange network of blood vessels makes sense when we consider that sea snakes can breathe through their skin. This happens thanks to arteries containing much lower oxygen concentrations than the surrounding seawater, which allows oxygen to diffuse through the skin and into the blood.

"However, these low oxygen levels in arterial blood can cause problems, because the brain may not get the oxygen it needs. The dense network of veins on the forehead and snout of these sea snakes helps solve this problem by picking up oxygen from seawater and redistributing it to the brain while swimming underwater.

"If you think that sounds similar to what fish do with their gills, you’re absolutely right. H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."

Comment: same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much.

Natures wonders: sea snake breathes with its head:

by dhw, Thursday, September 05, 2019, 10:36 (1657 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."

DAVID: same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much.

So what is your answer? Did your God preprogramme or dabble the snake’s respiratory system because if he hadn’t, he would not have been able to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens? The snake has survived, so maybe, like the pre-whale, its local environment made marine life more desirable than life on land and so its cell communities adapted accordingly.

Natures wonders: geese fly over Everest

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 05, 2019, 14:52 (1657 days ago) @ dhw

Adapted to very high altitude to migrate:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/bar-headed-geese-slow-their-metabolism-to-so...

"The bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) flies over the tallest peaks of the Himalayas as it migrates from India to Mongolia each year. When oxygen levels in the thin air dip as low as 7 percent, the bird’s metabolism likewise dips to accommodate, yet its wings beat just as fast as before, researchers reported August 3.

"The goose’s high-altitude flights have been a biological mystery for decades. A mountain climber spotted a bar-headed goose overhead while summiting Mount Everest back in 1953, according to Science. Scientists marveled at how the creature could ascend nine kilometers above the earth?—two kilometers higher than any other known animal flies.

"Scientists have long known that bar-headed geese boast an enhanced ability to bind oxygen to their hemoglobin. A study conducted in 2009 also revealed that the birds sport more capillaries around their pectoral muscle cells than related species that don’t soar to such heights. Various researchers have also studied the birds at rest and while walking on a treadmill in normal and hypoxic conditions, but haven’t addressed how the birds handle low-oxygen levels in flight.

"To fill this gap in the literature, physiologist and NASA astronaut Jessica Meir and her colleagues devised a unique experiment: starting in 2010, the team raised 19 geese from hatchlings and trained them to fly in a 30-yard-long wind tunnel while fitted with physiological sensors and oxygen masks, according to The Washington Post. The masks simulated low-, medium-, and high-altitude air conditions while the sensors clocked the birds’ heart rate, blood oxygen levels, temperature, and metabolic rate

***

"In the wind tunnel experiments, the researchers found that the adult geese slowed their metabolism and heart rate in low-oxygen conditions and somehow cooled their blood. Hemoglobin binds oxygen more tightly in cooler conditions, meaning the birds’ blood carried more oxygen while the animals simultaneously burned fewer calories, according to the Post. The geese also adopted more-efficient flight strategies by altering the biomechanics of their wingbeats,

“'The bar-heads have done that migration for millions of years before the Himalayas were as tall as they are now, and the birds have been pushed as the mountains have moved up to go higher and higher,” says coauthor Julia York, now a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, in an interview with the Times. York, who played foster parent to seven geese, adds, “They’re amazing athletes.'” (my bold)

Comment: this certainly could have been a slow adaptation through epigenetics as mountains rose

Natures wonders: sea snake breathes with its head:

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 05, 2019, 18:15 (1657 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."

DAVID: same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much.

dhw: So what is your answer? Did your God preprogramme or dabble the snake’s respiratory system because if he hadn’t, he would not have been able to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens? The snake has survived, so maybe, like the pre-whale, its local environment made marine life more desirable than life on land and so its cell communities adapted accordingly.

I don't have an answer other than to propose God helped with the newly required designs for aquatic life. For example how did the snake handle the extra salt? Like the whales? There is more to jumping into salt water, with the new physiological requirements. I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.

Natures wonders: more parasitic mind control

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 25, 2019, 06:32 (1637 days ago) @ David Turell

It's not just fungi and ants. Here are parasitic wasps doing it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2217567-crypt-keeper-wasps-can-control-the-minds-o...

"A recently discovered parasitic wasp appears to have extraordinary mind-controlling abilities – it can alter the behaviour of at least seven other species.

"Many parasites manipulate the behaviour of their victims in extraordinary ways. For instance, sacculina barnacles invade crabs and make them care for barnacle larvae as if they were their own offspring. If the host crab is male, the parasite turns them female.

"Crypt-keeper wasps can control the minds of 7 other species of wasp

"A recently discovered parasitic wasp appears to have extraordinary mind-controlling abilities – it can alter the behaviour of at least seven other species.

"It was thought each species of parasite could manipulate the behaviour of only one host, or least only very closely related species. But the crypt-keeper wasp Euderus set is more versatile.

"It parasitises other wasps called gall wasps. Gall wasps lay their eggs in plants, triggering abnormal growths – galls – inside which the wasp larvae feed and grow. Adult gall wasps chew their way out of the gall and fly off.

"The crypt-keeper wasp seeks out oak galls and lays an egg inside them. The crypt-keeper larva then attacks the gall wasp larva. Infected gall wasps still start chewing their way out of the gall, but they stop chewing when the hole is still small and then remain where they are with their head blocking the exit and thus protecting the larva growing inside them – “keeping the crypt”.

***

"When the crypt-keeper larva turns into an adult wasp after a few days, it then chews through the head of the gall wasp to get out of the gall.

"The crypt-keeper wasp, which was only described in 2017, was thought to parasitise just one species. But when Ward’s team collected 23,000 galls from 10 kinds of oak trees as part of a bigger study, they found at least 7 of the 100 species of gall wasp they collected were parasitised by the same crypt-keeper wasp. “What we found is that it is attacking different hosts that don’t seem to be closely related,” says Ward."

Comment: Another form of mind control by a parasite. It is certainly not clear how this develops through evolution.

Natures wonders: complex water control in trees

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 01:44 (1616 days ago) @ David Turell

Ponderosa pines demonstrate a very complex system:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/how-a-tiny-pit-decides-a-pine-trees-...

"In trees, water is essential for producing food from sunlight and carbon dioxide, a process called photosynthesis, but also for maintaining pressure in plant cells, a concept called turgor. For both these reasons, the more water a tree transports, the faster it grows.

"Trees accomplish this by exploiting two physical properties of water: evaporation and the capillary effect. Openings in needles or leaves called stomata permit gas exchange by the plant, an important ability in its own right (plants must breathe just as we do). But stomata also permit evaporation. This might seem like a bad thing, but under normal circumstances it is all part of the plant’s plan.

"...the capillary effect is why water magically ascends capillary tubes or a paper towel that even briefly grazes a spill below it. In a tree, water is hoisted through the water-conducting tissues in the trunk with zero effort on the plant’s part.

"The water pipes in pine trees are not like the plumbing in your house, though. Instead of long, uninterrupted tubes, they are constructed of many short tubes called tracheids with angled ends. These shorter tubes connect to each other along their sides via structures called bordered pits, which look a lot like speakers.

***

"In cross section the bordered pit takes on more of a donut shape. The pit is made of three parts: the aperture, the torus, and the margo. The aperture is the little hole through which water enters the pit. The torus is the donut hole, which is suspended in the middle of the pit by the margo, a porous barrier made of the tracheid’s primary cell wall (the much thicker secondary cell wall makes up the torus and surrounds the pit).

***

"The oldest trees the scientists studied had slower average growth rates throughout their lives than the young trees they sampled. Even when they were young these old trees had grown slower. And, crucially, these older trees had larger torus overlap -- the width of the pit border covered by the torus -- than younger trees. The difference was largely the result of having smaller apertures.

"Trees with smaller apertures resist drought better because when the torus is drawn up against them, they seal better. But smaller apertures also means water travels more slowly through the tree when the doors are open, slowing growth.

"So there’s the rub: grow fast — get big, compete for light better, reproduce faster, and increase your chances of early survival — but make it easier for drought to kill you. Or make your drought-tight doors smaller and stronger, slow growth and prolong success, but increase the chance you’ll live to see your grandkids make cones of their own."

Comment: these are complex designs to help the trees handle changing wet and drier climates where they exist. The complexity can be appreciated by looking at the article's illustrations. Only design explains this system.

Natures wonders: ants control aggression

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 05, 2020, 22:18 (1503 days ago) @ David Turell

They identify foreign scents before an attacK:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-don-t-need-anger-management?utm_source=Cosmos+-...

"At a time when humans are expressing increased outrage, we might have something to learn from ants.

"Researchers have discovered they use a clever, precise mechanism to switch on aggression towards intruders from other colonies to defend their own,

***

"Ants have been around for tens of millions of years and have complex, highly organised social structures that help their colonies thrive; telling nestmates apart from non-nestmates is a key aspect of this.

“'Accepting friends and rejecting foes is one of the most important decisions an ant worker must make,” says Stephen Ferguson from Vanderbilt University.

***

"This new research has found that they need to smell and interpret fragrant compounds on intruder ants to “unlock” aggressive behaviour and protect their nest, which senior author Laurence Zwiebel refers to as a “coat of many odours”.


***

"Ants with normal receptors recognised and fought with those from other colonies, but ants with blocked or overactivated receptors showed dramatically reduced aggressive behaviour.

"The aggression is thus triggered by what the researchers term a “lock and key” mechanism.

“'The tumblers of the lock are the odourant receptors, and the teeth of the key represent the mixture of odourants that an ant might encounter on the cuticle of a non-nestmate,” Ferguson explains.

“'Neither a toothless key (antagonist) nor a rake (agonist) are sufficient to unlock aggression. Rather, the presence of a particular set of teeth on the key are required to elicit aggression between non-nestmates.”

"The tolerant stance appears to be the norm, and the insects will only become aggressive if this very precise signal is correctly “decoded” by their smell receptors, proving a long-held theory.

***

“'Put another way, ants, which have some of the most sophisticated and successful social structures in biology, do not practice a ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ social policy.'”

Comment: Note this is very tightly controlled automatic response, no thought involved, and indicates most animal responses are quite automatic.

Natures wonders: ants control aggression II

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 22:30 (1392 days ago) @ David Turell

They identify foreign scents before an attacK:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/ants-don-t-need-anger-management?utm_source=Cosmos+-...

"At a time when humans are expressing increased outrage, we might have something to learn from ants.

"Researchers have discovered they use a clever, precise mechanism to switch on aggression towards intruders from other colonies to defend their own,

***

"Ants have been around for tens of millions of years and have complex, highly organised social structures that help their colonies thrive; telling nestmates apart from non-nestmates is a key aspect of this.

“'Accepting friends and rejecting foes is one of the most important decisions an ant worker must make,” says Stephen Ferguson from Vanderbilt University.

***

"This new research has found that they need to smell and interpret fragrant compounds on intruder ants to “unlock” aggressive behaviour and protect their nest, which senior author Laurence Zwiebel refers to as a “coat of many odours”.


***

"Ants with normal receptors recognised and fought with those from other colonies, but ants with blocked or overactivated receptors showed dramatically reduced aggressive behaviour.

"The aggression is thus triggered by what the researchers term a “lock and key” mechanism.

“'The tumblers of the lock are the odourant receptors, and the teeth of the key represent the mixture of odourants that an ant might encounter on the cuticle of a non-nestmate,” Ferguson explains.

“'Neither a toothless key (antagonist) nor a rake (agonist) are sufficient to unlock aggression. Rather, the presence of a particular set of teeth on the key are required to elicit aggression between non-nestmates.”

"The tolerant stance appears to be the norm, and the insects will only become aggressive if this very precise signal is correctly “decoded” by their smell receptors, proving a long-held theory.

***

“'Put another way, ants, which have some of the most sophisticated and successful social structures in biology, do not practice a ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ social policy.'”

Comment: Note this is very tightly controlled automatic response, no thought involved, and indicates most animal responses are quite automatic.

This article on ant aggression adds a little:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smell-receptors-activate-ant-aggression/

"Scientists have long observed ants deftly navigating through crowds, attacking only individuals that might be hostile. New research confirms how smell receptors on the insects' antennae hold the key to this selective violence: without them, ants are socially blind and will not attack.

“'The current consensus was aggression between ants follows a simple rule: if [an ant] smells something different from the home colony, attack,” says Laurence Zwiebel, a co-author on the new study and a biologist at Vanderbilt University. But the new research shows it is not that simple. Ants hold off on attacking if they cannot smell anything—or even if they do not recognize a scent. “Rather a precise signal present on the non-nest mate must be correctly decoded for aggression to occur,” Zwiebel says.

***
"Ants have more than 400 odorant receptors, and Zwiebel says a next step is to determine which of them must function correctly to decode an enemy's smell. (For this study, researchers dampened or excited all of them.)"

Comment: More evidence of ants' automatic responses.

Natures wonders: ants handle water problems

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 18:19 (1246 days ago) @ David Turell

A newly discovered ant ability to handle too much water:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fire-ants-build-sand-syphon-tool-death-safety

"The threat of death is no obstacle for some hungry fire ants. To escape drowning while feeding on sugary water, black imported fire ants built syphons out of sand that moved the water to a safer spot.

***

"In the wild, black imported fire ants (Solenopsis richteri) typically eat honeydew produced by aphids. In the lab, entomologist Jian Chen of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service in Stoneville, Miss., and colleagues provided the ants with containers of sugary water. The insects have a hard, water-repellent outer covering called a cuticle, and can typically float on a liquid — and sure enough, the insects floated and fed without a problem.

"The researchers then reduced the water’s surface tension with a surfactant to make it more difficult for the ants to float. While some ants drowned, most stopped entering the containers and instead used grains of sand placed nearby to build structures leading from the inside of a container to outside of it. Those structures acted like syphons. Within five minutes of building one, nearly half of the water was drawn out through the sand pathway, allowing the ants to feed safely.

“'The fact that ants are building little syphons is new and interesting,” says Valerie Banschbach of Gustavus Adolphus College in Saint Peter, Minn., who was not involved in the study. The insects’ “flexibility to act in a creative way responding to a situation suggests that they have higher cognitive abilities than what is traditionally believed.”

"How the insects were able to sense the change in the water’s surface tension is unknown. Some ants that drown initially could be releasing chemical messengers, Chen says, or maybe the ants taste a difference in the water, or a combination of both.

"Black imported fire ants are native to South America but have made their way to parts of North America where they are regarded as invasive. The insects can damage crops such as corn, soybeans and okra, and can also sting humans."

Comment: Since the ants came from South America it is not stated how much is known about how ants in SA handle floods of water. This may be a previously learned method.

Natures wonders: ants handle water problems

by dhw, Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 10:49 (1245 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A newly discovered ant ability to handle too much water:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fire-ants-build-sand-syphon-tool-death-safety

QUOTE: "The threat of death is no obstacle for some hungry fire ants. To escape drowning while feeding on sugary water, black imported fire ants built syphons out of sand that moved the water to a safer spot."

DAVID: Since the ants came from South America it is not stated how much is known about how ants in SA handle floods of water. This may be a previously learned method.

All “learned methods” must have an origin. A tiny article in The Times a few days ago also reported this. It begins “Ants have shown a hitherto unrecognized degree of intelligence by learning how to use and adapt complex tools”. They may have used and adapted them, but originally their ancestors must have invented them. And I think the astonishing degree of ant intelligence has been recognized by many of us long before this discovery!

Natures wonders: ants handle water problems

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 17:39 (1245 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A newly discovered ant ability to handle too much water:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fire-ants-build-sand-syphon-tool-death-safety

QUOTE: "The threat of death is no obstacle for some hungry fire ants. To escape drowning while feeding on sugary water, black imported fire ants built syphons out of sand that moved the water to a safer spot."

DAVID: Since the ants came from South America it is not stated how much is known about how ants in SA handle floods of water. This may be a previously learned method.

dhw: All “learned methods” must have an origin. A tiny article in The Times a few days ago also reported this. It begins “Ants have shown a hitherto unrecognized degree of intelligence by learning how to use and adapt complex tools”. They may have used and adapted them, but originally their ancestors must have invented them. And I think the astonishing degree of ant intelligence has been recognized by many of us long before this discovery!

They are amazing

Natures wonders: uncrushable ironclad beetle

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 19:36 (1245 days ago) @ David Turell

Built with a very hard outer skeleton:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/diabolical-ironclad-beetle-exoskeleton-armor-imposs...

"The diabolical ironclad beetle is like a tiny tank on six legs.

"This insect’s rugged exoskeleton is so tough that the beetle can survive getting run over by cars, and many would-be predators don’t stand a chance of cracking one open. Phloeodes diabolicus is basically nature’s jawbreaker.

***

"The diabolical ironclad beetle, which dwells in desert regions of western North America, has a distinctly hard-to-squish shape. “Unlike a stink beetle, or a Namibian beetle, which is more rounded … it’s low to the ground [and] it’s flat on top,” says David Kisailus, a materials scientist at the University of California, Irvine. In compression experiments, Kisailus and colleagues found that the beetle could withstand around 39,000 times its own body weight. That would be like a person shouldering a stack of about 40 M1 Abrams battle tanks.

***

"This toughness makes the diabolical ironclad beetle pretty predator-proof. An animal might be able to make a meal out of the beetle by swallowing it whole, Kisailus says. “But the way it’s built, in terms of other predation — let’s say like a bird that’s pecking at it, or a lizard that’s trying to chew on it — the exoskeleton would be really hard” to crack.

"That hard exterior is also a nuisance for insect collectors. The diabolical ironclad beetle is notorious among entomologists for being so fantastically durable that it bends the steel pins usually used to mount insects for display, says entomologist Michael Caterino of Clemson University in South Carolina. But “the basic biology of this thing is not particularly well-known,” he says. “I found it fascinating” to learn what makes the beetle so indestructible.

"The possibility of using beetle-inspired designs for sturdier airplanes and other structures is intriguing, Caterino adds."

Comment: another example of the possible use of ecomimetics. The question for me is what need caused this design. Darwin theory would want to know what caused this adaptation? My answer is the designer designs what He wants, as many designs in evolution show, appearing without need, as in the unwarranted/unreasonable appearance of humans.

Natures wonders: toad mimics viper head

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 02:03 (1610 days ago) @ David Turell

One must wonder how the toad did this, all by itself:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/meet-the-cunning-toad-viper?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Mast...

"Results published in the Journal of Natural History reveal that the hamburger-sized Congolese giant toad (Sclerophrys channingi) likely imitates the formidable Gaboon viper (Bitis gabonica) in both appearance and behaviour.

"At an average length in the 125-155 centimetre range, B. gabonica is one of Africa’s largest vipers. It has the longest fangs, reaching up to five centimetres, and highest yield of venom – although not especially toxic – of any known snake.

"A research team led by Eli Greenbaum, from the University of Texas at El Paso, US, believes S. channingi may use its ability to mimic B. gabonica to escape predation.

***

"...based on multiple sources of evidence provided in our study, we are confident that our mimicry hypothesis is well-supported,” Greenbaum says.

"The researchers compared the appearance of the toad, found in central African rainforests, and the viper, which is more widely distributed in central, eastern and southern Africa.
Using live wild-caught and captive individuals, and preserved museum specimens, they found that the colour pattern and shape of the toad’s body is similar to that of the viper’s head.

"Most striking are two dark brown spots and a dark brown stripe that extends down the toad’s back, the triangular shape of its body, a sharp demarcation between its tan back and dark brown flanks, and the species’ extraordinarily smooth skin for a toad.

***

"Gaboon vipers are renowned for their placidity – it’s said that humans must literally step on the snake to prompt a bite – and even then it’s not guaranteed; if an individual feels threatened, it will often incline its head and emit a long, loud warning hiss before resorting to a strike.

"Similarly, herpetologist Chifundera Kusamba, from the Centre de Recherche en Sciences Naturelles in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), observed the toad emitting a hissing noise resembling the sound of air being slowly released from a balloon. And over a century ago, US biologist James Chapin observed the toad "bow" – lowering its front limbs so they no longer propped up the viperine-shaped body, which made it look similar to the cocked head of a snake threatening to strike.

"The last part of a successful impersonation is location. Even the best mimickry will only work if predators of the harmless species are familiar with the venomous one.
The researchers compared the geographical range of the toad and viper in the DRC and found that S. channingi does not seem to occur in areas where B. gabonica is absent. The researchers identified 11 locations in the eastern rainforests where the range of both species overlaps."

Comment: this must require several specialized mutations. I think the toad was helped. For side by side pictures look at this website:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/one-these-deadly-viper-other-harmless-toad-can-...

Natures wonders: how bacteria fish for DNA

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 17, 2019, 23:14 (1583 days ago) @ David Turell

They have hairs called pili that reach out into the surroundings:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191021114927.htm

"A new study from Indiana University has revealed a previously unknown role a protein plays in helping bacteria reel in DNA in their environment -- like a fisherman pulling up a catch from the ocean.

***

"The act of gobbling up and incorporating genetic material from the environment -- known as natural transformation -- is an evolutionary process by which bacteria incorporate specific traits from other microorganisms, including genes that convey antibiotic resistance.

"Although they may look like tiny arms under a microscope, Dalia said, pili are actually more akin to an erector set that is quickly put together and torn down over and over again. Each "piece" in the structure is a protein sub-unit called the major pilin that assembles into a filament called the pilus fiber.

"'There are two main motors that had previously been implicated in this polymerization and depolymerization process," added Jennifer Chlebek, a Ph.D. student in Dalia's lab, who led the study. "In this study, we show that there is a third motor involved in the depolymerization process, and we start to unravel how it works."

"The two previously characterized "motors" that control the pili's activity are the proteins PilB, which constructs the pili, and PilT, which deconstructs it. These motors run by utilizing ATP, a source of cellular energy. In this study, IU researchers showed that stopping this process, which switches off the power to PilT, does not prevent the retraction of the pili, as previously thought.

"Instead, they found that a third motor protein, called PilU, can power pilus retraction even if PilT is inactive, although this retraction occurs about five times more slowly. The researchers also found that switching off power to both retraction proteins slows the retraction process to a painstaking rate of 50 times slower. An unaltered pilus retracts at a rate of one-fifth of a micron per second.

"Moreover, the study found that switching off PilU affects the strength of pilus retraction, which was measured by collaborators at Brooklyn College. The study also showed that PilU and PilT do not form a "hybrid" motor, but instead that these two independent motors somehow coordinate with one another to mediate pilus retraction."

Comment: This ability to pick up new protective information has helped bacteria be at the start of life and still be here to be as useful as they are in functional biomes. I assume they were designed with this ability to improve their survival. This is too complex a mechanism with its different motors to have been developed by chance mutation.

Natures wonders:male fruit flies semen changes female brain

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 20:25 (1580 days ago) @ David Turell

It improves their memory according to this study:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224230-semen-seems-to-help-female-fruit-flies-rem...

"Female fruit flies get a boost in their long-term memory after mating thanks to a molecule found in male fly semen. This molecule – called the sex peptide – binds to the sperm of male flies and is passed on to females, where it travels from the reproductive tract to the brain.
It was already known that this molecule, which is unique to fruit flies, alters behaviour.

"After mating, it changes what females prefer to eat and makes them reject future mating partners, for example. It does this by acting on nerve cells, or neurons, located throughout the body.

"Thomas Preat and his colleagues at PSL University, France, found that this molecule also enhances long-term memory by targeting the neurons in the brain responsible for it. “This was very peculiar,” says Preat. “Normally the sex peptide acts on neurons which are connected to the ovaries.”

"To test fruit fly memory, the team conditioned females to pair certain smells with electric shocks. Although flies that had mated could remember to avoid smells associated with shocks, flies that hadn’t mated forgot after four days, showing they couldn’t retain this training in the long term.

"The researchers found that females who mated with males modified to lack the sex peptide didn’t have better long-term memories, but flies that hadn’t mated that were injected with the peptide saw a memory boost, suggesting the molecule was responsible.

"In nature, flies that are yet to mate might lack such a memory in order to make them braver and more likely to search out mating partners. In contrast, long-term memory would benefit flies that have mated so they remember safe spots to lay eggs.

"Stuart Wigby at the University of Oxford says he is surprised that the sex peptide can migrate all the way to the brain and affect learning. “It’s kind of amazing,” he says."

Comment: The bolded paragraph above makes good sense and suggests God might have arranged for this to assure fruit fly survival.

Natures wonders: pathogenic bacteria hide in plain sight

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 05:24 (1567 days ago) @ David Turell

A. strep can cling to familiar material and the immune system can't find them:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/harmful-bacteria-masquerade-red-blood-cel...

"Much of how group A strep manages to outsmart the body’s defenses remains mysterious. To better understand the bacteria’s elusive ways, Gonzalez and his lab have spent the past few years studying the suite of molecules produced by the pathogen during infection. Some of these molecules stick to red blood cells, including a handful of proteins that can rip the cells to shreds.

"But when the researchers used nanoparticles coated with pieces of blood cells as bait, they snared a new protein called S protein. Instead of tearing blood cells apart, this molecule allowed the bacteria to cling to the pieces left behind.

"At first, the seemingly innocuous stickiness of S protein baffled Gonzalez and his team. But they soon realized it might allow the bacteria to pass as the very cells they’d destroyed—the microscopic equivalent of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

"The deception is an unusual tactic, but an effective one, says co-first author Anaamika Campeau, a biochemist in Gonzalez’s lab. To hide any features that might incriminate group A strep as foreign invaders, the microbes plaster themselves with pieces of cells the immune system sees all the time and knows not to attack, she explains. “Once we kind of came to that idea, it all sort of fell into place.”

"The interaction between group A strep and red blood cells was so strong that the bacteria turned bright crimson when plopped into solutions of human blood. Immune cells, flummoxed by the bloody disguise, largely failed to capture and kill the would-be invaders.

"When the researchers generated a mutant strain of the bacteria that couldn’t make S protein, however, it struggled to disguise itself, turning only faintly pink in the presence of blood. The modified pathogens didn’t fool the immune cells, which quickly gobbled up their targets.

***

"Microbes mimicking host cells isn’t a new biological trick, says Tiara Pérez Morales, a molecular microbiologist at Benedictine University who wasn’t involved in the study. But the new study puts a plot twist on an old story. “They’re putting on a costume and pretending they’re red blood cells,” she says. “I don’t think I can think of anything else like it.”


"The loss of S protein so severely hamstrings the bacteria that the molecule could be an appealing target for new drugs in the future, Sanderson-Smith says. Blocking the protein’s activity during infection would essentially leave the bacteria in the buff, helping immune cells identify and destroy the pathogens."

Comment: S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

Natures wonders: koalas move like apes

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 23:27 (1553 days ago) @ David Turell

Not surprising. They are somewhat closely related primates:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/moves-like-a-marsupial-climbs-like-a-primate?utm_sou...

"Australia’s cuddly koala seems to have evolved tree clambering abilities that rival those of the apes and monkeys that never made it to the continent.

"Technically a marsupial – bearing its young in a pouch like kangaroos and wombats – the koala (Phascolarctos cinerus) has relatively long limbs with two thumb-like digits on powerful grasping hands and feet, and is more comfortable in the trees than on the ground.

***

"They found that, unlike other mammals such as cats and dogs that use two legs from the same side to support each other, koalas use a gait that allows greater stability from diagonally opposite leg pairs when climbing.

“'As far as we can tell, they are the closest thing we have to primates in Australia,” says Clemente, “likely because of the similar gripping structures on the hand. They do this more so than other tree species like possums, from which they share a common ancestor.”


***

"Unlike primates, though, their speed was more consistent with their sleepy demeanour, only reaching 2.5 kilometres per hour – although they were surprisingly agile.

“We occasionally saw leaps of over one metre from branch to branch, or a koala moving along a branch while hanging underneath just using their forelimbs,” says Clemente.

"On the ground their movements were more like marsupials, walking then bounding like rabbits with their hind feet synchronised to meet the ground at the same time. This is unlike the gallop used by many primates when moving quickly.

"Here, they achieved speeds of up to 10 kilometres per hour – relatively slow for their body mass, but possibly slower than speeds they are capable of, the authors suggest."

Comment: Interesting. Same habitat and similar genetics.

Natures wonders: how the human heart beats

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 22, 2019, 01:19 (1549 days ago) @ David Turell

Or other primatew and mammals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191220074305.htm

"The heart is both a plumbing and electrical marvel. For each heartbeat, electrical waves travel across a healthy heart in a pattern that controls its filling and pumping in a tightly coordinated manner. The rate at which the impulse is propagated through the heart tissue relies on actions taking place at the molecular level in tiny protein pores present in cardiac cell membranes.

"Sodium ions -- a type of charged particles -- pass through these protein passageways in the membrane boundary between the outside and inside of the cell.

***

"The activation and quick inactivation of these voltage-gated sodium channels are part of a series of electrical and physiological events that maintain a steady heartbeat.
"Sodium channels operate in concert with calcium channels and potassium channels to drive the heartbeat at a consistent frequency for our entire lives," Zheng noted.

***

"Specifically, the NaV (Latin abbreviation for sodium, V for voltage) 1.5 channel has such an indispensable role that certain mutations in those channels can be fatal, because other sodium channels in the heart cannot compensate for their loss. These mutations can cause dangerous arrhythmias in adults and even sudden death in children and young athletes.

***

"Among the key findings from this work were:

"A description of some of the characteristics of the NaV1.5 channel that distinguish it from other sodium ion channels found in heart cells, as well as in nerve and muscle cells.

"A comparison of the conformation of an important component of the sodium ion channels that "senses" the voltage across the cell membrane and drives the channels from resting to activated states. After their rapid activation, cardiac sodium channels inactivate within 1 to 2 milliseconds, a timing that is essential to regular heart rhythm."

Comment: As a cardiologist I really enjoyed this work description. The sinus node that starts the spread of electricity is somewhat explained here. The spread of electricity is such that each of the four chambers beat in a proper sequence for proper order of pumping of the four chambers to force blood circulation, with the heart receiving returning venous blood and pumping blood out through the arteries. Not by chance. Only design can create such a mechanism. As a physician it is very easy to understand why one should believe in God.

Natures wonders: how the human heart beats

by dhw, Sunday, December 22, 2019, 11:58 (1549 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: As a cardiologist I really enjoyed this work description. The sinus node that starts the spread of electricity is somewhat explained here. The spread of electricity is such that each of the four chambers beat in a proper sequence for proper order of pumping of the four chambers to force blood circulation, with the heart receiving returning venous blood and pumping blood out through the arteries. Not by chance. Only design can create such a mechanism. As a physician it is very easy to understand why one should believe in God.

I can only continue to thank you for all these marvellously educational articles, and I have no quarrel at all with your conclusion. You have every right to point out, as you did at the end of your post about your theory of evolution, that the picket fence is my "uncomfortable problem", and you are "quite comfortable" in your position with the ID folks. I have complete respect for your beliefs concerning God's existence, just as I respect the beliefs of those who are convinced that there is a natural explanation for life without a single, eternal, sourceless, hidden designer. This has never been an issue between us - although after all these years, I must confess I am not uncomfortable, but retain an unquenchable desire to know more. Your "Nature's wonders" thread is a continual gratification of this desire, and over the years there have been thousands of viewings, which means you have been educating thousands of people. Thank you again.

Natures wonders: how the human heart beats

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 22, 2019, 15:56 (1549 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID's comment: As a cardiologist I really enjoyed this work description. The sinus node that starts the spread of electricity is somewhat explained here. The spread of electricity is such that each of the four chambers beat in a proper sequence for proper order of pumping of the four chambers to force blood circulation, with the heart receiving returning venous blood and pumping blood out through the arteries. Not by chance. Only design can create such a mechanism. As a physician it is very easy to understand why one should believe in God.

dhw: I can only continue to thank you for all these marvellously educational articles, and I have no quarrel at all with your conclusion. You have every right to point out, as you did at the end of your post about your theory of evolution, that the picket fence is my "uncomfortable problem", and you are "quite comfortable" in your position with the ID folks. I have complete respect for your beliefs concerning God's existence, just as I respect the beliefs of those who are convinced that there is a natural explanation for life without a single, eternal, sourceless, hidden designer. This has never been an issue between us - although after all these years, I must confess I am not uncomfortable, but retain an unquenchable desire to know more. Your "Nature's wonders" thread is a continual gratification of this desire, and over the years there have been thousands of viewings, which means you have been educating thousands of people. Thank you again.

No, thank you for having this platform and allowing me to have pure fun presenting the current available evidence of the complexities in living organisms that require evolution by a designing mind from bacteria to humans. The improbability of that course is strong 'proof' of God.

Natures wonders: roots communicate with nematodes

by David Turell @, Friday, January 10, 2020, 22:24 (1529 days ago) @ David Turell

A form of chemical signalling and using the others' chemicals:

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-roundworm-language.html

"Nematodes are tiny, ubiquitous roundworms that infect plant roots, causing more than $100 billion in crop damage worldwide each year. New research has found that plants manipulate the worms' pheromones to repel infestations, providing insights into how farmers could fight these pests.

***


"the group studied a group of chemicals called ascarosides, which the worms produce and secrete to communicate with each other. As described in a paper published in Nature Communications on January 10, the researchers have shown that plants also "talk" to nematodes by metabolizing ascarosides and secreting the metabolites back into the soil.

"'It's not only that the plant can 'sense' or 'smell' a nematode," Schroeder said. "It's that the plant learns a foreign language, and then broadcasts something in that language to spread propaganda that 'this is a bad place'. Plants mess with nematodes' communications system to drive them away."

"The study built on the team's previous work showing that plants react to ascr#18—the predominant ascaroside secreted by plant-infecting nematodes—by bolstering their own immune defenses, thereby protecting them against many types of pests and pathogens.

***

"That observation, along with published literature suggesting plants could modify pest metabolites, led the team to hypothesize that "plants and nematodes interact via small molecule signaling and alter one another's messages," Schroeder said.

"To probe that idea, the team treated three plant species—Arabidopsis, wheat and tomato—with ascr#18 and compared compounds found in treated and untreated plants. They identified three ascr#18 metabolites, the most abundant of which was ascr#9.

"The researchers also found Arabidopsis and tomato roots secreted the three metabolites into the soil, and that a mixture of 90% ascr#9 and 10% ascr#18 added to the soil steered nematodes away from the plant's roots, thereby reducing infection.

"The team hypothesized that nematodes in the soil perceive the mixture as a signal, sent by plants already infected with nematodes, to "go away" and prevent overpopulation of a single plant. Worms may have evolved to hijack plant metabolism to send this signal. Plants, in turn, may have evolved to tamper with the signal to appear as heavily infected as possible, thereby fooling would-be invaders.

"'This is a dimension of their relationship that no one has seen before," said Manohar. "And plants may have similar types of chemical communication with other pests."

"Although the mixture of ascr#9 and ascr#18 could serve as a crop protectant, Schroeder said there should be no detriment to using straight ascr#18 on crops, as described in the team's earlier research.

"'Ascr#18 mainly primes the plant to respond more quickly and strongly to a pathogen, rather than fully inducing the defensive response itself," he said. "So there should be no cost to the plant in terms of reduced growth, yield or other problems."

"The team also showed that plants metabolize ascr#18 via the peroxisomal β-oxidation pathway, a system conserved across many plant species.

"'This paper uncovers an ancient interaction," Schroeder said. "All nematodes make ascarosides, and plants have had millions of years to learn how to manipulate these molecules.'"

Comment: The reactions between these organisms could have been programmed earlier or could have developed from programmed reactions over time.

Natures wonders: symbiotic population controls

by David Turell @, Monday, January 13, 2020, 15:34 (1527 days ago) @ David Turell

In this example controlling nitrogen supply:

https://www.the-scientist.com/image-of-the-day/image-of-the-day--symbiotic-algae-66950?...


"Some anemones and corals depend on symbiotic relationships with the photosynthetic algae living inside them for survival. Algae produce sugars that the sea creatures use for food, and in return, they get nutrients such as carbon dioxide, phosphorus, sulfur, and nitrogen. The hosts have to keep their algae populations in check. Too few can lead to starvation and coral bleaching, while too many can overburden the host’s metabolism. Just how they manage algae numbers was unknown until now. A study released in Nature Communications on January 8 has revealed that anemones control their algae by limiting the supply of shared nitrogen.

"A research team led by Tingting Xiang,...studied the anemone Exaiptasia pallida and found that at high densities, its algae, Breviolum minutum, showed an increased expression of genes associated with taking in and using nitrogen. When algae are starved of the nutrient, these genes are upregulated to compensate. "

From the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13963-z#Sec20

Abstract
"In cnidarian-Symbiodiniaceae symbioses, algal endosymbiont population control within the host is needed to sustain a symbiotic relationship. However, the molecular mechanisms that underlie such population control are unclear. Here we show that a cnidarian host uses nitrogen limitation as a primary mechanism to control endosymbiont populations. Nitrogen acquisition and assimilation transcripts become elevated in symbiotic Breviolum minutum algae as they reach high-densities within the sea anemone host Exaiptasia pallida. These same transcripts increase in free-living algae deprived of nitrogen. Symbiotic algae also have an elevated carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and shift metabolism towards scavenging nitrogen from purines relative to free-living algae. Exaiptasia glutamine synthetase and glutamate synthase transcripts concomitantly increase with the algal endosymbiont population, suggesting an increased ability of the host to assimilate ammonium. These results suggest algal growth and replication in hospite is controlled by access to nitrogen, which becomes limiting for the algae as their population within the host increases."

Comment: A complex arrangement between the two organisms. The question, obviously, is how did it evolve? It is difficult to imagine a beginning, since algae cannot live in anemones unless the metabolic arrangement is in place, and how did the anemone live without the supplied sugars?. Design?

Natures wonders: parasitic wasp larvae control spiders

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 15, 2020, 00:40 (1525 days ago) @ David Turell

Another example just found:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114104031.htm

"Acrotaphus wasps are fascinating because they are very sizeable parasitoids. The largest species can grow multiple centimetres in length and are also very colourful. Previously, only 11 species of the genus were known, so this new research gives significant new information on the diversity of insects in rain forests, tells postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the new study Diego Pádua, who has worked both for the INPA and the Biodiversity Unit of the University of Turku.

"The parasitoid Acrotaphus wasps parasitise on spiders. A female Acrotaphus attacks a spider in its web and temporarily paralyses it with a venomous sting. After this, the wasp lays a single egg on the spider, and a larva hatches from the egg. The larva gradually consumes the spider and eventually pupates.

"The Acrotaphus wasps we studied are very interesting as they are able to manipulate the behaviour of the host spider in a complex way. During the time period preceding the host spider's death, it does not spin a normal web for catching prey. Instead, the parasitoid wasp manipulates it into spinning a special web which protects the developing pupa from predators.

"Host manipulation is a rare phenomenon in the nature, which makes these parasitoid wasps very exciting in terms of their evolution, tells Ilari E. Sääksjärvi, Professor of Biodiversity research from the University of Turku."

Comment: This cannot develop through stepwise evolution. Design required.

Natures wonders: fish uses other fish for a taxi

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 18, 2020, 00:16 (1522 days ago) @ David Turell

They hop on board and help out the other fish by eating parasites, but they also get taken to where lunch happens to be:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/this-fish-knows-how-to-stick-around/...

"The remora is an unusual fish. It hitchhikes on other sea creatures, using a sucker on its head.

"'So you can see them on whales, dolphins, sharks, turtles, they stick to scuba divers, they stick to boats, to other fishes, other remoras."

"Brooke Flammang is a comparative biomechanist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University. She says sticking to other animals is a pretty good strategy.

"They avoid predation by sticking to large animals—no one's going to attack you if you're on a shark. It's a food source—many of them pick parasites off of the host they're attached to, and eat bits of food that are flying by, and poop. And they also have the ability to potentially meet other remoras for mating on the same organism."

"But now her team has discovered that the fish have another unusual quality: they're sensitive to touch. A type of touch previously unknown in the fish world.

"'Up until now we didn't think fish had the ability to sense touch in this way, or to sense dragging and shear, which is going to be very important for a remora, which is attached to something moving very quickly."

"By dissecting the fishes' suckers, and looking at the tissue with electron microscopes and CT scans, they saw an unusual push-button-like structure, which they determined must be a type of mechanoreceptor, enabling a sense of touch.

"'We just started poring through the literature trying to figure out what we were even looking at, and the only thing that has the same structure, a push-rod mechanoreceptor, are monotremes: platypus and echidnas."

"The details are in the journal Royal Society Open Science. [Karly E. Cohen, Brooke E. Flammang, Callie H. Crawford and L. Patricia Hernandez, Knowing when to stick: touch receptors found in the remora adhesive disc]

"The study suggests that this sort of touch perception arose independently at least twice in the animal kingdom: in remoras and monotremes. And, big picture? "I think the real story here is that we just need to look for different sensory capacities in organisms to a much larger extent."

"Because there are a lot of ways that life forms have come up with to make a living."

Comment: My usual problem is how to come up with a Darwinian just-so story to explain this. The fish had to develop it sucker mechanism before it started to latch on. How does a fish envision this way of life and then design the sucker? It obviously doesn't. This had to be designed.

Natures wonders: fish uses other fish for a taxi

by dhw, Saturday, January 18, 2020, 11:59 (1522 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "The study suggests that this sort of touch perception arose independently at least twice in the animal kingdom: in remoras and monotremes. And, big picture? "I think the real story here is that we just need to look for different sensory capacities in organisms to a much larger extent."

"Because there are a lot of ways that life forms have come up with to make a living."

DAVID: My usual problem is how to come up with a Darwinian just-so story to explain this. The fish had to develop it sucker mechanism before it started to latch on. How does a fish envision this way of life and then design the sucker? It obviously doesn't. This had to be designed.

First of all, yet again, thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. This series of yours is captivating.

As regards your usual problem, of course the sucker had to “develop” before the fish could latch on, but that doesn’t mean the sucker suddenly appeared as if by magic. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination that some clever predecessor discovered that life was much easier if it hitched a lift. Maybe the first pre-remoras did have trouble holding on. Some may have slid off. But the idea was good, and so just as pre-whale legs would have turned into flippers as the organism adapted itself to marine life, those parts of the remora (and other such organisms) it used to hold on with would have transformed themselves into suckers. Yes, this presupposes intelligence – the ability of cells to transform themselves in order to exploit a different environment. Shapiro calls the process “natural genetic engineering”.

Natures wonders: fish uses other fish for a taxi

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 18, 2020, 18:33 (1522 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: "The study suggests that this sort of touch perception arose independently at least twice in the animal kingdom: in remoras and monotremes. And, big picture? "I think the real story here is that we just need to look for different sensory capacities in organisms to a much larger extent."

"Because there are a lot of ways that life forms have come up with to make a living."

DAVID: My usual problem is how to come up with a Darwinian just-so story to explain this. The fish had to develop it sucker mechanism before it started to latch on. How does a fish envision this way of life and then design the sucker? It obviously doesn't. This had to be designed.

dhw: First of all, yet again, thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. This series of yours is captivating.

As regards your usual problem, of course the sucker had to “develop” before the fish could latch on, but that doesn’t mean the sucker suddenly appeared as if by magic. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination that some clever predecessor discovered that life was much easier if it hitched a lift. Maybe the first pre-remoras did have trouble holding on. Some may have slid off. But the idea was good, and so just as pre-whale legs would have turned into flippers as the organism adapted itself to marine life, those parts of the remora (and other such organisms) it used to hold on with would have transformed themselves into suckers. Yes, this presupposes intelligence – the ability of cells to transform themselves in order to exploit a different environment. Shapiro calls the process “natural genetic engineering”.

As usual you ha e conjured up lots of fore thinking for the fish. Remember, fish are slick. If you've ever caught on a hook and tried to remove it, it is very difficult to hold unless tightly gripped. Developing a sucker takes lots of evolutionary time for developing the proper DNA changes. Your just-so story requires centuries of remora persistence until they get it right. No organism during the human time of studying adaptation has shown any degree of this massive change. That is the problem we face. The flipper and teh sucker require design, and a designer.

Natures wonders: fish uses other fish for a taxi

by dhw, Sunday, January 19, 2020, 10:51 (1521 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As regards your usual problem, of course the sucker had to “develop” before the fish could latch on, but that doesn’t mean the sucker suddenly appeared as if by magic. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination that some clever predecessor discovered that life was much easier if it hitched a lift. Maybe the first pre-remoras did have trouble holding on. Some may have slid off. But the idea was good, and so just as pre-whale legs would have turned into flippers as the organism adapted itself to marine life, those parts of the remora (and other such organisms) it used to hold on with would have transformed themselves into suckers. Yes, this presupposes intelligence – the ability of cells to transform themselves in order to exploit a different environment. Shapiro calls the process “natural genetic engineering”.

DAVID: As usual you ha e conjured up lots of fore thinking for the fish. Remember, fish are slick. If you've ever caught on a hook and tried to remove it, it is very difficult to hold unless tightly gripped. Developing a sucker takes lots of evolutionary time for developing the proper DNA changes. Your just-so story requires centuries of remora persistence until they get it right. No organism during the human time of studying adaptation has shown any degree of this massive change. That is the problem we face. The flipper and teh sucker require design, and a designer.

There is no “forethinking” if an organism finds an advantageous strategy and its body changes in order to perfect that strategy. How do you know what time is involved? Lamarck is back in favour, so do you think there are no acquired characteristics to be inherited? During the human time of study, nobody has observed any of the innovations that led to new species, and nobody has found your 3.8-billion-year-old programme for suckers and the rest of evolution, and nobody has seen God pop in and dabble or give lessons to whales or weaverbirds or sucker fish or any other species. If my hypothesis is a just-so story, what should we call yours? Yes, evolutionary innovation is the problem we face, and yes, I am all in favour of design. And one of several theories is that cells/cell communities are intelligent enough to do their own designing, and maybe your God gave them that ability.

Under “Evolution: complexify or not”:
DAVID: There are many sorts of examples of change or no change: it seems scorpions never evolved much from their start. Mammals jumped into the water and became whales. Humans quickly evolved from apes. We can look for circumstances that pushed the changes but the reason we find as guesses and at times the changes are unreasonable. Mammal did not need to enter the water, as most mammals have survived just as they are. Apes have remained just fine over eight million years. Human appearance was not required. Which raises the observation that evolution could be following a drive by a designer.

You seem to think that any change in an organism requires a global change in the environment. It is not unreasonable to suppose that while most mammals and apes remained the same, there were locations in which conditions demanded (or allowed) change! In X, food was scarce on land, so there the pre-whales entered the water. In Y, all the trees blew down, or it simply proved advantageous to hunt for food on the ground, so pre-homo descended from the trees. And once the changes had taken place, successful new species may have flourished and even spread. Most scorpions appear to have led happy lives exactly as they were and are now. But they had buddies who weren’t so happy, and their buddies therefore did something different. Too simple for you?

Natures wonders: fish uses other fish for a taxi

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 19, 2020, 21:03 (1520 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As regards your usual problem, of course the sucker had to “develop” before the fish could latch on, but that doesn’t mean the sucker suddenly appeared as if by magic. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination that some clever predecessor discovered that life was much easier if it hitched a lift. Maybe the first pre-remoras did have trouble holding on. Some may have slid off. But the idea was good, and so just as pre-whale legs would have turned into flippers as the organism adapted itself to marine life, those parts of the remora (and other such organisms) it used to hold on with would have transformed themselves into suckers. Yes, this presupposes intelligence – the ability of cells to transform themselves in order to exploit a different environment. Shapiro calls the process “natural genetic engineering”.

DAVID: As usual you ha e conjured up lots of fore thinking for the fish. Remember, fish are slick. If you've ever caught on a hook and tried to remove it, it is very difficult to hold unless tightly gripped. Developing a sucker takes lots of evolutionary time for developing the proper DNA changes. Your just-so story requires centuries of remora persistence until they get it right. No organism during the human time of studying adaptation has shown any degree of this massive change. That is the problem we face. The flipper and teh sucker require design, and a designer.

dhw: There is no “forethinking” if an organism finds an advantageous strategy and its body changes in order to perfect that strategy. How do you know what time is involved? Lamarck is back in favour, so do you think there are no acquired characteristics to be inherited? During the human time of study, nobody has observed any of the innovations that led to new species, and nobody has found your 3.8-billion-year-old programme for suckers and the rest of evolution, and nobody has seen God pop in and dabble or give lessons to whales or weaverbirds or sucker fish or any other species. If my hypothesis is a just-so story, what should we call yours? Yes, evolutionary innovation is the problem we face, and yes, I am all in favour of design. And one of several theories is that cells/cell communities are intelligent enough to do their own designing, and maybe your God gave them that ability.

And it is all pipe dream. You are imagining design appears by magic if no thinking mind is available to plan the necessary parts for the advance. You are fighting the chance vs. design problem and saying these simple cells can do it on their own. Our human experience with design says it is not logical. As for my theory it is an immaterial discussion of God's possible methods. You know darn well it can't be 'found'. But it is certainly logical. So maybe God simply designed it.

vis
Under “Evolution: complexify or not”:
DAVID: There are many sorts of examples of change or no change: it seems scorpions never evolved much from their start. Mammals jumped into the water and became whales. Humans quickly evolved from apes. We can look for circumstances that pushed the changes but the reason we find as guesses and at times the changes are unreasonable. Mammal did not need to enter the water, as most mammals have survived just as they are. Apes have remained just fine over eight million years. Human appearance was not required. Which raises the observation that evolution could be following a drive by a designer.

dhw: You seem to think that any change in an organism requires a global change in the environment. It is not unreasonable to suppose that while most mammals and apes remained the same, there were locations in which conditions demanded (or allowed) change! In X, food was scarce on land, so there the pre-whales entered the water. In Y, all the trees blew down, or it simply proved advantageous to hunt for food on the ground, so pre-homo descended from the trees. And once the changes had taken place, successful new species may have flourished and even spread. Most scorpions appear to have led happy lives exactly as they were and are now. But they had buddies who weren’t so happy, and their buddies therefore did something different. Too simple for you?

Yes, much too simple. Takes no notice of the design issue.Your same old problem, clutching at straws. First, entering water created huge physiological problems that require intensive design to succeed. As for the apes, one group came down from the trees, changed the way their hands and shoulders are formed and do tasks apes can't do. The pelvis changed for a different path to birth to accommodate the huge brain that appeared and allowed true upright movement at the same time. All planned by ape brain? No way. There has to be a reason why some species make great advances and others don't bother. We can ask that question from the first bacteria on up. Your answer is really that the ones that advance to more complexity want to do so, and some lesser types don't care (scorpions). You use opportunity from environment, etc. as a reason for these changes , but it is incomplete reasoning. Where does the desire come from if the organisms are in charge? Their brains and thoughts are not like ours. Your argument is basically empty and the need for a designer is obvious.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 23:12 (1518 days ago) @ David Turell

Sharks have been present in a large number of varieties for 455 million years with the larges number in existence at c. 360 mya, before many varieties disappeared:

https://www.sharksider.com/evolution-of-sharks/

"A number of walking sharks are known with new ones just found:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/new-sharks-and-rediscovered-rays?utm_source=Cosmos+-...

"The first success, reported in the CSIRO’s Marine and Freshwater Research journal, increases to nine the number of known species of sharks that use their fins to walk in very shallow water during low tides.

***

“'Data suggests the new species evolved after the sharks moved away from their original population, became genetically isolated in new areas and developed into new species,” Dudgeon says.

“'They may have moved by swimming or walking on their fins, but it’s also possible they hitched a ride on reefs moving westward across the top of New Guinea, about two million years ago.”

"Sharks they may be, but the only creatures that should be concerned are small fish and invertebrates.

“'At less than a metre long on average, walking sharks present no threat to people but their ability to withstand low oxygen environments and walk on their fins give them a remarkable edge over their prey of small crustaceans and molluscs," Dudgeon says."

Comment: These sharks have walked on the ocean bottoms for millions of years, but have not decided to try to enter up on land in any way. It is really unclear why animals make an attempt for new activity or not. Perhaps new bodily forms are required to be offered in advance by design. It is logical that any attempt requiring new bodily designs would be much easier to achieve if the body designs are created beforehand. Why try to attempt a difficult advance if it not entirely necessary? What would force it by being completely necessary or death would occur? 99% of all species are gone. That provides the obvious answer. Most species can't do it and end up by 'bad luck' as Raup pointed out. Yet evolution proceeded to complexify all along at a steady rate with large advances in the gaps. Thus logically most species cannot make the advances by themselves, so self-improvement is a very doubtful theory. Therefore, logically a designer is required to maintain the process of producing very complex advances.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 14:45 (1518 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why try to attempt a difficult advance if it not entirely necessary? What would force it by being completely necessary or death would occur? 99% of all species are gone. That provides the obvious answer. Most species can't do it and end up by 'bad luck' as Raup pointed out.

Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.


DAVID: Yet evolution proceeded to complexify all along at a steady rate with large advances in the gaps. [dhw: hardly “steady”, since you keep harping on about gigantic gaps.] Thus logically most species cannot make the advances by themselves, so self-improvement is a very doubtful theory. Therefore, logically a designer is required to maintain the process of producing very complex advances.

What sort of logic is this? As above, it is perfectly logical to argue that some intelligent cell communities will find ways of surviving or improving and others won't be so intelligent (or lucky). And personally I find it more likely that the mechanism for intelligence was implanted from the beginning rather than individual programmes for every single innovation, life form, natural wonder, econiche, strategy, extinction etc. in the history of life.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 16:20 (1518 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why try to attempt a difficult advance if it not entirely necessary? What would force it by being completely necessary or death would occur? 99% of all species are gone. That provides the obvious answer. Most species can't do it and end up by 'bad luck' as Raup pointed out.

dhw: Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.

Or the Davidian view also states that God is on watch and helps along the way in dabbles.

DAVID: Yet evolution proceeded to complexify all along at a steady rate with large advances in the gaps. [dhw: hardly “steady”, since you keep harping on about gigantic gaps.] Thus logically most species cannot make the advances by themselves, so self-improvement is a very doubtful theory. Therefore, logically a designer is required to maintain the process of producing very complex advances.

dhw: What sort of logic is this? As above, it is perfectly logical to argue that some intelligent cell communities will find ways of surviving or improving and others won't be so intelligent (or lucky). And personally I find it more likely that the mechanism for intelligence was implanted from the beginning rather than individual programmes for every single innovation, life form, natural wonder, econiche, strategy, extinction etc. in the history of life.

And who did the implanting? Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Thursday, January 23, 2020, 09:58 (1517 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why try to attempt a difficult advance if it not entirely necessary? What would force it by being completely necessary or death would occur? 99% of all species are gone. That provides the obvious answer. Most species can't do it and end up by 'bad luck' as Raup pointed out.

dhw: Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.

DAVID: Or the Davidian view also states that God is on watch and helps along the way in dabbles.

Sorry, I should have added your belief that your God pops in to fiddle with anatomies or hold classes in strategies etc.I note that you have not commented on my explanation for the advances.

DAVID: Yet evolution proceeded to complexify all along at a steady rate with large advances in the gaps. [dhw: hardly “steady”, since you keep harping on about gigantic gaps.] Thus logically most species cannot make the advances by themselves, so self-improvement is a very doubtful theory. Therefore, logically a designer is required to maintain the process of producing very complex advances.

dhw: What sort of logic is this? As above, it is perfectly logical to argue that some intelligent cell communities will find ways of surviving or improving and others won't be so intelligent (or lucky). And personally I find it more likely that the mechanism for intelligence was implanted from the beginning rather than individual programmes for every single innovation, life form, natural wonder, econiche, strategy, extinction etc. in the history of life.

DAVID: And who did the implanting? Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 23, 2020, 22:25 (1516 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.

DAVID: Or the Davidian view also states that God is on watch and helps along the way in dabbles.

dhw: Sorry, I should have added your belief that your God pops in to fiddle with anatomies or hold classes in strategies etc.I note that you have not commented on my explanation for the advances.

My usual answer: environmental change if not uncomfortable or dangerous (Raup) doesn't cause anything to happen to advance evolutionary adaptations. We do not know what causes animals to make new species if there are no pressures, since they are not required to change..


DAVID: Yet evolution proceeded to complexify all along at a steady rate with large advances in the gaps. [dhw: hardly “steady”, since you keep harping on about gigantic gaps.] Thus logically most species cannot make the advances by themselves, so self-improvement is a very doubtful theory. Therefore, logically a designer is required to maintain the process of producing very complex advances.

dhw: What sort of logic is this? As above, it is perfectly logical to argue that some intelligent cell communities will find ways of surviving or improving and others won't be so intelligent (or lucky). And personally I find it more likely that the mechanism for intelligence was implanted from the beginning rather than individual programmes for every single innovation, life form, natural wonder, econiche, strategy, extinction etc. in the history of life.

DAVID: And who did the implanting? Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Friday, January 24, 2020, 11:38 (1516 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.

DAVID: Or the Davidian view also states that God is on watch and helps along the way in dabbles.

dhw: Sorry, I should have added your belief that your God pops in to fiddle with anatomies or hold classes in strategies etc.I note that you have not commented on my explanation for the advances.

DAVID: My usual answer: environmental change if not uncomfortable or dangerous (Raup) doesn't cause anything to happen to advance evolutionary adaptations. We do not know what causes animals to make new species if there are no pressures, since they are not required to change.

You persistently ignore the second point, which I have now bolded for you. If a different environment offers better opportunities for survival (e.g. water instead of land or, to follow one theory relating to the Cambrian, an increase in oxygen levels), this could trigger innovation. But of course nobody knows what causes speciation, and that is why we have different theories.

DAVID: Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

DAVID: To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Friday, January 24, 2020, 20:07 (1515 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, January 24, 2020, 20:33

dhw: Environmental change may have made it necessary for survival, or may have offered new opportunities to improve chances of survival. I like Raup’s interpretation, and if we follow the theory of cellular intelligence, what we have is that some cell communities are capable of adapting, some are even capable of innovating, and the rest are unlucky enough not to have the intelligence (though luck may also play a vital role, largely depending on the nature of the environmental change) that would enable them to adapt or innovate. If we follow the Davidian interpretation, those that die are lucky enough to have been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to come into existence, but unlucky enough not to have been preprogrammed to survive the new conditions.

DAVID: Or the Davidian view also states that God is on watch and helps along the way in dabbles.

dhw: Sorry, I should have added your belief that your God pops in to fiddle with anatomies or hold classes in strategies etc.I note that you have not commented on my explanation for the advances.

DAVID: My usual answer: environmental change if not uncomfortable or dangerous (Raup) doesn't cause anything to happen to advance evolutionary adaptations. We do not know what causes animals to make new species if there are no pressures, since they are not required to change.

dhw: You persistently ignore the second point, which I have now bolded for you. If a different environment offers better opportunities for survival (e.g. water instead of land or, to follow one theory relating to the Cambrian, an increase in oxygen levels), this could trigger innovation. But of course nobody knows what causes speciation, and that is why we have different theories.

I have answered: you have made my point. No one knows what triggers innovation, and any change in environment does not mean it must happen, unless it is a dangerous change requiring protective mutations. Offering opportunity is a neat subterfuge statement. Changes or advances can also be spontaneous for no obvious reason.


DAVID: Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

DAVID: To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

dhw He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Saturday, January 25, 2020, 11:10 (1515 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My usual answer: environmental change if not uncomfortable or dangerous (Raup) doesn't cause anything to happen to advance evolutionary adaptations. We do not know what causes animals to make new species if there are no pressures, since they are not required to change.

dhw: You persistently ignore the second point, which I have now bolded for you. If a different environment offers better opportunities for survival (e.g. water instead of land or, to follow one theory relating to the Cambrian, an increase in oxygen levels), this could trigger innovation. But of course nobody knows what causes speciation, and that is why we have different theories.

DAVID: I have answered: you have made my point. No one knows what triggers innovation, and any change in environment does not mean it must happen, unless it is a dangerous change requiring protective mutations. Offering opportunity is a neat subterfuge statement. Changes or advances can also be spontaneous for no obvious reason.

There is no subterfuge. and nobody said it MUST happen! I am pointing out that environmental change is a trigger not only for adaptation but also possibly for innovation. If, for some reason, a new mass of water appears, it may be that some bold creature reckons it will find more food in than out, so into the water it goes, and its body may undergo such radical changes that we then have a new species. Some experts think an increase in oxygen triggered the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe the extra oxygen allowed existing creatures to do things that had never been done before, and the body changed accordingly. We don’t know, but I have given you a possible answer to your question why changes might take place even if there is no danger.

DAVID: Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

DAVID: To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

dhw: He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

DAVID: We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

We don't "know" anything! But what other logic can you apply? If you mean watching a show is human, how about this: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes” (D.Turell) to reinforce: He “very well could think like us” (D. Turell).

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 25, 2020, 19:12 (1514 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have answered: you have made my point. No one knows what triggers innovation, and any change in environment does not mean it must happen, unless it is a dangerous change requiring protective mutations. Offering opportunity is a neat subterfuge statement. Changes or advances can also be spontaneous for no obvious reason.

dhw: There is no subterfuge. and nobody said it MUST happen! I am pointing out that environmental change is a trigger not only for adaptation but also possibly for innovation. If, for some reason, a new mass of water appears, it may be that some bold creature reckons it will find more food in than out, so into the water it goes, and its body may undergo such radical changes that we then have a new species. Some experts think an increase in oxygen triggered the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe the extra oxygen allowed existing creatures to do things that had never been done before, and the body changed accordingly. We don’t know, but I have given you a possible answer to your question why changes might take place even if there is no danger.

You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existing species can do it.

DAVID: Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

DAVID: To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

dhw: He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

DAVID: We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

dhw: We don't "know" anything! But what other logic can you apply? If you mean watching a show is human, how about this: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes” (D.Turell) to reinforce: He “very well could think like us” (D. Turell).

These quotes of mine pertain to his personal attributes, never guesses as to his exact thoughts or reasoning, remembering He is a person like no other person. Note I did not specify which specific attributes. The second quote has been explained many times. I'm quite sure He thinks logically as we try to do.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Sunday, January 26, 2020, 11:14 (1514 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am pointing out that environmental change is a trigger not only for adaptation but also possibly for innovation. If, for some reason, a new mass of water appears, it may be that some bold creature reckons it will find more food in than out, so into the water it goes, and its body may undergo such radical changes that we then have a new species. Some experts think an increase in oxygen triggered the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe the extra oxygen allowed existing creatures to do things that had never been done before, and the body changed accordingly. We don’t know, but I have given you a possible answer to your question why changes might take place even if there is no danger.

DAVID: You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existingspecies can do it.

Then let me clarify: by “trigger” I mean that the environmental change begins the process of organismal change, which is a REACTION to the new conditions. I do not believe organisms change (or your God changes them) in anticipation of new conditions. What “resides” in species is the ability to RESPOND to new conditions by changing their structure, i.e. adapting and/or innovating. You asked why changes might take place even if there is no danger. I have given you an answer: improving chances of survival. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.

dhw: He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

DAVID: We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

dhw: We don't "know" anything! But what other logic can you apply? If you mean watching a show is human, how about this: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes” D.Turell) to reinforce: He “very well could think like us” (D. Turell).

DAVID: These quotes of mine pertain to his personal attributes, never guesses as to his exact thoughts or reasoning, remembering He is a person like no other person. Note I did not specify which specific attributes. The second quote has been explained many times. I'm quite sure He thinks logically as we try to do.

A person like no other person can only be a person if he has personal attributes, but I don’t think many people would say there are lots of persons who can create universes and life. I am also sure that your God would think logically, and since your interpretation of his purpose and method are illogical to your humanly logical mind, I am suggesting that maybe your humanly illogical interpretation could be wrong.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 26, 2020, 19:29 (1513 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existingspecies can do it.

dhw: Then let me clarify: by “trigger” I mean that the environmental change begins the process of organismal change, which is a REACTION to the new conditions. I do not believe organisms change (or your God changes them) in anticipation of new conditions. What “resides” in species is the ability to RESPOND to new conditions by changing their structure, i.e. adapting and/or innovating. You asked why changes might take place even if there is no danger. I have given you an answer: improving chances of survival. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.

You are still struggling. Note the bold. An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15). Dangers to survival may cause extinction (Raup) or the proper response to continue on. We know epigenetics allows minor adaptations, nothing more, so how species evolve is still totally unknown to science. If there is no present danger, there is no reason for changes to appear in advance of survival requirements. Your final statement implies organisms can foresee troubles ahead since you think they can speciate on their own. Really? I certainly don't accept it. 'Improving chances for survival' is pure Darwin-speak, bringing up the old saw of survival of the fittest.


dhw: He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

DAVID: We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

dhw: We don't "know" anything! But what other logic can you apply? If you mean watching a show is human, how about this: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes” D.Turell) to reinforce: He “very well could think like us” (D. Turell).

DAVID: These quotes of mine pertain to his personal attributes, never guesses as to his exact thoughts or reasoning, remembering He is a person like no other person. Note I did not specify which specific attributes. The second quote has been explained many times. I'm quite sure He thinks logically as we try to do.

dhw: A person like no other person can only be a person if he has personal attributes, but I don’t think many people would say there are lots of persons who can create universes and life. I am also sure that your God would think logically, and since your interpretation of his purpose and method are illogical to your humanly logical mind, I am suggesting that maybe your humanly illogical interpretation could be wrong.

Your complaint of illogicality is due to your human view of God, nothing more. I think my God has acted totally logically . Stop abusing and misstating my opinions, which I have fully explained rationally.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Monday, January 27, 2020, 11:10 (1513 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existing species can do it.

dhw: Then let me clarify: by “trigger” I mean that the environmental change begins the process (David’s bold) of organismal change, which is a REACTION to the new conditions. I do not believe organisms change (or your God changes them) in anticipation of new conditions. What “resides” in species is the ability to RESPOND to new conditions by changing their structure, i.e. adapting and/or innovating. You asked why changes might take place even if there is no danger. I have given you an answer: improving chances of survival. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.(Newly bolded by dhw)

DAVID: You are still struggling. Note the bold. An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15).

Of course it’s not required if the organism can already cope! We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: Dangers to survival may cause extinction (Raup) or the proper response to continue on. We know epigenetics allows minor adaptations, nothing more, so how species evolve is still totally unknown to science.

And that is why we have different theories: e.g. one that organisms do their own designing, and one that your God does it all.

DAVID: If there is no present danger, there is no reason for changes to appear in advance of survival requirements. Your final statement implies organisms can foresee troubles ahead since you think they can speciate on their own. Really? I certainly don't accept it. 'Improving chances for survival' is pure Darwin-speak, bringing up the old saw of survival of the fittest.

I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it. It is you who have your God gazing into a crystal ball, foreseeing trouble (or possibly organizing it himself). I know you don’t accept the theory of “natural genetic engineering” by which cells may do their own designing, but please stop pretending that this involves advance planning. Yes, “survival” is Darwin-speak. Do you honestly think organisms are not motivated by the drive for survival?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Monday, January 27, 2020, 18:16 (1513 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existing species can do it.

dhw: Then let me clarify: by “trigger” I mean that the environmental change begins the process (David’s bold) of organismal change, which is a REACTION to the new conditions. I do not believe organisms change (or your God changes them) in anticipation of new conditions. What “resides” in species is the ability to RESPOND to new conditions by changing their structure, i.e. adapting and/or innovating. You asked why changes might take place even if there is no danger. I have given you an answer: improving chances of survival. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.(Newly bolded by dhw)

DAVID: You are still struggling. Note the bold. An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15).

dhw: Of course it’s not required if the organism can already cope! We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. Whatr pushes them, if anything? God, yes!


DAVID: Dangers to survival may cause extinction (Raup) or the proper response to continue on. We know epigenetics allows minor adaptations, nothing more, so how species evolve is still totally unknown to science.

And that is why we have different theories: e.g. one that organisms do their own designing, and one that your God does it all.

DAVID: If there is no present danger, there is no reason for changes to appear in advance of survival requirements. Your final statement implies organisms can foresee troubles ahead since you think they can speciate on their own. Really? I certainly don't accept it. 'Improving chances for survival' is pure Darwin-speak, bringing up the old saw of survival of the fittest.

dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it. It is you who have your God gazing into a crystal ball, foreseeing trouble (or possibly organizing it himself). I know you don’t accept the theory of “natural genetic engineering” by which cells may do their own designing, but please stop pretending that this involves advance planning. Yes, “survival” is Darwin-speak. Do you honestly think organisms are not motivated by the drive for survival?

Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 10:36 (1512 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID:: An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15).

dhw: Of course it’s not required if the organism can already cope! We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. What pushes them, if anything? God, yes!

I have just given you a good reason: they use the opportunity to improve their chances of survival! Obviously this is your problem: you refuse to accept the importance of survival as a drive for evolution.

dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it. It is you who have your God gazing into a crystal ball, foreseeing trouble (or possibly organizing it himself). I know you don’t accept the theory of “natural genetic engineering” by which cells may do their own designing, but please stop pretending that this involves advance planning. Yes, “survival” is Darwin-speak. Do you honestly think organisms are not motivated by the drive for survival?

DAVID: Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

Of course it does (though not a human-type mind). Haven’t you realized that for years now I have been proposing the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force behind innovation – as also advocated by James A. Shapiro with his theory of “natural genetic engineering”?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 15:23 (1512 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:: An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15).

dhw: Of course it’s not required if the organism can already cope! We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. What pushes them, if anything? God, yes!

dhw: I have just given you a good reason: they use the opportunity to improve their chances of survival! Obviously this is your problem: you refuse to accept the importance of survival as a drive for evolution.

I don't refuse to accept that organisms when challenged need to adapt or go extinct. With no stress, why should any change? You have again insisted organisms can foresee future needs or abilities they currently do not have and create advances..


dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it. It is you who have your God gazing into a crystal ball, foreseeing trouble (or possibly organizing it himself). I know you don’t accept the theory of “natural genetic engineering” by which cells may do their own designing, but please stop pretending that this involves advance planning. Yes, “survival” is Darwin-speak. Do you honestly think organisms are not motivated by the drive for survival?

DAVID: Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

dhw: Of course it does (though not a human-type mind). Haven’t you realized that for years now I have been proposing the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force behind innovation – as also advocated by James A. Shapiro with his theory of “natural genetic engineering”?

I know. Bacteria can do it without becoming new species. and God gave them the abilities.

Natures wonders: adapting to climate change

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 18:16 (1512 days ago) @ David Turell

Caterpillars of the corn borer moth are emerging three weeks sooner as the Earth warms, managed by genes:

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/circadian-clock-genes-help-a-crop-pest-adapt-to-...

"Each winter, after going through their last molt before becoming pupae, corn borers (Ostrinia nubilalis) enter a dormant state of activity known as diapause. To survive this vulnerable time, the larvae hide out someplace where they won’t be disturbed. For corn borers, that place is inside the stalks of the plants, which also serve as their primary food source when they wake up in the spring.

***

"To find out how O. nubilalis might be adjusting its emergence time, the group recently scanned the genomes of larvae in five populations—three early-emerging and two late-emerging. The team found that larval emergence time was linked to variation in two genes known to be involved in circadian rhythms. One is period, or per, a gene that regulates sleep-wake cycles in Drosophila and has been linked to seasonal timing in many other insect species. The other gene, Pdfr, produces a receptor that binds to a neurotransmitter called pigment-dispersing factor, which in Drosophila helps to regulate the activity of clock neurons in the brain. Dopman and his colleagues speculate that variation in the sequences of these two genes could provide a way for corn borers, and perhaps other insects as well, to adapt to changes in season length. (my bold)

"This paper is incredibly interesting and important because it sheds light on the molecular basis of differences in seasonal responses,” says Megan Meuti, an entomologist at Ohio State University who was not involved with the study. The fact that the genes are already known to be involved in circadian rhythms suggests “that the differences in the sequences of the clock genes are not only affecting seasonal responses, but also daily responses as well.”

"Daniel Hahn, an evolutionary physiologist at the University of Florida, adds that while previous research has focused on how circadian clock gene polymorphisms are associated with the timing of insects entering dormancy, this new study shows that such variation is also “associated with when animals are going to come out of dormancy. That’s a completely new facet that nobody’s been able to do before.'”

Comment: We all know that organisms respond to temperature and light changes. Temperature response changes are shown by deciduous trees leafing out in Spring and we all recognize circadian rhythms in our sleep patterns. This obvious finding shows genes in control, as expected. The genes follow instructions after receiving the stimuli indicating changes. Note my bold. Shapiro's original bacterial discoveries at work in more complex organisms, just as he predicted!

Natures wonders: butterfly wing temperature controls

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 19:26 (1511 days ago) @ David Turell

An amazingly complex system:

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-wings-butterflies.html

"Contrary to common belief that butterfly wings consist primarily of lifeless membranes, the new study demonstrated that they contain a network of living cells whose function requires a constrained range of temperatures for optimal performance. Given their small thermal capacity, wings can overheat rapidly in the sun when butterflies cease flight, and they can cool down too much during flight in a cold environment.

***

"'Butterfly wings are essentially vector light-detecting panels by which butterflies can accurately determine the intensity and direction of sunlight, and do this swiftly without using their eyes," says Nanfang Yu, associate professor of applied physics at Columbia Engineering and co-PI of the study.

"...they found that butterfly wings are loaded with a network of mechanical and temperature sensors. The living tissues in the wings are actively supplied by circulatory and tracheal systems throughout the adult lifetime—in the case of painted lady butterflies, for more than three weeks.

"They also discovered a "wing heart" that beats a few dozen times per minute to facilitate the directional flow of insect blood or hemolymph through a "scent pad" or an androconial organ located on the wings of some species of butterflies. "Most of the research on butterfly wings has focused on colors used in signaling between individuals," says Pierce., "This work shows that we should reconceptualize the butterfly wing as a dynamic, living structure rather than as a relatively inert membrane. Patterns observed on the wing may also be shaped in important ways by the need to modulate temperatures of living parts of the wing."

***

"The team discovered that the insects use their wings to sense the direction and intensity of sunlight—the main source of warmth or overheating—and to respond with specialized behaviors to prevent overheating or overcooling of their wings. For example, all species studied exhibited a relatively constant "trigger" temperature of approximately 40 C (104 F), turning within a few seconds to avoid overheating of wings from a small light spot shone upon them.

***

"'Each wing of a butterfly is equipped with a few dozen mechanical sensors that provide real-time feedback to enable complex flying patterns," Yu says."

Comment: Remembering that butterflies have different molting stages of life and to evolve setting up such fine mechanisms to control the wings response to temperature changes implies it had to be designed. For wings to work the processes of control had to appear all at once in the butterfly stage of life. No Darwinian stages of design by natural selection can achieve this degree of complexity. Designer needed, required.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 10:48 (1511 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. What pushes them, if anything? God, yes!

dhw: I have just given you a good reason: they use the opportunity to improve their chances of survival! Obviously this is your problem: you refuse to accept the importance of survival as a drive for evolution.

DAVID: I don't refuse to accept that organisms when challenged need to adapt or go extinct. With no stress, why should any change?

I‘ve just told you – to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You have again insisted organisms can foresee future needs or abilities they currently do not have and create advances.

Again you simply refuse to read what I write. You have even quoted what follows. But I’ll put it in bold in the hope that you will notice it.

dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it.
And so I will. MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

dhw: Of course it does (though not a human-type mind). Haven’t you realized that for years now I have been proposing the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force behind innovation – as also advocated by James A. Shapiro with his theory of “natural genetic engineering”?

DAVID: I know. Bacteria can do it without becoming new species. and God gave them the abilities.

I have no problem with the argument that these abilities are so complex that they may have been designed by your God. My problem is with your fixed belief that even bacteria have been preprogrammed with all the answers to all the problems they will face throughout evolution, and I propose that their intelligence is autonomous, and I propose that if single cells can have autonomous intelligence, then so can multicellular organisms, and maybe their collective intelligences are intelligent enough to produce evolutionary innovations for the sake of survival or of IMPROVING their chances of survival IN RESPONSE TO but not in advance of changing conditions. Please forgive me for all the emphasis and repetition, but I’m only trying to avoid future repetitions!:-|

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 19:43 (1510 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. What pushes them, if anything? God, yes!

dhw: I have just given you a good reason: they use the opportunity to improve their chances of survival! Obviously this is your problem: you refuse to accept the importance of survival as a drive for evolution.

DAVID: I don't refuse to accept that organisms when challenged need to adapt or go extinct. With no stress, why should any change?

dhw: I‘ve just told you – to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You have again insisted organisms can foresee future needs or abilities they currently do not have and create advances.

dhw: Again you simply refuse to read what I write. You have even quoted what follows. But I’ll put it in bold in the hope that you will notice it.

dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it.
And so I will. MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

dhw: Of course it does (though not a human-type mind). Haven’t you realized that for years now I have been proposing the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force behind innovation – as also advocated by James A. Shapiro with his theory of “natural genetic engineering”?

DAVID: I know. Bacteria can do it without becoming new species. and God gave them the abilities.

dhw: I have no problem with the argument that these abilities are so complex that they may have been designed by your God. My problem is with your fixed belief that even bacteria have been preprogrammed with all the answers to all the problems they will face throughout evolution, and I propose that their intelligence is autonomous, and I propose that if single cells can have autonomous intelligence, then so can multicellular organisms, and maybe their collective intelligences are intelligent enough to produce evolutionary innovations for the sake of survival or of IMPROVING their chances of survival IN RESPONSE TO but not in advance of changing conditions. Please forgive me for all the emphasis and repetition, but I’m only trying to avoid future repetitions!:-|

Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Thursday, January 30, 2020, 10:15 (1510 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.

You’ve grasped it. I do not believe that pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water, or indeed that any organisms adapt or innovate in anticipation of the future, or that your God preprogrammed every undabbled major adaptation/innovation or bacterial response 3.8 billion years ago in anticipation of every change in the environment for the rest of life’s history. Crystal-ball gazing has always been your point.

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 30, 2020, 19:25 (1509 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.

dhw: You’ve grasped it. I do not believe that pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water, or indeed that any organisms adapt or innovate in anticipation of the future, or that your God preprogrammed every undabbled major adaptation/innovation or bacterial response 3.8 billion years ago in anticipation of every change in the environment for the rest of life’s history. Crystal-ball gazing has always been your point.

And your approach does not satisfy the reasoning about a 1,200 cc brain which arrived 300,000 years before it was more completely used. Why was it there and unused for so long and which new conditions required it to evolve to that size and complexity at that time?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by dhw, Friday, January 31, 2020, 12:51 (1509 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.

dhw: You’ve grasped it. I do not believe that pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water, or indeed that any organisms adapt or innovate in anticipation of the future, or that your God preprogrammed every undabbled major adaptation/innovation or bacterial response 3.8 billion years ago in anticipation of every change in the environment for the rest of life’s history. Crystal-ball gazing has always been your point.

DAVID: And your approach does not satisfy the reasoning about a 1,200 cc brain which arrived 300,000 years before it was more completely used. Why was it there and unused for so long and which new conditions required it to evolve to that size and complexity at that time?

What do you mean by “more completely”? Do you think our ancestors wandered around like zombies, not using their brains? Or do you think they should have invented the computer the moment the brain expanded? We’ve been over all this before. My proposal is that the pre-human brain increased in size in response to new demands on it, as our ancestors devised more and more complex methods of survival. But there were limits to how far it could expand, and so complexification eventually took over from expansion (actually resulting in shrinkage). You ask which new conditions? Why do you expect me to answer a question that nobody else has answered? We can only speculate according to what we know currently, which is that new demands change the brain. Nobody has ever witnessed a brain changing in anticipation of new demands made on it.

The same argument applies to adaptations and innovations. So please tell us what evidence you have that your God gave pre-whales flippers before they entered the water, and whether you think the programmes with which you believe he equipped the first living cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle etc. were accompanied by programmes for every single environmental change that the innovations were to cope with or exploit, or were these conditions random and he simply had a crystal ball that told him what would happen?

Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved

by David Turell @, Friday, January 31, 2020, 20:23 (1508 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.

dhw: You’ve grasped it. I do not believe that pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water, or indeed that any organisms adapt or innovate in anticipation of the future, or that your God preprogrammed every undabbled major adaptation/innovation or bacterial response 3.8 billion years ago in anticipation of every change in the environment for the rest of life’s history. Crystal-ball gazing has always been your point.

DAVID: And your approach does not satisfy the reasoning about a 1,200 cc brain which arrived 300,000 years before it was more completely used. Why was it there and unused for so long and which new conditions required it to evolve to that size and complexity at that time?

dhw: What do you mean by “more completely”? Do you think our ancestors wandered around like zombies, not using their brains? Or do you think they should have invented the computer the moment the brain expanded?

My point is still that it took 250,000 +/- years to figure out how to develop modern language. That the brain was pre-prepared for language are the linguists findings that most languages are similar in grammar and syntax construction. They certainly had vocal communications in a simplistic language structure and brain plasticity worked with that beginning.

We’ve been over all this before. My proposal is that the pre-human brain increased in size in response to new demands on it, as our ancestors devised more and more complex methods of survival. But there were limits to how far it could expand, and so complexification eventually took over from expansion (actually resulting in shrinkage). You ask which new conditions?

The conditions that H. sapiens arrived to were q

Why do you expect me to answer a question that nobody else has answered? We can only speculate according to what we know currently, which is that new demands change the brain. Nobody has ever witnessed a brain changing in anticipation of new demands made on it.


The same argument applies to adaptations and innovations. So please tell us what evidence you have that your God gave pre-whales flippers before they entered the water, and whether you think the programmes with which you believe he equipped the first living cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle etc. were accompanied by programmes for every single environmental change that the innovations were to cope with or exploit, or were these conditions random and he simply had a crystal ball that told him what would happen?

Natures wonders: wolf moms feed pups blueberries

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 17:52 (1498 days ago) @ David Turell

A new discovery:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/wolves-regurgitate-blueberries-pups-diet

"Gray wolves are known to snack on blueberries, but the animals do more than fill their own bellies. A new, serendipitous observation shows an adult wolf regurgitating the berries for its pups to eat, the first time anyone has documented this behavior.

"Wolves have a well-earned reputation as skillful hunters with a taste for large, hoofed ungulates like deer and moose. But scientists are increasingly recognizing that these predators have an exceptionally varied diet, partaking in everything from beavers and fish to fruit.

***

"Homkes watched from a distance as several pups gathered around an adult wolf, licking up at its mouth. This behavior stimulates adult wolves to throw up a recent meal. Sure enough, the adult began vomiting, and the pups eagerly ate what accumulated on the ground. After the wolves left, Homkes got closer and saw that the regurgitated piles were purely of partially chewed blueberries,... "

Comment: Fascinating. Now this lone discovery needs conformation.

Natures wonders: butterflies can regulate eye spot size

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 18:38 (1498 days ago) @ David Turell

In certain African butterflies:

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-butterflies-ability-eyespot-size.html

"The study reveals that the African satyrid butterfly Bicyclus anynana (B. anynana), a member of the sub-family of the nymphalidae (or 'brush-footed') butterflies, changes its eyespot size using a complex physiological and molecular response that evolved gradually over millions of years. The findings also highlight that while temperature modulates hormone levels in various species of satyrid butterfly, B. anynana is just one of a few that take advantage of this response to regulate eyespot size.

***

"How butterflies accomplish this feat has only been studied in one species of African satyrid, B. anynana. In this species, low temperatures that signal the arrival of the dry season lower the quantity of a hormone called 20E during the late larval stage. This alters the function of hormone-sensitive cells in the centre of the eyespots and subsequently shrinks their size.

***

"'We wanted to find out which other species change their eyespot size in response to temperature and whether they achieve this through the same mechanism as B. anynana. This comparative work would allow us to explore for the first time how a temperature-regulated system evolves at the genetic and physiological level."

"To do this, Bhardwaj and his team reared 13 different species of satyrid at two different temperatures. They found that all species had lower levels of the 20E hormone in response to low temperatures, but most of them were unable to change the size of their eyespots accordingly. This included species that are known to have different eyespot sizes during wet and dry seasons. "We also saw that a small group of species expressed the hormone receptor in their eyespot centres just like B. anynana, but this also was also not sufficient to shrink its size," says Bhardwaj.

"The team then manipulated the 20E hormone in four of the 13 species, and found that B. anynana is the only one to have evolved a temperature and hormone-mediated system of eyespot size regulation. They suggest that this species gradually evolved the ability to change its eyespot size according to temperature as a result of seasonal variations in its natural African habitat."

Comment: manipulating a complex hormone suggests design. 20E is complex: "20-Hydroxyecdysone (ecdysterone or 20E) is a naturally occurring ecdysteroid hormone which controls the ecdysis (moulting) and metamorphosis of arthropods. It is therefore one of the most common moulting hormones in insects, crabs, etc."

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F20-Hyd...

Natures wonders: Snake venom from eaten prey

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, 21:25 (1483 days ago) @ David Turell

The snakes have actually switched prey with the same toxin obtained:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200224165311.htm

"Such is the case with most snake species of the Rhabdophis genus. Commonly called "keelbacks" and found primarily in southeast Asia, the snakes sport glands in their skin, sometimes just around the neck, where they store bufadienolides, a class of lethal steroids they get from toads, their toxic prey of choice.

"'Scientists once thought these snakes produced their own toxins, but learned, instead, they obtain it from their food -- namely, toads."

"In a surprising twist, Savitzky and colleagues ... reports a species group of the snakes, found in western China and Japan, shifted its primary diet from frogs (including toads) to earthworms.

"The earthworms don't produce the toxins; instead, the snakes also snack on firefly larvae, which produce the same class of toxins as the toads.

"'This is the first documented case of a vertebrate predator switching from a vertebrate prey to an invertebrate prey for the selective advantage of getting the same chemical class of defensive toxin," says Savitzky, professor in USU's Department of Biology and the USU Ecology Center.

"Given the distant relationship between toads and fireflies, he says, the dramatic dietary shift most likely involved a chemical cue shared by the toads and fireflies; perhaps the toxins themselves.

"'This represents a remarkable evolutionary example of adaptation to compensate for the absence of defensive compounds following a shift to a new class of prey," Savitzky says."

Comment: This involves several needed actors, so the authors suggesting a 'chemical cue' helping with the switch evidences their surprise as to how this happened. Also luck or design can be considered.

Natures wonders: deaf moths hide from echolocation

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 27, 2020, 22:27 (1481 days ago) @ David Turell

They can't hear the bat's radar, but absorb 85% of the rays:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/deaf-moths-versus-predator-bats?utm_source=Cosmos+-+...

"Some species of deaf moths have evolved a clever defensive strategy to reduce the risk of being eaten by bats, a British study has found.

"Unlike other nocturnal insects, they are unable to hear the ultrasonic calls of bats, which use echolocation to detect potential prey.

"Instead, they have “noise-cancelling scales” that can absorb up to 85% of the incoming energy, reducing by almost 25% the distance at which a bat would be able to find them, reports a team from the University of Bristol.

"Thomas Neil and colleagues used scanning electron microscopy to study the moths Antherina suraka and Callosamia promethea and discovered that their thorax scales look structurally similar to fibres used for noise insulation.

"'We were amazed to see that these extraordinary insects were able to achieve the same levels of sound absorption as commercially available technical sound absorbers, whilst at the same time being much thinner and lighter,” says Neil."

Comment: These moths had to have this ability when they appeared, or they would not have survived the bat attacks. They had to designed this way. If only the 15% hearing moths survived, then why are 85% still deaf? Not an adaptation.

Natures wonders: sucker fish hitches a useful ride

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 27, 2020, 22:48 (1481 days ago) @ David Turell

They attach mainly to sharks and eat host feces:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remora

But it is their sucker which is so interesting:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/this-fish-is-a-sucker-but-no-fool?utm_source=Cosmos+...

" The unique remora fish (order Carangiformes) – appropriately also known as the suckerfish or sharksucker – has such a powerful suction disc on its head that it can stay attached even to fast-moving sharks and leaping dolphins.

"Chinese scientists have now discovered how it works and, with colleagues in the US, have started adapting the same approach for use in robots.

"A team led by Li Wen of Beihang University looked into the tissue on the soft lip of the remora’s disc and found a unique structure: vertically oriented collagen fibres that provide elasticity for maximising contact with substrates and decrease the deformation of the lip to maintain its adhesive force.

"Inspired, they engineered a biomimetic disc infused with vertical nylon fibres with electrostatic flocking, a technique that utilises an electric charge to align fibres. "

Comment: as usual evolution produces new ideas for us to use. How did this develop? Not trial and error. It had to be designed.

Natures wonders: plants defensive warning gases

by David Turell @, Monday, March 02, 2020, 21:36 (1477 days ago) @ David Turell

An article about goldenrod:

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/generations-of-insect-attacks-drive-plants-to-ta...

"When a beetle larva bites into the leaf of a goldenrod plant, a perennial herb known for its bright yellow flowers, it gets a mouthful of food to fuel its growth. But the plant’s perspective is rather different. The bite damages the goldenrod (genus: Solidago), causing it to launch molecular defenses against the insect and to emit a concoction of chemicals that change the physiology of goldenrod plants nearby. It’s as if the plants are communicating about the invader.

***

"A series of papers have shown that when a plant such as goldenrod is damaged, it releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that prompt neighboring plants to mount their own chemical defenses against an impending herbivore attack.

***

"The team found that VOCs emitted by goldenrod plants whose predecessors had been sprayed with the insecticide only induced genetically identical plants to mount preemptive chemical defenses to insect invasion—consistent with the kin selection hypothesis. But VOCs emitted by goldenrod whose predecessors hadn’t been sprayed with the insecticide induced the preemptive defense from all the other goldenrod plants around them, even plants that weren’t their kin—consistent with the mutual benefit hypothesis.

"Additionally, the plants exposed to herbivory converged on a shared VOC signal over the course of the study—with all of the goldenrod plants eventually emitting the same chemical signals whether they were genetically identical to the emitter plant or not. Plants treated with insecticide showed no such signal convergence, the researchers reported in Current Biology last September. This sort of convergence on a single chemical signal is thought to benefit plants exposed to herbivory by providing a stronger deterrent against invading insects or a stronger attraction for the herbivores’ natural enemies. Kalske says the study provides the first concrete evidence that plants aren’t merely eavesdropping on one another, and that the emitter derives a benefit from releasing its chemical messages.

***

"Researchers still don’t know much about how the plants actually receive and respond to the VOC cues, Kalske notes, or whether the presence of other types of herbivores, such as mammals, influences similar signal changes. These are questions that the team would still like to answer."

Comment: This ability has been reported in the past about trees. This presents the usual problem: How did the plants discover this mix if chemicals? Only design fits.

Natures wonders: yellow spots lure spider prey

by David Turell @, Monday, March 02, 2020, 23:37 (1477 days ago) @ David Turell

They are on the spider belly as it sits astride its web:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bright-yellow-spots-help-some-orb-weaver-spiders-lu...

"Orb weaver spiders get their name because they spin and sit on circular webs (SN: 8/8/17). But these spiders and their bright colors are a paradox. Why would a predator that relies on stealth for its next meal look so conspicuous? Scientists have hypothesized that bright colors on orb weaver spiders might serve to warn predators, to blend into vegetation or to attract prey.

"In the new study, researchers examined if yellow colorations on a species of golden orb weaver spider (Nephila pilipes) attract their flying insect prey. Found across Asia, this spider sits on its web day and night with its underside — mottled and striped yellow on black — facing open space. The team found more than 250 wild N. pilipes females in the wild. They removed each female and either left its web vacant or replaced it with a cardboard spider. These cardboard models had paper strips of yellow, blue or black color glued onto them.

"After almost 1,800 hours of video recording the faux arachnids, the team found that during the daytime, the yellow-striped model that resembled a real N. pilipes attracted more than twice as many insects, including bees and flies, as any other fake spider or empty web. What’s more, the yellow color worked just as well at night attracting moths, the scientists report.

***

"Scientists don’t yet know why insects are attracted to yellow on orb weaver spiders. Perhaps the prey mistake a spider for a yellow-flecked flower, a hypothesis supported by the fact that most prey attracted were pollinators."

Comment: This is a marvelous example that demands a designer. I can't imagine a hungry spider deciding to put a spot on its belly.

Natures wonders: bacteria self-destruct to save colony:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 13:51 (1469 days ago) @ David Turell

They release a toxin to stop the enemy:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2236441-bacteria-sacrifice-themselves-when-under-a...

"Some bacteria kill themselves to save their relatives when their colony is attacked by rivals. This kind of sacrifice is rare in nature because it usually contradicts an individual’s evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce. Researchers studied E. coli bacteria in a dish next to a colony of enemy bacteria. The E. coli on the front line received a direct hit of toxins released by their rivals and were killed straight away. Those behind the front line switched into self-destruct mode, building up supplies of their own toxin, before dying en masse by bursting open and firing the toxin at their enemy, probably to help the rest of the colony survive."

Comment: an automatic protection system.

Natures wonders: manta rays dive up to 2,000 feet to feed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 18, 2020, 21:20 (1461 days ago) @ David Turell

An amazing adaptation. Think of the enormous pressures at that depth.

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-reef-manta-rays-caledonia-meters.html

"In the new study, Lassauce and colleagues report the results from nine PSAT tags deployed in New Caledonia, recording the world's deepest known dives for reef manta rays.

"All tagged individuals performed dives exceeding 300 m in depth, with a maximum depth of 672 m. Most of the deepest dives occurred during nighttime, possibly to access important food resources.

***

"Tagged Manta rays (Mobula alfredi) from the never-studied-before population of New Caledonia showed unprecedented deep dive behaviour. More frequent and deeper dives than ever recorded before, Manta rays of New Caledonia set a new depth range to 672 meters. "

Comment: Those enormous pressures would crush maladapted organisms.

Natures wonders: how some fungi survive forest fires

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 02, 2020, 19:50 (1447 days ago) @ David Turell

Mainly by hiding out in the tree trunks and popping up after its all over:

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/forest-fungi-ride-out-wildfires-by-hiding-inside...

"Toting hard hats and sample collection kits, these scientists jumped at the opportunity to track down their research subjects: pyrophilous (“fire-loving”) fungi, which produce mushrooms prolifically after forest fires and then disappear as the forest recovers.

***

"Some fire-loving fungi are known to lie dormant in the dirt as spores or other heat-tolerant structures until post-fire soil conditions trigger growth and reproduction. Other species exist between burns in a vegetative state, aiding decomposition of dead organisms or interacting with tree roots. But many fire-loving fungi don’t fit into any of these categories. A new proposal, known as the body snatchers hypothesis, posits that some pyrophilous fungi hide out inside plants or lichens in between fires, nestling among host cells in a so-called endophytic or endolichenic state.

"To test the hypothesis, the researchers traveled to the burn site every few months for more than a year to sample the soil, as well as the mosses and lichens that sprang up while the forest recovered. They also gathered specimens from unburned areas of the park for comparison. In May 2018, members of Miller’s lab began analyzing the samples they’d collected. DNA sequencing results identified a total of 22 pyrophilous fungal species in the Smokies. Of these, three species were present only in the soil, while the remaining 19 were found inside plant samples from burned and unburned areas, either exclusively or in addition to being found in the soil. In line with the body snatchers hypothesis, “almost all of our pyrophilous fungi were found as endophytes,” Miller says.

***

"...it’s still unclear how all of these organisms might persist through a moderate or severe burn, and how a fire-loving fungus would escape its host to recolonize a charred forest. Hughes has a hypothesis based on her observations at the burn site: “After the fire, I saw numerous tiny lichen fragments on the burned soil, as if they had been lofted into the air while trees were burning and settled on the ground after the fire,” she says. These burned plant fragments may inoculate the soil with the fungi they harbor, giving the fire-loving fungi a way into the dirt.

***

“'If [a moss fragment] lands in a good place, it can regenerate the whole plant,” says Clay. “If the endophyte is in that fragment, presumably it can just colonize these newly grown plants as well from the get-go.” Post-fire fungi may also acquire new hosts after a burn, Miller notes. One mushroom can produce millions of airborne spores that likely land on nearby mosses and lichens, germinate, and invade the tissues of these new hosts, he says.

"To check whether their findings might apply to other forests, Miller and Hughes analyzed moss and lichen samples from other sites around the US. A handful of the fire-loving fungi identified in the Smokies were also present as endophytes in Indiana and Alaska. That result was surprising because “there was really no evidence that a fire had occurred in the last few years in those areas,” Miller says. “What are they doing there if they’re not waiting for a fire to come along?”

"One possibility is that, while body snatching between fires, pyrophilous fungi use their plant hosts as nutrient sources, says Clay. He notes that many plants and fungi have mutualistic endophytic relationships, where the plant typically provides the fungus with “a home where they can live and sugars, carbon, from photosynthesis.” In return, the fungus often produces alkaloids that benefit the host. Yet for the pyrophilous fungi examined in this study, Clay says, “what they offer the plant is not clear.'”

Comment: The symbiotic relationship with the trees is not known, but the fact that fungi hide out from fires to then reappear to wait for the next fire is obvious. How did this evolve? Fungi not prepared are cooked, so it can't be by trail and error. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: how plants sense temperature

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 04, 2020, 15:13 (1445 days ago) @ David Turell

It has to do with Phytocrome foci:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/04/study-identifies-new-temperature-sensing-mechani...

"A protein called phytochrome B, which can sense light and temperature, triggers plant growth and controls flowering time. How it does so is not fully understood.

***

"...a group of cell biologists ... reveal the phytochrome B molecule has unexpected dynamics activated by temperature, and behaves differently depending on the temperature and type of light.

"Phytochromes switch between active and inactive forms like a binary switch controlled by light and temperature. In direct sunlight, such as in open fields, phytochromes switch “on,” absorbing far-red light. This active form inhibits stem elongation, which limits how tall plants in direct sunlight can grow.

"In shade phytochromes are less active, absorbing red. This “off” form releases the inhibition of stem growth, so plants grow taller in shade to compete with other plants for more sunlight.

"Within the cell, light causes “on” phytochromes to coalesce into units called photobodies inside the cell nucleus. When phytochrome B is off, it resides outside the cell nucleus. It moves inside the nucleus when “on” and changes the expression of genes and growth patterns.

"Changes in light alter the size and number of all foci. Chen’s group has now shown temperature alters individual foci.

"The current understanding is that phytochromes form photobodies only in the “on” state.

***

"The team found increasing the temperature did not cause all the photobodies to disappear at once. Instead, specific photobodies disappeared in specific ranges of temperature. Increasing the temperature incrementally reduced the number of photobodies as they disappeared selectively.

“'We found that a subset of thermostable photobodies can persist even in warm temperatures,” Chen said. “The rest of the foci would disappear at each stage of lower temperature. Before we thought all the foci were the same, but now we know they are all different.”

"The mechanism that makes them disappear selectively must be different from the mechanism that makes them disappear in shade. This suggests individual photobodies could be sensors for specific temperature ranges.

"The study also showed phytochrome B reacts to temperature from two different locations on the molecule. The first part senses temperature; the second part forms foci. Foci formed by this second location are insensitive to temperature. This shows light and temperature are sensed by the same part of the molecule but result in different behaviors.

“'Photobodies are large, dynamic protein complexes. Our results suggest that each of them could have a different composition,” Chen said. “What we think is that the unique composition of individual photobodies make them react to temperature differently. Future studies on understanding the unique features of each photobody will likely uncover the underlying mechanisms of temperature sensing and the regulation of temperature-responsive gene expression in plants.'”

Comment: Much of biological controls are feedback loops in animals but this look very different in plants if large complex molecules can exert precise controls. Having such specific molecules requires design and a designer.

Natures wonders: bacteria and worms harvest methane

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 04, 2020, 22:16 (1444 days ago) @ David Turell

On the ocean floor, a new symbiosis:

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-deep-sea-worms-bacteria-team-harvest.html

"Scientists at Caltech and Occidental College have discovered a methane-fueled symbiosis between worms and bacteria at the bottom of the sea, shedding new light on the ecology of deep-sea environments.

"They found that bacteria belonging to the Methylococcaceae family have been hitching a ride on the feathery plumes that act as the respiratory organs of Laminatubus and Bispira worms. Methylococcaceae are methanotrophs, meaning that they harvest carbon and energy from methane, a molecule composed of carbon and hydrogen.

"The worms, which are a few inches long, have been found in great numbers near deep-sea methane seeps, vents in the ocean floor where hydrocarbon-rich fluids ooze out into the ocean, although it was unclear why the worms favored the vents. As it turns out, the worms slowly digest the hitchhiking bacteria and thus absorb the carbon and energy that the bacteria harvest from the methane.

"That is to say, with a little help and some extra steps, the worms have become methanotrophs themselves.

***

"All organisms require carbon—in some form—to survive, and they absorb it through metabolic processes. Studying the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in an organism's tissues can give clues to where that carbon came from and the conditions under which it formed. In the case of the deep-sea worms, their tissues had an unusually low ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12, meaning that the carbon in the worm's body probably came from methane. Orphan and her collaborators reasoned that because the worms are incapable of processing methane directly, they must be getting their carbon from methanotrophic bacteria.

"'The fact that we found this specific isotope of carbon throughout the worms' bodies and not just in their respiratory plumes indicates that they are consuming methane carbon from these bacteria," Orphan says. The research team followed up on this hypothesis by using molecular techniques and microscopy as well as experiments to test the ability of these worms to incorporate a modified, traceable version of methane.

"Their research findings change our understanding of seep ecosystems and have implications for deep-sea stewardship, as methane seeps and hydrothermal vents are sure to experience increasing pressure because of human exploitation of energy and minerals."

Comment: Life is tough and seems to find many different ways to metabolize energy and form symbiotic relationships.

Natures wonders: how plants sense temperature

by dhw, Sunday, April 05, 2020, 11:09 (1444 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Much of biological controls are feedback loops in animals but this look very different in plants if large complex molecules can exert precise controls. Having such specific molecules requires design and a designer.

I always accept your arguments for design, but you have given us only two possible methods of design. One is a programme your God created 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the first cells to all their descendants, containing instructions for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, bacterial response and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history. The other is direct dabbling, i.e. direct creation. Which of these do you think he used for temperature sensing, or can you perhaps think of a different method of design?

Natures wonders: how plants sense temperature

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 05, 2020, 19:48 (1444 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Much of biological controls are feedback loops in animals but this look very different in plants if large complex molecules can exert precise controls. Having such specific molecules requires design and a designer.

dhw: I always accept your arguments for design, but you have given us only two possible methods of design. One is a programme your God created 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the first cells to all their descendants, containing instructions for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, bacterial response and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history. The other is direct dabbling, i.e. direct creation. Which of these do you think he used for temperature sensing, or can you perhaps think of a different method of design?

Good question: is there any other way for a designer to run evolution? Of course my initial simplistic answer was preprogramming, which assumes God has the full capability to write a software that goes from the start of life with bacteria to human, and never steps in. The many patterns of development I've described in the past, would suggest this is a plausible scenario.

That thought swallows religions view of God as totally all powerful, and that judgement is pure faith. We cannot know if God has some limits in His ability to set up everything in advance. Adler is q

Natures wonders: why soils smell like they do

by David Turell @, Monday, April 06, 2020, 23:59 (1442 days ago) @ David Turell

To attract animals to help spread Streptomyces spores:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2239854-soil-gets-its-smell-from-bacteria-trying-t...

"Soil gets its characteristic earthy smell from certain chemicals produced primarily by soil-dwelling bacteria called Streptomyces. But until now, we didn’t know why these bacteria produce these odours and what role they play in the soil ecosystem.

***

"...the smell – which comes from gases released by Streptomyces, including geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (2-MIB) – seems to attract invertebrates that help the bacteria disperse their spores.

"Becher and his team found that springtails – tiny cousins of insects – that feed on Streptomyces were drawn to the traps containing the bacterial colonies, but weren’t drawn to control traps that didn’t contain Streptomyces. By comparison, insects and arachnids weren’t attracted to the traps containing Streptomyces.

"To see whether the springtails were being lured by the chemicals, the researchers attached electrodes to the springtails’ antennae in the lab, then exposed the animals to geosmin and 2-MIB.

"A spike of electrical activity was detected in the springtails’ brain, but they didn’t show any electrical responses to other test compounds, which suggests they were responding to the chemicals.

"When the researchers studied Streptomyces in the lab, they found that they make more geosmin and 2-MIB when they form spores than they otherwise do. When the springtails approach and eat the bacteria, the spores either stick to the springtails’ bodies or are contained in their faecal pellets and dispersed through the soil.

"Springtails are probably unaffected by Streptomyces‘ toxins because they live underground where they are already exposed to other bacteria, so have evolved detoxifying mechanisms, says Becher.

“'For me, [this] makes so much sense,” says Marie Elliot at McMaster University in Canada.

“'Streptomyces don’t have any direct way of moving these spores to different locations. Attracting creatures like springtails would provide a great way.'”

Comment: All part of a necessary econiche system. This cannot have developed stepwise by chance, but all at once, and can be certainly considered designed.

Natures wonders: deep sea luminescent squid

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 07, 2020, 01:53 (1442 days ago) @ David Turell

A new finding:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humboldt-squid-glow-communicate-dark-1809...

"New research by Ben Burford of Stanford University and Bruce Robison of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggests that the Humboldt squid uses bioluminescent light organs known as photophores to backlight their visual displays. Much like an e-reader that layers text over a lighting layer, the Humboldt squid layers chromatophores on top of photophores to make their displays easier to see in the dark.

***

"Many deep-sea creatures use bioluminescence for defense, camouflage and predatory behaviors. One famous example is the anglerfish and its luminescent lure. Some creatures present bioluminescent displays that are sex- and species-specific, allowing them to identify others within their species and gender. Lead author Burford found that the Humboldt squid’s use of bioluminescence is unique. (my bold)

***

"Humboldt squids are aggressive predators, and because they live in groups, the chase can become frenzied. Yet the researchers noted that the large squids appeared to be somewhat coordinated during the chase, never bumping into each other and rarely competing for the same prey. This suggests that the flickering behavior and other visual cues allow for cooperative hunting.

“'It’s like turn signaling in traffic,” Burford says. “Driving is dangerous, being a Humboldt squid in a group is dangerous and you’ve got to signal to tell people what you’re going to do and that they shouldn't mess with you while you’re doing it.”

***

"The deep sea is the largest habitat on Earth, and these types of discoveries demonstrate still more exciting discoveries are yet to come. For example, researchers had previously identified 28 pigmentation patterns in the Humboldt squid. Burford and Robison have been working to contextualize the meanings of each. "

Comment: Note my bold about Angler fish. we know they have bioluminescent bacteria in their lighted organ. My bet is the squid do also. And of course,is a designed arrangement.

Natures wonders: how butterflies create wing colors

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 08, 2020, 01:09 (1441 days ago) @ David Turell

By changing lamina thickness:

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-evolution-team-butterfly-wings-shift.html

"...they jumped on the chance to explore what caused the change in color of the tiny, overlapping scales that produce the wing's color mosaic and pattern. They found that buckeyes and other Junonia species can create a rainbow of structural colors simply by tuning the thickness of the wing scale's bottom layer (the lamina), which creates iridescent colors in the same way a soap bubble does.

"Structural color, often used in butterflies and other animals to create blue and green, is created by microscopic structures interacting with light to intensify some colors and diminish others. In contrast, pigmentary coloration is created by the absorption of specific colors (wavelengths) of light and is commonly employed to create colors such as yellow, orange, and brown.

"It was a surprise to find that the lamina, a thin sheet that looks very simple and plain, is the most important source of structural color in so many butterfly wing scales," says first author Rachel Thayer. Previous studies of structural coloration had largely focused on some extreme examples and mostly involved analyzing complex, 3-D shapes on the top of the scales.

"First, the team showed that blueness in the selectively bred buckeye wings was, in fact, structural color and was generated largely by the lamina. They then compared these blue scales with wild-type brown scales, and found the same general architecture except the lamina was about 75 percent thicker in the blue scales. Finally, they measured lamina thickness in nine species of Junonia and a tenth species, Precis octavia, and found a consistent relationship with scale color.

"'In each Junonia species, structural color came from the lamina. And they are producing a big range of lamina thicknesses that create a rainbow of different colors, everything from gold to magenta to blue to green," says Thayer. "This helps us understand how structural color has evolved over millions of years." The color shifts as lamina thickness increases according to Newton's series, a characteristic color sequence for thin films, the team found.

"'The color comes down to a relatively simple change in the scale: the thickness of the lamina," says senior author Nipam Patel, director of the Marine Biological Laboratory. "We believe that this will be a genetically tractable system that can allow us to identify the genes and developmental mechanisms that can control structural coloration." They identified one gene, optix, that can regulate lamina structural colors, and are currently searching for other candidates."

Comment: The lamina open up light's rainbow, but how did the butterfly really learn how to do that. Not by trail and error chance attempts. How about design? The Bible tells us God sent a rainbow to Noah, but that bible story is not related

Natures wonders: how plants sense temperature II

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 05, 2020, 21:10 (1443 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, April 05, 2020, 21:15

The previous partial entry is incomplete. Why it is exists is some sort of mistake of mine

DAVID: Much of biological controls are feedback loops in animals but this look very different in plants if large complex molecules can exert precise controls. Having such specific molecules requires design and a designer.

dhw: I always accept your arguments for design, but you have given us only two possible methods of design. One is a programme your God created 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the first cells to all their descendants, containing instructions for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, bacterial response and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history. The other is direct dabbling, i.e. direct creation. Which of these do you think he used for temperature sensing, or can you perhaps think of a different method of design?

Good question: is there any other way for a designer to run evolution? Of course my initial simplistic answer was preprogramming, which assumes God has the full capability to write a software that goes from the start of life with bacteria to human, and never steps in. The many patterns of development I've described in the past, would suggest this is a plausible scenario.

That thought swallows religions view of God as totally all powerful, and that judgement is pure faith. We cannot know if God has some limits in His ability to set up everything in advance. Adler is quite powerful in his argument that human are so special, they are the obvious choice for God's eventual purpose. But remember we cannot be sure of God's reasoning for making that final choice or his reasons for evolving all of His creations, instead of simple direct creation of the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, early life and finally humans, as like six Bible days. (Note the Jewish biblical scholars say the Bible meant six eons).

The second stated method for God is hands-on direct creation of all stages, a form of constant dabbling. On the other hand if the alternative method of preprogramming is not fully able to accomplish the desired the exact stages of evolution, then intermittent dabbling can be His method. A fully purposeful God with exact goals in mind will not allow any other approach, such as the dhw suggestion of giving the organisms means of evolving. That means God gives up some/ or in large part directional control of evolution. Remembering we are trying to imagine who God is, conclusions must depend in large part upon how one imagines His personality is, how much strength of purpose He has, etc. after evaluating who God is from what we observe He has done. My conclusion is the evidence supports a God who is extremely purposeful.

Our current level of untangling all the nuances and layers of the genome shows it is much more complicated than simply DNA coding proteins. We currently cannot find any way the genome is coded to speciate. It might be found, but seems very unlikely to me, with no hints in sight. Which brings me to a current conclusion, mentioned over and over: God does all new speciation Himself, and preprogramming is, therefore, very limited as a technique.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Monday, April 13, 2020, 18:08 (1436 days ago) @ David Turell

A new discovery about seabirds using flight patterns to locate food at sea:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/seabirds-may-find-food-sea-flying-massive-kilometer...

"Food is scattered thinly in the open ocean, and seabirds often need to search far and wide to find sustenance. Now, researchers think they’ve found a new cooperative strategy among the birds, one that may help them survive on the high seas. Multiple groups of flying seabirds can arrange themselves into massive line formations that “rake” over the ocean’s surface, possibly to more efficiently search for food.

"Far from land, the ocean can be unforgiving, but seabirds have a remarkable suite of adaptations for finding food in this blue desert. For example, seabirds can work together when foraging on a chance school of fish, boosting catch rates by synchronizing their diving.

***

"Analyzing the radar images for movement patterns in groups of seabirds, the scientists found that multiple groups would fly in a parallel sweep as often as 19 times a day. The birds also seemed to be adjusting their speed and position relative to one another so that they formed an evenly spaced line over the top of the ocean. Some of these formations, with groups spaced half a kilometer apart and reaching four kilometers across, would last nearly 20 minutes before collapsing or merging together. "

Comment: There is no clear finding of these lines collapsing on schools of fish, so presently all we have are human guesses on how all this might work. This is not how birds of a feather flock together normally.

Natures wonders: rafting monkeys

by David Turell @, Monday, April 13, 2020, 18:46 (1436 days ago) @ David Turell

Monkeys in South America are directly related to monkeys in Africa. How is that possible? The theory is vegetable rafting 32,000,000 years ago!:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2240325-monkeys-made-their-way-from-africa-to-sout...

"Two lineages of ancient monkey migrated from Africa to South America more than 30 million years ago. But we aren’t sure which ones got there first.

"Monkeys originated in Africa and the first group known to have reached South America are thought to have migrated there up to 40 million years ago, when the land masses were probably between 1500 and 2000 kilometres apart, around a quarter of the distance now.

"But recent fossil discoveries, including that of fossilised teeth from a second lineage of African monkey, tell a slightly different story.

"Erik Seiffert at the University of Southern California and his colleagues analysed the fossilised teeth, which were originally discovered in Santa Rosa, Peru. “This discovery was just so incredibly fascinating, I was very excited,” says Seiffert.

"He and his colleagues analysed four fossilised teeth and discovered that their shape doesn’t match that of the only previously known group of ancient monkeys from South America, called platyrrhines. Instead, the teeth look much more like those of an extinct group of African monkeys called the parapithecids.

"'Mammalian teeth are extremely diverse in shape, and so, for palaeontologists, are almost like fingerprints that sometimes allow us to identify species from only a single tooth or even a partial tooth,” says Seiffert.

"If they do belong to this group, it will be the first time parapithecid fossils have been discovered in South America, says Seiffert. It suggests that the ancestors of platyrrhine monkeys aren’t the only ones who made the trans-Atlantic voyage, he says.

"Both lineages are thought to have crossed the ocean on a large raft of floating vegetation. Fossil dating indicates that the second lineage of monkey made it across the Atlantic Ocean between 35 and 32 million years ago. This time frame coincided with a major drop in sea level that could have helped the animals to migrate by shortening their journey.

"The team estimates that two lineages existed alongside each other for 11.5 million years. It isn’t clear which group got there first. The oldest platyrrhine fossil is about 34 million years old, younger than previously thought, and closer to the age of the newly discovered parapithecid fossils, says Seiffert.

“'There is no reason to think that platyrrhines arrived earlier parapithecids,” says Seiffert. “In fact, the two lineages could have come over around the same time.”

Comment: This is long after Africa and South America broke up, so rafting is the only concept that fits the travel plans. It must have been large enough groups to have a good big genetic pool to prevent severe inbreeding and species death.

Natures wonders: malaria uses special tricks

by David Turell @, Monday, April 13, 2020, 19:03 (1436 days ago) @ David Turell

It still kills 400,000 folks a year, and one of its tricks is to make red cells sticky:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-deadliest-malaria-strain-immune.html

"The parasite causing the most severe form of human malaria uses proteins to make red blood cells sticky, making it harder for the immune system to destroy it and leading to potentially fatal blood clots. New research at the Crick has identified how the parasite may control this process.

***

"Once it enters the human bloodstream, the parasite releases proteins into the host's red blood cell which are then presented on the outside surface of the cell. These proteins stick to other blood cells and blood vessel walls so that the infected cells no longer circulate around the body and pass through the spleen. This protects the parasite as the spleen and the immune cells inside it would destroy these infected cells.

"This stickiness can also lead to blood cells lumping together into blood clots. By blocking the blood flow to vital organs, these clots can have fatal consequences, especially if they form in the brain or placenta.

"Once it enters the human bloodstream, the parasite releases proteins into the host's red blood cell which are then presented on the outside surface of the cell. These proteins stick to other blood cells and blood vessel walls so that the infected cells no longer circulate around the body and pass through the spleen. This protects the parasite as the spleen and the immune cells inside it would destroy these infected cells.

"This stickiness can also lead to blood cells lumping together into blood clots. By blocking the blood flow to vital organs, these clots can have fatal consequences, especially if they form in the brain or placenta.

"'In our research, we tested what happened when we removed different protein kinases from the parasite, while it is living in human blood. One protein played an important role in controlling cell stickiness, while others may be required for yet unknown aspects of the parasite's biology.'"

Comment: Clever Plasmodium falciparum that learns these tricks to cause black water fever, the common name. My view is it came in the beginning with these attributes present. Otherwise the human immune system might have destroyed it. dhw will ask about God's role. Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve, assuming our braininess could handle it.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 15:58 (1435 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for a variety of posts and comments:

DAVID: A new discovery about seabirds using flight patterns to locate food at sea:

QUOTE: "Food is scattered thinly in the open ocean, and seabirds often need to search far and wide to find sustenance. Now, researchers think they’ve found a new cooperative strategy among the birds, one that may help them survive on the high seas."

DAVID: There is no clear finding of these lines collapsing on schools of fish, so presently all we have are human guesses on how all this might work. This is not how birds of a feather flock together normally.

It always amazes me that people should be surprised when organisms find new ways to help them survive. It takes just one tiny intellectual adjustment to understand it perfectly: humans are not the only intelligent species on this planet.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Monkeys in South America are directly related to monkeys in Africa. How is that possible? The theory is vegetable rafting 32,000,000 years ago!

Amazing to think of monkeys using rafts to go and explore new territories. Nice to think that our ancestors already had some sense of adventure. Or do you think they climbed aboard because God told them to?

Xxxxx

DAVID: Clever Plasmodium falciparum that learns these tricks to cause black water fever, the common name. My view is it came in the beginning with these attributes present. Otherwise the human immune system might have destroyed it. dhw will ask about God's role. Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve, assuming our braininess could handle it.

Having had blackwater fever myself, I can vouch for its unpleasantness, but since it resulted in my meeting my future wife, I’m not complaining! As for God’s role, what do you mean “allowed it to evolve”. I thought he specially designed everything. You’re not telling us all of a sudden that he gave organisms the freedom to evolve themselves, are you? Well, that’s a U-turn if ever there was one. Previously, I seem to remember you “humanizing” your God by telling us that he designed these things to test us – but I can’t be sure of that. In any case, you certainly wouldn’t say that now, would you?

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 19:07 (1435 days ago) @ dhw

Thank you for a variety of posts and comments:

DAVID: A new discovery about seabirds using flight patterns to locate food at sea:

QUOTE: "Food is scattered thinly in the open ocean, and seabirds often need to search far and wide to find sustenance. Now, researchers think they’ve found a new cooperative strategy among the birds, one that may help them survive on the high seas."

DAVID: There is no clear finding of these lines collapsing on schools of fish, so presently all we have are human guesses on how all this might work. This is not how birds of a feather flock together normally.

dhw: It always amazes me that people should be surprised when organisms find new ways to help them survive. It takes just one tiny intellectual adjustment to understand it perfectly: humans are not the only intelligent species on this planet.

You love to equate tiny intellectual properties in other species just to diminish the vast difference we exhibit. It doesn't help your cause at all, transparently weak.


Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Monkeys in South America are directly related to monkeys in Africa. How is that possible? The theory is vegetable rafting 32,000,000 years ago!

dhw: Amazing to think of monkeys using rafts to go and explore new territories. Nice to think that our ancestors already had some sense of adventure. Or do you think they climbed aboard because God told them to?

Your view of my God is so weirdly rigid. I think the monks just hopped a ride.


Xxxxx

DAVID: Clever Plasmodium falciparum that learns these tricks to cause black water fever, the common name. My view is it came in the beginning with these attributes present. Otherwise the human immune system might have destroyed it. dhw will ask about God's role. Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve, assuming our braininess could handle it.

dhw: Having had blackwater fever myself, I can vouch for its unpleasantness, but since it resulted in my meeting my future wife, I’m not complaining! As for God’s role, what do you mean “allowed it to evolve”. I thought he specially designed everything. You’re not telling us all of a sudden that he gave organisms the freedom to evolve themselves, are you? Well, that’s a U-turn if ever there was one. Previously, I seem to remember you “humanizing” your God by telling us that he designed these things to test us – but I can’t be sure of that. In any case, you certainly wouldn’t say that now, would you?

Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct. God gave us great brains to try to solve these problems, and note we've solved most, haven't we? As for the bold please follow the full drift of all comments: "Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve," means "it came in the beginning with these attributes present". Both my sentences that have related explanatory meaning! If God is in charge of evolution of course He allows results. Pick, pick, pick without thought analysis!

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 13:36 (1434 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no clear finding of these lines collapsing on schools of fish, so presently all we have are human guesses on how all this might work. This is not how birds of a feather flock together normally.

dhw: It always amazes me that people should be surprised when organisms find new ways to help them survive. It takes just one tiny intellectual adjustment to understand it perfectly: humans are not the only intelligent species on this planet.

DAVID: You love to equate tiny intellectual properties in other species just to diminish the vast difference we exhibit. It doesn't help your cause at all, transparently weak.

It has nothing to do with the vast difference between their level of intelligence and ours! Is this strategy a sign of intelligence or not? If it is, why do you talk of human guesses on how it might work? If it isn’t, then what other guesses do you have? Generally you insist that all Nature’s wonders (like the weaverbird's nest) are performed by automatons obeying God’s instructions or “guidelines”, whereas I propose that these life forms have autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: Clever Plasmodium falciparum that learns these tricks to cause black water fever, the common name. My view is it came in the beginning with these attributes present. Otherwise the human immune system might have destroyed it. dhw will ask about God's role. Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve, assuming our braininess could handle it.

dhw:[…[ As for God’s role, what do you mean “allowed it to evolve”. I thought he specially designed everything. You’re not telling us all of a sudden that he gave organisms the freedom to evolve themselves, are you? Well, that’s a U-turn if ever there was one. Previously, I seem to remember you “humanizing” your God by telling us that he designed these things to test us – but I can’t be sure of that. In any case, you certainly wouldn’t say that now, would you?

DAVID: Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct. God gave us great brains to try to solve these problems, and note we've solved most, haven't we?

Why do you think God wants to test us?

DAVID: As for the bold please follow the full drift of all comments: "Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve," means "it came in the beginning with these attributes present". Both my sentences that have related explanatory meaning! If God is in charge of evolution of course He allows results. Pick, pick, pick without thought analysis!

You claim that your God directly designed every species, and so of course every species would have come with its attributes present at the beginning (except apparently for whales and humans). So either he directly designed the viruses or they evolved of their own accord. Which is it?

QUOTE (under "T cells"): "Previously people thought that memory T cells had two stages of development, but we discovered there is a whole spectrum of memory experience. From naïve T cells that have never been activated, to highly trained memory T cells which can react quickly, and many intermediate T cells in between. This spectrum not only affects how fast a cell can respond, but even what signals it can respond to."

DAVID: Fighting infections is a lifelong battle. T cells are beautifully designed for the
battle, but not perfectly. They can overreact and cause autoimmune diseases.

So what is your theory here? Did your God deliberately design the imperfections in order to test human ability to solve the problems with our great brains? Or are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 19:36 (1434 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You love to equate tiny intellectual properties in other species just to diminish the vast difference we exhibit. It doesn't help your cause at all, transparently weak.

dhw: It has nothing to do with the vast difference between their level of intelligence and ours! Is this strategy a sign of intelligence or not? If it is, why do you talk of human guesses on how it might work? If it isn’t, then what other guesses do you have? Generally you insist that all Nature’s wonders (like the weaverbird's nest) are performed by automatons obeying God’s instructions or “guidelines”, whereas I propose that these life forms have autonomous intelligence.

This is not a sign of bird intelligence. It might well be an instinct from trial and error with loss of lots of birds from hunger. We are observing at the end of a developed process, in which God might have had a hand, indicating they always flew this way and we just discovered it, but it is not as complex an issue as multiple different weaverbird knots.

dhw:[…[ As for God’s role, what do you mean “allowed it to evolve”. I thought he specially designed everything. You’re not telling us all of a sudden that he gave organisms the freedom to evolve themselves, are you? Well, that’s a U-turn if ever there was one. Previously, I seem to remember you “humanizing” your God by telling us that he designed these things to test us – but I can’t be sure of that. In any case, you certainly wouldn’t say that now, would you?

DAVID: Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct. God gave us great brains to try to solve these problems, and note we've solved most, haven't we?

dhw: Why do you think God wants to test us?

You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it. Like the problem of evil, it is your and atheists' problem, not mine


DAVID: As for the bold please follow the full drift of all comments: "Well, He obviously allowed it to evolve," means "it came in the beginning with these attributes present". Both my sentences that have related explanatory meaning! If God is in charge of evolution of course He allows results. Pick, pick, pick without thought analysis!

dhw: You claim that your God directly designed every species, and so of course every species would have come with its attributes present at the beginning (except apparently for whales and humans). So either he directly designed the viruses or they evolved of their own accord. Which is it?

Same demand for exactitude. God create evolution and viruses are part of His plan. Your problem, not mine.


QUOTE (under "T cells"): "Previously people thought that memory T cells had two stages of development, but we discovered there is a whole spectrum of memory experience. From naïve T cells that have never been activated, to highly trained memory T cells which can react quickly, and many intermediate T cells in between. This spectrum not only affects how fast a cell can respond, but even what signals it can respond to."

DAVID: Fighting infections is a lifelong battle. T cells are beautifully designed for the
battle, but not perfectly. They can overreact and cause autoimmune diseases.

dhw: So what is your theory here? Did your God deliberately design the imperfections in order to test human ability to solve the problems with our great brains? Or are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?

Again, your problem. We know life does not work perfectly, since the constant biochemical activity is at high speed and unfortunately prone to some errors despite the tight controls generally working. Think of congenital errors in newborns.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Thursday, April 16, 2020, 11:31 (1433 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Generally you insist that all Nature’s wonders (like the weaverbird's nest) are performed by automatons obeying God’s instructions or “guidelines”, whereas I propose that these life forms have autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: This is not a sign of bird intelligence. It might well be an instinct from trial and error with loss of lots of birds from hunger. We are observing at the end of a developed process, in which God might have had a hand, indicating they always flew this way and we just discovered it, but it is not as complex an issue as multiple different weaverbird knots.

How is it possible for any organism to try things out and learn from their mistakes without knowing what they are doing (= intelligence)? Once they find a method that works, of course it will be passed on and will become the natural thing to do (a form of instinct). If God “had a hand” there would have been no trial and error, so the strategy "might well be” an instinct inherited from a process of trial and error, which means the work of autonomous intelligences.

DAVID: Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct. God gave us great brains to try to solve these problems, and note we've solved most, haven't we? (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Why do you think God wants to test us?

DAVID: You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it. Like the problem of evil, it is your and atheists' problem, not mine.

What do you mean by “knew they were part of his evolution”? Either he designed them or he didn’t. Which do you think it is? And do please take a guess as to why he might want to test us.

DAVID: Same demand for exactitude. God create evolution and viruses are part of His plan. Your problem, not mine.

So did he design them or not? Why are you slipping and sliding? You made an exact statement, bolded above. Why is it my problem to defend it? This is tantamount to refusing any discussion of any statement you make! Same again with the next exact statement:

DAVID: Fighting infections is a lifelong battle. T cells are beautifully designed for the
battle, but not perfectly. They can overreact and cause autoimmune diseases.

dhw: So what is your theory here? Did your God deliberately design the imperfections in order to test human ability to solve the problems with our great brains? Or are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?

DAVID: Again, your problem. We know life does not work perfectly, since the constant biochemical activity is at high speed and unfortunately prone to some errors despite the tight controls generally working. Think of congenital errors in newborns.

Why my problem? You made the exact statement about your God’s intention to test us. The raison d’être of this forum, as you well know, is to discuss all the mysteries for which nobody has “exact” solutions. If you only want to make exact statements but not discuss their implications, our forum has no purpose.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 16, 2020, 19:59 (1432 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This is not a sign of bird intelligence. It might well be an instinct from trial and error with loss of lots of birds from hunger. We are observing at the end of a developed process, in which God might have had a hand, indicating they always flew this way and we just discovered it, but it is not as complex an issue as multiple different weaverbird knots.

dhw: How is it possible for any organism to try things out and learn from their mistakes without knowing what they are doing (= intelligence)? Once they find a method that works, of course it will be passed on and will become the natural thing to do (a form of instinct). If God “had a hand” there would have been no trial and error, so the strategy "might well be” an instinct inherited from a process of trial and error, which means the work of autonomous intelligences.

The issue you raise is can birds know there is a possibility of death? That is too deep thinking for birds. So the answer is they recognize if they can get food, no more. Not much thought involved, but you want every lesser animal to have lots of thoughts. Why?

DAVID: You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it. Like the problem of evil, it is your and atheists' problem, not mine.

dhw: What do you mean by “knew they were part of his evolution”? Either he designed them or he didn’t. Which do you think it is? And do please take a guess as to why he might want to test us.

I have no way of knowing if He wanted to test us. He created viruses because they help in evolution. He gave us the brain to fight the bad ones; God's simple foresight


DAVID: Same demand for exactitude. God create evolution and viruses are part of His plan. Your problem, not mine.

dhw: So did he design them or not? Why are you slipping and sliding? You made an exact statement, bolded above.

Answered above. Designed


DAVID: Fighting infections is a lifelong battle. T cells are beautifully designed for the battle, but not perfectly. They can overreact and cause autoimmune diseases.

dhw: So what is your theory here? Did your God deliberately design the imperfections in order to test human ability to solve the problems with our great brains? Or are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?

DAVID: Again, your problem. We know life does not work perfectly, since the constant biochemical activity is at high speed and unfortunately prone to some errors despite the tight controls generally working. Think of congenital errors in newborns.

dhw: Why my problem? You made the exact statement about your God’s intention to test us. The raison d’être of this forum, as you well know, is to discuss all the mysteries for which nobody has “exact” solutions. If you only want to make exact statements but not discuss their implications, our forum has no purpose.

You are complaining that my answer is not enough for you. But you are the one raising the problem issue. We don't know if God can make life work perfectly, because we know it does not. The bold is the usual twist of my underlying thought. The real thought is: God knew some bacteria and viruses would cause problems. Therefore He gave us a huge brain with a giant conceptual area with which to work and solve problems.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Friday, April 17, 2020, 10:48 (1432 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This is not a sign of bird intelligence. It might well be an instinct from trial and error with loss of lots of birds from hunger.

dhw: How is it possible for any organism to try things out and learn from their mistakes without knowing what they are doing (= intelligence)? […]

DAVID: The issue you raise is can birds know there is a possibility of death? That is too deep thinking for birds. So the answer is they recognize if they can get food, no more. Not much thought involved, but you want every lesser animal to have lots of thoughts. Why?

That is not the issue I raise! Nor did I say I wanted every animal to think deeply or have lots of thoughts! The only question here is not the degree of intelligence, but whether birds are intelligent or not. You avoid the point about trial and error, which is a clear indication that birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution to the problem of finding enough food to survive on. So how can you possibly say this whole process is NOT a sign of intelligence?

xxxx

DAVID: You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it

dhw: What do you mean by “knew they were part of his evolution”? Either he designed them or he didn’t. Which do you think it is? And do please take a guess as to why he might want to test us.

DAVID: I have no way of knowing if He wanted to test us. He created viruses because they help in evolution. He gave us the brain to fight the bad ones; God's simple foresight.

First you confirm that in your view he wants to test us, and then when I ask you why, you say you don’t know if he wants to test us! In fact, you don’t know any of what you state with such exactitude, and when I question it, you complain that I want exactitude!

dhw (re T cells): So what is your theory here? Did your God deliberately design the imperfections in order to test human ability to solve the problems with our great brains? Or are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?

DAVID: Again, your problem. We know life does not work perfectly, since the constant biochemical activity is at high speed and unfortunately prone to some errors despite the tight controls generally working. [..]

dhw: Why my problem? You made the exact statement about your God’s intention to test us. […] If you only want to make exact statements but not discuss their implications, our forum has no purpose.

DAVID: You are complaining that my answer is not enough for you. But you are the one raising the problem issue. We don't know if God can make life work perfectly, because we know it does not. The bold is the usual twist of my underlying thought. The real thought is: God knew some bacteria and viruses would cause problems. Therefore He gave us a huge brain with a giant conceptual area with which to work and solve problems.

You lurch from one inconsistency to another. One moment he’s testing us, and the next you don’t know if he is - let alone why. One moment your God is all powerful and can do what he wants when he wants, but now all of a sudden we don’t know if he can make life work perfectly. You’ve now committed yourself to saying that he deliberately designed the bad viruses, and your logic then tells you that he gave us great brains so that even if they killed us off and caused us huge suffering, eventually we would find a way to kill them off too. And if I ask you why he designed the baddies in the first place, that’s my problem. Meanwhile, in spite of your statement earlier that God “allowed” the virus to evolve, you ignore my follow-up: “are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?” Such a possibility would save you tying yourself in all these intellectual knots!:-)

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Friday, April 17, 2020, 18:35 (1432 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue you raise is can birds know there is a possibility of death? That is too deep thinking for birds. So the answer is they recognize if they can get food, no more. Not much thought involved, but you want every lesser animal to have lots of thoughts. Why?

dhw: That is not the issue I raise! Nor did I say I wanted every animal to think deeply or have lots of thoughts! The only question here is not the degree of intelligence, but whether birds are intelligent or not. You avoid the point about trial and error, which is a clear indication that birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution to the problem of finding enough food to survive on. So how can you possibly say this whole process is NOT a sign of intelligence?

This is a discussion of how this came about. It is just discovered with no known history. We do not know if it evolved from a previous ancestor who had a designed flight pattern. Trial and error means most of a flock died, before the flock realized that it worked. Like speciation we do not know how instincts developed. Like the weaverbird they could well be designed. Still no sign of much intelligent realization about a possible feeding process.


xxxx

DAVID: You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it

dhw: What do you mean by “knew they were part of his evolution”? Either he designed them or he didn’t. Which do you think it is? And do please take a guess as to why he might want to test us.

DAVID: I have no way of knowing if He wanted to test us. He created viruses because they help in evolution. (He gave us the brain to fight the bad ones; God's simple foresight.

Addendum. See today's entry on giant viruses. The bold is an example of your strange interpretations of what I write. Of course He knows what he does!!! As designer, of course He designs.


dhw: First you confirm that in your view he wants to test us, and then when I ask you why, you say you don’t know if he wants to test us! In fact, you don’t know any of what you state with such exactitude, and when I question it, you complain that I want exactitude!

You push me to explain what God does. All I can do is make intelligent guesses based on my view of God, which is directly opposed to your humanized version.


dhw: Why my problem? You made the exact statement about your God’s intention to test us. […] If you only want to make exact statements but not discuss their implications, our forum has no purpose.

DAVID: You are complaining that my answer is not enough for you. But you are the one raising the problem issue. We don't know if God can make life work perfectly, because we know it does not. The bold is the usual twist of my underlying thought. The real thought is: God knew some bacteria and viruses would cause problems. Therefore He gave us a huge brain with a giant conceptual area with which to work and solve problems.

dhw: You lurch from one inconsistency to another. One moment he’s testing us, and the next you don’t know if he is - let alone why. One moment your God is all powerful and can do what he wants when he wants, but now all of a sudden we don’t know if he can make life work perfectly. You’ve now committed yourself to saying that he deliberately designed the bad viruses, and your logic then tells you that he gave us great brains so that even if they killed us off and caused us huge suffering, eventually we would find a way to kill them off too. And if I ask you why he designed the baddies in the first place, that’s my problem.

This reply is again another demand for exactitude about God's actions. Note whqt I just wrote above:

"Addendum. See today's entry on giant viruses. The bold is an example of your strange interpretations of what I write. Of course He knows what he does!!! As designer, of course He designs."

dhw: Meanwhile, in spite of your statement earlier that God “allowed” the virus to evolve, you ignore my follow-up: “are these imperfections the result of mechanisms left to organize themselves?” Such a possibility would save you tying yourself in all these intellectual knots!:-)

Again from above: We don't know if God can make life work perfectly, because we know it does not."

God designs but we know not all the processes of life are always perfect; think of congenital errors. The theists I read on ID all agree God's imperfect designs and allowing evil are an atheists' problem not theirs, or mine.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Saturday, April 18, 2020, 13:06 (1431 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You avoid the point about trial and error, which is a clear indication that birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution to the problem of finding enough food to survive on. So how can you possibly say this whole process is NOT a sign of intelligence?

DAVID: This is a discussion of how this came about. It is just discovered with no known history. We do not know if it evolved from a previous ancestor who had a designed flight pattern. Trial and error means most of a flock died, before the flock realized that it worked. Like speciation we do not know how instincts developed. Like the weaverbird they could well be designed. Still no sign of much intelligent realization about a possible feeding process.

The question is indeed how the established strategy first arose. It makes no difference whether it was these birds or their ancestors: the fact remains that trial and error involves trying things out, learning from mistakes, and eventually coming up with a solution that works. According to you, God designs everything, in which case there would have been no trial and error because according to you he knows everything in advance and never makes mistakes. Your last sentence is a give-away: “no sign of much intelligent realization”. Why must you quantify? Either your God designed the strategy, or the birds worked it out for themselves (probably learning by trial and error), regardless of how "much" intelligence it took. Ditto all the other natural wonders.

xxxx

DAVID: You want exactitude. I don't have it, but I would guess God knew viruses were part of His evolution and gave us the brains to handle it

dhw: What do you mean by “knew they were part of his evolution”? Either he designed them or he didn’t. Which do you think it is? And do please take a guess as to why he might want to test us.

DAVID: I have no way of knowing if He wanted to test us. He created viruses because they help in evolution. He gave us the brain to fight the bad ones; God's simple foresight. […] The bold is an example of your strange interpretations of what I write. Of course He knows what he does!!! As designer, of course He designs.

Your phrasing does NOT mean he designed them, which is why I pinned you down. No need to haggle now that you have agreed that he designed them.

dhw: First you confirm that in your view he wants to test us, and then when I ask you why, you say you don’t know if he wants to test us! In fact, you don’t know any of what you state with such exactitude, and when I question it, you complain that I want exactitude!

DAVID: You push me to explain what God does. All I can do is make intelligent guesses based on my view of God, which is directly opposed to your humanized version.

I don’t push you. You keep telling us exactly what God does, and I challenge the logic of your exact statements. That is when you say that they are guesses, and I mustn’t ask for exactitude. The lack of coherence has nothing to do with the alternatives I offer. He wants to test us: oops, maybe he doesn’t. God is in complete charge and can do anything he wants whenever wants to. But “we don’t know if God can make life work perfectly” and “God knew some bacteria and viruses would cause problems. Therefore He gave us a huge brain with a giant conceptual area with which to work and solve problems.” So he designed them in such a way that they would cause problems, and let's ignore all the other life forms throughout the history of life and of bad viruses and all the humans who now suffer and/or die because of the baddies. It’s OK, because 315,000 years ago, God gave us huge brains to solve the problems. We are of course back to theodicy, but that is NOT my focus, which is YOUR exact statements about your God’s purpose, method and nature and the constant stream of contradictions and illogicalities that arise from them.

DAVID: Addendum. See today's entry on giant viruses.
DAVID: Since these viruses are part of the lowest sections of the sea food web, and affect phytoplankton photosynthesis, using CO2 and producing free O2., it can be proposed they are a significant part of God's design plan.

Which has nothing to do with the problem of the destructive viruses which your God directly designed in order to test the human brain – or maybe not, depending on which day of the week it is. Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 18, 2020, 15:52 (1431 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 18, 2020, 16:10

dhw: The question is indeed how the established strategy first arose. It makes no difference whether it was these birds or their ancestors: the fact remains that trial and error involves trying things out, learning from mistakes, and eventually coming up with a solution that works. According to you, God designs everything, in which case there would have been no trial and error because according to you he knows everything in advance and never makes mistakes. Your last sentence is a give-away: “no sign of much intelligent realization”. Why must you quantify? Either your God designed the strategy, or the birds worked it out for themselves (probably learning by trial and error), regardless of how "much" intelligence it took. Ditto all the other natural wonders.

The give-away is my actual feeling. I strongly doubt the birds are capable of trial and error, which occurs at the human level of mentation. All we know is they have an instinctual flight pattern and we are stuck in that we have no studies on how instincts develop. Our discussion developed from a human thought about trial and error as a posibility. Yes, it is a possibility, nothing more.


xxxx

DAVID: You push me to explain what God does. All I can do is make intelligent guesses based on my view of God, which is directly opposed to your humanized version.

dhw: I don’t push you. You keep telling us exactly what God does, and I challenge the logic of your exact statements. That is when you say that they are guesses, and I mustn’t ask for exactitude. The lack of coherence has nothing to do with the alternatives I offer. He wants to test us: oops, maybe he doesn’t. God is in complete charge and can do anything he wants whenever wants to. But “we don’t know if God can make life work perfectly” and “God knew some bacteria and viruses would cause problems. Therefore He gave us a huge brain with a giant conceptual area with which to work and solve problems.” So he designed them in such a way that they would cause problems, and let's ignore all the other life forms throughout the history of life and of bad viruses and all the humans who now suffer and/or die because of the baddies. It’s OK, because 315,000 years ago, God gave us huge brains to solve the problems. We are of course back to theodicy, but that is NOT my focus, which is YOUR exact statements about your God’s purpose, method and nature and the constant stream of contradictions and illogicalities that arise from them.

Again they are your illogicalities: Real interpretation: God knows some organisms may test us, but we have been given the big brain to figure out how to fight them, while we can create many useful immaterial concepts to better our lives. We are again at the problem of evil, and you have simply repeated the atheist's anthem, as I've noted before. Your problem, not mine.


DAVID: Addendum. See today's entry on giant viruses.
DAVID: Since these viruses are part of the lowest sections of the sea food web, and affect phytoplankton photosynthesis, using CO2 and producing free O2., it can be proposed they are a significant part of God's design plan.

dhw: Which has nothing to do with the problem of the destructive viruses which your God directly designed in order to test the human brain – or maybe not, depending on which day of the week it is.

Once again, your invented interpretation. Stick with maybe not.

. dhw; Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

Of course humanizing!! My purposeful God does not give up control. Of course your humanized god easily relaxed and let the free-for-all begin. A casual reader might interpret this discussion differently: you want me to make up excuses for what you perceive as God's errors based on what you think your god might think. You and I are really debating two different Gods, which confuses the real issues.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Sunday, April 19, 2020, 17:27 (1430 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Either your God designed the strategy, or the birds worked it out for themselves (probably learning by trial and error), regardless of how "much" intelligence it took. Ditto all the other natural wonders.

DAVID: The give-away is my actual feeling. I strongly doubt the birds are capable of trial and error, which occurs at the human level of mentation. All we know is they have an instinctual flight pattern and we are stuck in that we have no studies on how instincts develop. Our discussion developed from a human thought about trial and error as a posibility. Yes, it is a possibility, nothing more.

One reason why our discussions become so difficult is that you are constantly changing your terms. Here is the exchange that started the discussion on trial and error:
dhw: Generally you insist that all Nature’s wonders (like the weaverbird's nest) are performed by automatons obeying God’s instructions or “guidelines”, whereas I propose that these life forms have autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: This is not a sign of bird intelligence. It might well be an instinct from trial and error with loss of lots of birds from hunger. (dhw's bold)

“It might well be” has now changed to “I strongly doubt”. Perhaps you hadn’t realized that trial and error was an admission of intelligence. So the next step is to change your opinion and then to point out that we don’t know the origin of strategies that are now instinctive. Very true, but since the strategies behind all Nature’s wonders bear all the hallmarks of intelligence, perhaps you might consider withdrawing remarks such as “this is not a sign of bird intelligence”, and instead at the very least substituting your usual odds of 50/50.

DAVID: You push me to explain what God does. All I can do is make intelligent guesses based on my view of God, which is directly opposed to your humanized version.

dhw: I don't push you. You keep telling us exactly what God does, and I challenge the logic of your exact statements.That is when you say that they are guesses, and I mustn’t ask for exactitude. […] We are of course back to theodicy, but that is NOT my focus, which is YOUR exact statements about your God’s purpose, method and nature and the constant stream of contradictions and illogicalities that arise from them.

DAVID: Again they are your illogicalities: Real interpretation: God knows some organisms may test us, but we have been given the big brain to figure out how to fight them, while we can create many useful immaterial concepts to better our lives. We are again at the problem of evil, and you have simply repeated the atheist's anthem, as I've noted before. Your problem, not mine.

Theodicy is a problem for the religious who believe that their God is all powerful and all good. However, I emphasized that my focus was NOT on that, but on the illogicalities and contradictions arising from your personal and “exact” beliefs regarding God’s actions and motives. You state unequivocally that your all-powerful God designed the bad viruses, and he did so in order to test us. How do you know either of these claims, and why would he want to test us? Nothing to do with atheism. Please answer. Meanwhile:

dhw: Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

DAVID: Of course humanizing!! My purposeful God does not give up control. Of course your humanized god easily relaxed and let the free-for-all begin.

Please tell me why it is more “humanizing” and “purposeful” to create a free-for-all than to maintain total control. (See also free will in my post about your theory of evolution). And just in case you skip my request above, please tell me your purposeful God’s purpose in testing us with nasty viruses.

DAVID: A casual reader might interpret this discussion differently: you want me to make up excuses for what you perceive as God's errors based on what you think your god might think. You and I are really debating two different Gods, which confuses the real issues.

I have not suggested that God made any errors! It is you who make exact statements about your God’s nature (omniscient and all-controlling), purposes (designing humans and testing them) and methods (spending 3.X billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design). At least one of these beliefs only makes sense if your God made errors! So let me inform the casual reader that in the first instance I am challenging the logic of these exact statements in relation both to the history of evolution and to the nature of God. In the second instance, I offer different alternative views of both, which even David admits are logical.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 19, 2020, 20:05 (1429 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: “It might well be” has now changed to “I strongly doubt”. Perhaps you hadn’t realized that trial and error was an admission of intelligence. So the next step is to change your opinion and then to point out that we don’t know the origin of strategies that are now instinctive.

You are quite correct. At times I don't think as deeply as i should. Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions

DAVID: Again they are your illogicalities: Real interpretation: God knows some organisms may test us, but we have been given the big brain to figure out how to fight them, while we can create many useful immaterial concepts to better our lives. We are again at the problem of evil, and you have simply repeated the atheist's anthem, as I've noted before. Your problem, not mine.

dhw: Theodicy is a problem for the religious who believe that their God is all powerful and all good. However, I emphasized that my focus was NOT on that, but on the illogicalities and contradictions arising from your personal and “exact” beliefs regarding God’s actions and motives. You state unequivocally that your all-powerful God designed the bad viruses, and he did so in order to test us. How do you know either of these claims, and why would he want to test us? Nothing to do with atheism.

Difference in interpretation as usual. My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

dhw: Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

Our views of God differ widely, no surprise. Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. Both God's fit history. You are correct, not a humanizing issue at this level of discussion. Your humanizing occurs when you apply human motives to God.

DAVID: A casual reader might interpret this discussion differently: you want me to make up excuses for what you perceive as God's errors based on what you think your god might think. You and I are really debating two different Gods, which confuses the real issues.

dhw: I have not suggested that God made any errors! It is you who make exact statements about your God’s nature (omniscient and all-controlling), purposes (designing humans and testing them) and methods (spending 3.X billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design). At least one of these beliefs only makes sense if your God made errors! So let me inform the casual reader that in the first instance I am challenging the logic of these exact statements in relation both to the history of evolution and to the nature of God. In the second instance, I offer different alternative views of both, which even David admits are logical.

You see God's actions as creating errors. I see it as God recognizing potential problems for us in how He developed evolution, so we are given a giant brain to solve issues. Why didn't the 'all-powerful God' you constantly refer to, just give us a cushy problem-free existence? Apparently not His plan. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable, or shouldn't we struggle a bit to have the enjoyment of discovery and reaching solutions?

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by dhw, Monday, April 20, 2020, 14:52 (1429 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “It might well be” has now changed to “I strongly doubt”. Perhaps you hadn’t realized that trial and error was an admission of intelligence. So the next step is to change your opinion and then to point out that we don’t know the origin of strategies that are now instinctive.

DAVID: You are quite correct. At times I don't think as deeply as i should.

Thank you for your honesty. We are all in the same boat! However, this is the point of the forum. We offer ideas for the scrutiny of others.

DAVID: Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions.

I do not expect you to abandon your fixed beliefs, but I do expect a fair hearing for alternatives. When you agree that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, I am content. But the next minute you insist that you are 100% right, as in statements such as “This is not a sign of bird intelligence.

dhw: You state unequivocally that your all-powerful God designed the bad viruses, and he did so in order to test us. How do you know either of these claims, and why would he want to test us? Nothing to do with atheism.

DAVID: Difference in interpretation as usual. My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

No it isn’t. On 14 April I wrote that I remembered you telling us that “he designed these things to test us” but since you had written that he “allowed” such things to evolve, I assumed you wouldn’t say so now. You replied “Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct.” And you keep saying he gave us our brains to solve the problems. When pressed, you have also conceded that he directly designed the bad viruses – as opposed to he knew they would appear.

dhw: Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

DAVID: Our views of God differ widely, no surprise. Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. Both God's fit history. You are correct, not a humanizing issue at this level of discussion. Your humanizing occurs when you apply human motives to God.

So tell us why your God wants to test us. As for the silly idea of “loosey-goosey” (as if God would not be God if he created autonomous organisms) see the comments on free will under “David’s theory of evolution”
.
DAVID: You see God's actions as creating errors. I see it as God recognizing potential problems for us in how He developed evolution, so we are given a giant brain to solve issues. Why didn't the 'all-powerful God' you constantly refer to, just give us a cushy problem-free existence? Apparently not His plan. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable, or shouldn't we struggle a bit to have the enjoyment of discovery and reaching solutions?

I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope (remember, you think he’s watching us with interest). He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve – hence the struggle for survival as environments have changed and species came and went for thousands of millions of years before humans came on the scene. I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.

Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns

by David Turell @, Monday, April 20, 2020, 15:54 (1429 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions.

dhw: I do not expect you to abandon your fixed beliefs, but I do expect a fair hearing for alternatives. When you agree that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, I am content. But the next minute you insist that you are 100% right, as in statements such as “This is not a sign of bird intelligence.

A non-answer. Does trial an d error require intelligent analysis?


dhw: You state unequivocally that your all-powerful God designed the bad viruses, and he did so in order to test us. How do you know either of these claims, and why would he want to test us? Nothing to do with atheism.

DAVID: Difference in interpretation as usual. My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

dhw: No it isn’t. On 14 April I wrote that I remembered you telling us that “he designed these things to test us” but since you had written that he “allowed” such things to evolve, I assumed you wouldn’t say so now. You replied “Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct.” And you keep saying he gave us our brains to solve the problems. When pressed, you have also conceded that he directly designed the bad viruses – as opposed to he knew they would appear.

You have me at a disadvantage. I can't go back to a specific debate to see context, which you always leave out. We've established God used viruses to guide evolution. We know viruses continue to evolve as we fight some of them. God must have allowed this degree of freedom. My impression, as before, is God allowed this to happen, and I cannot guess as to His reasons, but our big brain surely helps.


dhw: Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

DAVID: Our views of God differ widely, no surprise. Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. Both God's fit history. You are correct, not a humanizing issue at this level of discussion. Your humanizing occurs when you apply human motives to God.

dhw: So tell us why your God wants to test us. As for the silly idea of “loosey-goosey” (as if God would not be God if he created autonomous organisms) see the comments on free will under “David’s theory of evolution”

You've answered this yourself below

.
DAVID: You see God's actions as creating errors. I see it as God recognizing potential problems for us in how He developed evolution, so we are given a giant brain to solve issues. Why didn't the 'all-powerful God' you constantly refer to, just give us a cushy problem-free existence? Apparently not His plan. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable, or shouldn't we struggle a bit to have the enjoyment of discovery and reaching solutions?

dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope (remember, you think he’s watching us with interest).

The bold is my thought also.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by dhw, Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 12:49 (1428 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining this thread with ant intelligence, since the subject matter overlaps.

DAVID: Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions.

dhw: I do not expect you to abandon your fixed beliefs, but I do expect a fair hearing for alternatives. When you agree that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, I am content. But the next minute you insist that you are 100% right, as in statements such as “This is not a sign of bird intelligence.”

DAVID: A non-answer. Does trial and error require intelligent analysis?

You’ve just said that it does (bolded above). However, they were your words, not mine. My point was that “birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution.”

DAVID (under “Ant intelligence”): The information is monkey-see-monkey-do. Ants have eyes and join the others in an activity.

dhw: Which activity, since they are confronted with a choice, and why do they communicate with one another if they have nothing to “say”?

DAVID: They communicate to understand the activity required.

And obviously to decide which of these activities they would perform. Thank you. Communicating, understanding and deciding are characteristics most of us would associate with intelligence.

dhw: […] You could hardly have a more vivid illustration of the manner in which cells and cell communities organize themselves in accordance with whatever is required by the whole structure under varying conditions.

DAVID: The usual appeal for innate intelligence, when the cells are beautifully programmed to act intelligently.

dhw: Are you going back to your God devising programmes 3.8 billion years ago for ants and neurons to change tasks whenever required? How do they know which programme to switch on? Or do you think he does ongoing dabbles when ants and neurons change their tasks?

DAVID: You still refuse to accept automatic activity from programmed information. Tell your kidneys they do not know what they are doing or why!

We are talking about ants and neurons, which reorganize themselves to meet changing requirements. Please answer my questions. (Kidneys do not reorganize themselves.)

DAVID: […] If it looks intelligent, doesn't ever mean it is innately intelligent.

dhw: […] If it looks intelligent, maybe it IS intelligent!

DAVID: Since we look from the outside, the odds of 50/50 apply and each of us can chose a side and one of us is correct. […] I have my choice.

Of course you can make your choice. But you should not state your choice as if the alternative was impossible: e.g. “This is not a sign of bird intelligence” or ant strategies are “monkey-see-monkey-do”.

xxx

DAVID: My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

dhw: No it isn’t. On 14 April I wrote that I remembered you telling us that “he designed these things to test us” but […] I assumed you wouldn’t say so now. You replied “Yes, I would.” […]

DAVID: You have me at a disadvantage. I can't go back to a specific debate to see context, which you always leave out.

There is no other context. I have you at a disadvantage because you keep changing your mind when I probe.

DAVID: We've established God used viruses to guide evolution. We know viruses continue to evolve as we fight some of them. God must have allowed this degree of freedom. My impression, as before, is God allowed this to happen, and I cannot guess as to His reasons, but our big brain surely helps.

Good. You now have your God allowing things to happen instead of exercising full control - your usual mantra. I don’t know how this fits in with your statement that he directly designed the viruses, and I don’t know how “I cannot guess” fits in with your statement that he did so in order to test us. Your views appear to change day by day.

DAVID: Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. And you asked why God didn’t “just give us a cushy problem-free life. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable…?”

dhw: So tell us why your God wants to test us. As for the silly idea of “loosey-goosey” (as if God would not be God if he created autonomous organisms) see the comments on free will under “David’s theory of evolution”

DAVID: You've answered this yourself below.

[…] you only quoted the first sentence. My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:
dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope. He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve […] I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 18:44 (1428 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A non-answer. Does trial and error require intelligent analysis?

dhw: My point was that “birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution.”

Still requires an intelligent analysis, which birds may not be able to perform. It may simply be "we're eating so we'll keep flying this pattern" into which they stumbled.


DAVID (under “Ant intelligence”): The information is monkey-see-monkey-do. Ants have eyes and join the others in an activity.

dhw: Which activity, since they are confronted with a choice, and why do they communicate with one another if they have nothing to “say”?

DAVID: They communicate to understand the activity required.

dhw: And obviously to decide which of these activities they would perform. Thank you. Communicating, understanding and deciding are characteristics most of us would associate with intelligence.

They simply see what others are doing and imitate. Not much for real intelligent thinking

DAVID: You still refuse to accept automatic activity from programmed information. Tell your kidneys they do not know what they are doing or why!

dhw: We are talking about ants and neurons, which reorganize themselves to meet changing requirements. Please answer my questions. (Kidneys do not reorganize themselves.)

They are organized for each specified task. Ant colonies do not reorganize. Just do what they have to do: automatically build bridges when needed,

xxx

DAVID: You have me at a disadvantage. I can't go back to a specific debate to see context, which you always leave out.

dhw: There is no other context. I have you at a disadvantage because you keep changing your mind when I probe.

It seems I constantly restate what you misinterpret.


DAVID: We've established God used viruses to guide evolution. We know viruses continue to evolve as we fight some of them. God must have allowed this degree of freedom. My impression, as before, is God allowed this to happen, and I cannot guess as to His reasons, but our big brain surely helps.

dhw: Good. You now have your God allowing things to happen instead of exercising full control - your usual mantra.

Why do you insist my God must be absolutely inflexible/rigid in everything He does?

dhw: I don’t know how this fits in with your statement that he directly designed the viruses, and I don’t know how “I cannot guess” fits in with your statement that he did so in order to test us. Your views appear to change day by day.

I've not changed. You've made your usual stretches. God must have allowed viruses to mutate on their own, which is what we see, or as you suggest, He might be driving the changes. So we come back to debating about God's personality. I suspect He is nicer than that.

dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope. He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve […] I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.

All depends on your clear view of God.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by dhw, Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 11:43 (1427 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Does trial and error require intelligent analysis?

dhw: My point was that “birds try things out, learn from their mistakes, and eventually in this case come up with a highly intelligent solution.”

DAVID: Still requires an intelligent analysis, which birds may not be able to perform. It may simply be "we're eating so we'll keep flying this pattern" into which they stumbled.

Yes, it requires intelligence, as you agreed before realizing that “might well be trial and error” meant they were intelligent. Now it’s “may not be able….” And “may simply be”. Why are you so terrified of the idea that other life forms might have their own degrees of intelligence?

DAVID (under “Ant intelligence”): The information is monkey-see-monkey-do. Ants have eyes and join the others in an activity.

dhw: Which activity, since they are confronted with a choice, and why do they communicate with one another if they have nothing to “say”?

DAVID: They communicate to understand the activity required.

dhw: And obviously to decide which of these activities they would perform. Thank you. Communicating, understanding and deciding are characteristics most of us would associate with intelligence.

DAVID: They simply see what others are doing and imitate. Not much for real intelligent thinking.

There are different tasks, choices must be made, they communicate, and then perform one of the tasks. Why is this intelligence not “real”?

DAVID: […] They are organized for each specified task. Ant colonies do not reorganize. Just do what they have to do: automatically build bridges when needed,

Why the passive? Who organizes them? They organize themselves! If ants change the tasks they perform, they reorganize. They do what they have to do after first ascertaining what it is they have to do. “Automatically” does not explain how the bridge strategy first arose. Do you think your God programmed it 3.8 billion years ago, or did a dabble and gave them lessons in bridge-building?

DAVID: You have me at a disadvantage. I can't go back to a specific debate to see context, which you always leave out.

dhw: There is no other context. I have you at a disadvantage because you keep changing your mind when I probe.

DAVID: It seems I constantly restate what you misinterpret.

The discussion last week arose from Plasmodium falciparum and blackwater fever. I remembered you saying that your God designed these things to test us, and you confirmed that my memory was correct. There is no misinterpretation.

DAVID: We've established God used viruses to guide evolution. We know viruses continue to evolve as we fight some of them. God must have allowed this degree of freedom. My impression, as before, is God allowed this to happen, and I cannot guess as to His reasons, but our big brain surely helps.

dhw: Good. You now have your God allowing things to happen instead of exercising full control - your usual mantra.

DAVID: Why do you insist my God must be absolutely inflexible/rigid in everything He does?

It is you who are rigid in your belief that he exercises total control over everything! I am the one who is pushing the theory that he “allows” things to happen instead of pulling all the strings.

dhw: I don’t know how this fits in with your statement that he directly designed the viruses, and I don’t know how “I cannot guess” fits in with your statement that he did so in order to test us. Your views appear to change day by day.

DAVID: I've not changed. You've made your usual stretches. God must have allowed viruses to mutate on their own, which is what we see, or as you suggest, He might be driving the changes. So we come back to debating about God's personality. I suspect He is nicer than that.

Now, instead of directly designing the virus, as he did last week, we have God allowing viruses to do their own thing, just as he allows us humans to do our own thing. So let’s drop the mantra that he is in total control of everything, and acknowledge that he is willing to sacrifice control. The debate about his personality relates to his motives, which according to you must stop at the point of wanting to design H. sapiens. Anything else is “humanizing”, although – more of your unequivocal statements you wish you hadn’t made – he may well think like us and probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours.

dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope. He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve […] I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.

DAVID: All depends on your clear view of God.

Nobody has a clear view of God, who may not even exist, but I’m pleased to see how very close you are coming to accepting the idea of a God who watches with interest a spectacle he created for himself to watch with interest.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 23:16 (1426 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've not changed. You've made your usual stretches. God must have allowed viruses to mutate on their own, which is what we see, or as you suggest, He might be driving the changes. So we come back to debating about God's personality. I suspect He is nicer than that.

dhw: Now, instead of directly designing the virus, as he did last week, we have God allowing viruses to do their own thing, just as he allows us humans to do our own thing. So let’s drop the mantra that he is in total control of everything, and acknowledge that he is willing to sacrifice control.

What we know scientifically is viruses have the capacity to mutate. I'm currently assuming God allows it, as we have the brain/soul complex to fight it. The entirety of evolution is a vast subject. I follow certain precepts: God is an exacting designer and produced vast complexity from initial life, which started out as quite complex. That does not mean He may allow some minor freedoms, but I see nothing as a major freedom of design.

dhw: The debate about his personality relates to his motives, which according to you must stop at the point of wanting to design H. sapiens. Anything else is “humanizing”, although – more of your unequivocal statements you wish you hadn’t made – he may well think like us and probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours.

We must think of God as a person in an allegorical way. It is obvious to me you have no idea how much you think of God in humanizing terms. As for my 'unequivocal statements' of course I made them without regret. But from the standpoint that God is a personage like no other person, while from your humanizing view, you delight in thinking you have caught me humanizing Him myself. He thinks as we do in His own an analogical way, never really like us. As for desiring to create humans, it is beyond questioning for those of us who believe.

dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

An other humanizing comment: Spectacles are for amusement and entertainment. Taht dosn't matter to my concept pf God.


dhw: I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope. He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve […] I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.

DAVID: All depends on your clear view of God.

dhw: Nobody has a clear view of God, who may not even exist, but I’m pleased to see how very close you are coming to accepting the idea of a God who watches with interest a spectacle he created for himself to watch with interest.

Glad you are pleased, but you are not discussing my real view of God.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by dhw, Thursday, April 23, 2020, 13:40 (1426 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've not changed. You've made your usual stretches. God must have allowed viruses to mutate on their own, which is what we see, or as you suggest, He might be driving the changes. So we come back to debating about God's personality. I suspect He is nicer than that.

dhw: Now, instead of directly designing the virus, as he did last week, we have God allowing viruses to do their own thing, just as he allows us humans to do our own thing. So let’s drop the mantra that he is in total control of everything, and acknowledge that he is willing to sacrifice control.

DAVID: What we know scientifically is viruses have the capacity to mutate. I'm currently assuming God allows it, as we have the brain/soul complex to fight it. The entirety of evolution is a vast subject. I follow certain precepts: God is an exacting designer and produced vast complexity from initial life, which started out as quite complex. That does not mean He may allow some minor freedoms, but I see nothing as a major freedom of design.

I’m glad you used the word “currently”, since your views change so frequently – last week he apparently designed the viruses and did so in order to test us. I think you mean that he does allow minor freedoms (like human free will, and mass-killing viruses). I know you see nothing as a major freedom. Nor can you “see” God personally designing the weaverbird’s nest, but you insist that he did. None of us can “see” any of the theories on offer, and that is why we are debating the logic of all of them.

dhw: The debate about his personality relates to his motives, which according to you must stop at the point of wanting to design H. sapiens. Anything else is “humanizing”, although – more of your unequivocal statements you wish you hadn’t made – he may well think like us and probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: We must think of God as a person in an allegorical way. It is obvious to me you have no idea how much you think of God in humanizing terms. As for my 'unequivocal statements' of course I made them without regret. But from the standpoint that God is a personage like no other person, while from your humanizing view, you delight in thinking you have caught me humanizing Him myself. He thinks as we do in His own an analogical way, never really like us. As for desiring to create humans, it is beyond questioning for those of us who believe.

I don’t have a problem with his desire to create humans. I have even offered you two explanations of evolution that fit in with that desire. You cannot possibly know how God thinks, so do please stop pretending that he can’t think like us or “really” like us, whatever that means. And please remember that I offer various alternative explanations of evolution, the logic of which you keep accepting. You cannot reject them just because they are humanly logical and “currently” you think your God cannot think in humanly logical terms, even though at other times you think he can.

dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

DAVID: An other humanizing comment: Spectacles are for amusement and entertainment. Taht dosn't matter to my concept pf God.

I didn’t use those words – I used the words you yourself have used before: “with interest”. However, your concept of God is that he is all-purposeful. And you believe H. sapiens was his purpose for creating life. So what do you think was his purpose in creating H. sapiens?

DAVID: All depends on your clear view of God.

dhw: Nobody has a clear view of God, who may not even exist, but I’m pleased to see how very close you are coming to accepting the idea of a God who watches with interest a spectacle he created for himself to watch with interest.

DAVID: Glad you are pleased, but you are not discussing my real view of God.

You have told us several times that you are sure he is watching us (also “with interest”). If that is not your “real” view, please tell us what is.

Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 23, 2020, 20:16 (1425 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We must think of God as a person in an allegorical way. It is obvious to me you have no idea how much you think of God in humanizing terms. As for my 'unequivocal statements' of course I made them without regret. But from the standpoint that God is a personage like no other person, while from your humanizing view, you delight in thinking you have caught me humanizing Him myself. He thinks as we do in His own analogical way, never really like us. As for desiring to create humans, it is beyond questioning for those of us who believe.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with his desire to create humans. I have even offered you two explanations of evolution that fit in with that desire. You cannot possibly know how God thinks, so do please stop pretending that he can’t think like us or “really” like us, whatever that means. And please remember that I offer various alternative explanations of evolution, the logic of which you keep accepting. You cannot reject them just because they are humanly logical and “currently” you think your God cannot think in humanly logical terms, even though at other times you think he can.

Of course we use human terms in analyzing God. They are the only terms we have. My statements above apply, following what I have been taught.


dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

DAVID: An other humanizing comment: Spectacles are for amusement and entertainment. That doesn't matter to my concept pf God.

dhw: I didn’t use those words – I used the words you yourself have used before: “with interest”. However, your concept of God is that he is all-purposeful. And you believe H. sapiens was his purpose for creating life. So what do you think was his purpose in creating H. sapiens?

I really don't know, but I can repeat the usual human-thought possibilities we've covered in the past.


DAVID: All depends on your clear view of God.

dhw: Nobody has a clear view of God, who may not even exist, but I’m pleased to see how very close you are coming to accepting the idea of a God who watches with interest a spectacle he created for himself to watch with interest.

DAVID: Glad you are pleased, but you are not discussing my real view of God.

dhw: You have told us several times that you are sure he is watching us (also “with interest”). If that is not your “real” view, please tell us what is.

Of course He may watch with interest. Since He created us that is certainly logical.

Natures wonders: no one understands cicadas

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 04, 2020, 01:48 (1384 days ago) @ David Turell

With their long cycles mainly underground, they are certainly weird:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-are-cicadas-180975009/?utm_source=sm...

"Cicadas spend the majority of their lives underground. They spend years developing into adults before they can emerge to sing, mate and lay eggs. For a majority of the nearly 3,400 cicada species, that emergence happens every two to five years and can vary from cycle to cycle. The strange periodical cicadas, on the other hand, are very different.

***

"Periodical cicadas like Magicicicada spend 13 or 17 years underground, and millions of them surface together. To make sense of it all, biologists classify the periodicals into one of 15 existing “broods” based on their species, location, and—importantly—which years they emerge. This year, for example, Brood IX is emerging in North Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia for the first time since 2003.

***

"But why do cicadas emerge in 13- and 17-year cycles, anyway? One hypothesis with much buzz among mathematicians is that it’s because both numbers are prime; the theory goes that the cycles prevent specialized predators from springing up. Cicadas are easy prey. They’re not hard to catch, Cooley says, and “anything that can catch ‘em will eat ‘em.” But predators, such as foxes or owls, whose populations cycle up and down every one to ten years can’t sync up with such irregular prey."

Comment: Totally unexplained as an instinctual behavior. The bugs did not teach themselves to do this.

Natures wonders: no one understands cicadas

by dhw, Thursday, June 04, 2020, 08:55 (1384 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "But why do cicadas emerge in 13- and 17-year cycles, anyway? One hypothesis with much buzz among mathematicians is that it’s because both numbers are prime; the theory goes that the cycles prevent specialized predators from springing up. Cicadas are easy prey. They’re not hard to catch, Cooley says, and “anything that can catch ‘em will eat ‘em.” But predators, such as foxes or owls, whose populations cycle up and down every one to ten years can’t sync up with such irregular prey."

DAVID: Totally unexplained as an instinctual behavior. The bugs did not teach themselves to do this.

Are you suggesting that your God, whose one and only aim was to directly design H. sapiens, stepped in to teach one particular form of cicada to spend 13-17 years underground? Or did he perhaps preprogramme the cicadas and their cycles 3.8 billion years ago as an integral step on the way to fulfilling his sole purpose of designing H. sapiens?

Natures wonders: no one understands cicadas

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 04, 2020, 19:08 (1384 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "But why do cicadas emerge in 13- and 17-year cycles, anyway? One hypothesis with much buzz among mathematicians is that it’s because both numbers are prime; the theory goes that the cycles prevent specialized predators from springing up. Cicadas are easy prey. They’re not hard to catch, Cooley says, and “anything that can catch ‘em will eat ‘em.” But predators, such as foxes or owls, whose populations cycle up and down every one to ten years can’t sync up with such irregular prey."

DAVID: Totally unexplained as an instinctual behavior. The bugs did not teach themselves to do this.

dhw: Are you suggesting that your God, whose one and only aim was to directly design H. sapiens, stepped in to teach one particular form of cicada to spend 13-17 years underground? Or did he perhaps preprogramme the cicadas and their cycles 3.8 billion years ago as an integral step on the way to fulfilling his sole purpose of designing H. sapiens?

Since it is very difficult to imagine a set of circumstances to force or induce cicadas into this pattern of life, God may well have had a role. Just how is only guesswork, which must include my proposals as to how God works His intentions. The insects are just another part of the necessary bush of life created by God's method of evolution.

Natures wonders: rain drop protection

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 09, 2020, 22:38 (1378 days ago) @ David Turell

Rain drops are heavy and can be damaging to delicate surfaces like butterfly wings, which have protections=:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-armor-butterfly-wings-heavy.html

"An analysis of high-speed raindrops hitting biological surfaces such as feathers, plant leaves and insect wings reveals how these highly water-repelling veneers reduce the water's impact.

"Micro-bumps and a nanoscale wax layer on fragile butterfly wings shatter and spread raindrops to minimize damage.

***

"The research showed how microscale bumps, combined with a nanoscale layer of wax, shatter and spread these drops to protect fragile surfaces from physical damage and hypothermia risk.

***

"Raindrops pose risks, Jung said, because their impact could damage fragile butterfly wings, for example.

"'[Getting hit with] raindrops is the most dangerous event for this kind of small animal," he said, noting the relative weight of a raindrop hitting a butterfly wing would be analogous to a bowling ball falling from the sky on a human.

***

"In analyzing the film, they found that when a drop hits the surface, it ripples and spreads. A nanoscale wax layer repels the water, while larger microscale bumps on the surface creates holes in the spreading raindrop.

"'Consider the micro-bumps as needles," Jung said. If one dropped a balloon onto these needles, he said, "then this balloon would break into smaller pieces. So the same thing happens as the raindrop hits and spreads."

"This shattering action reduces the amount of time the drop is in contact with the surface, which limits momentum and lowers the impact force on a delicate wing or leaf. It also reduces heat transfer from a cold drop. This is important because the muscles of an insect wing, for example, need to be warm enough to fly.

"If they have a longer time in contact with the cold raindrop, they're going to lose a lot of heat and they cannot fly very easily," Jung said, making them vulnerable to predators, for example.

Repelling water as quickly as possible also is important because water is very heavy, making flight in insects and birds difficult and weighing down plant leaves.

Comment: The original design of butterfly wings had to include this protection mechanism or butterflies would not have survived. Not by chance

Natures wonders: giant larvacean's 'snot palaces'

by David Turell @, Monday, June 15, 2020, 19:12 (1373 days ago) @ David Turell

Weird sea bottom delicate creatures with food gathering complex mechanism:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/larvaceans-underwater-snot-palaces-boast-elaborate-...

"Underwater laser scans have revealed new details of how sea creatures called giant larvaceans feed themselves by flapping a filmy tail inside a cloud of snot.

"But what a cloud it is. A giant larvacean produces an elaborate mucus home for itself that bioengineer Kakani Katija of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California on occasion calls a “snot palace.” The mucus marvels rise out of the heads of four species of spineless, roughly tadpole-shaped giant larvaceans living in the twilight depths of the bay.

***

"The newest reconstructions of flow suggest how inner ducts, chambers and valves, all made of mucus, help harvest bacteria and other suitable food particles from the normally weak soup of seawater, Katija and colleagues report June 3 in Nature.

***

"In building those homes, larvaceans remind Katija a bit of spiders. Plenty of animals build homes and traps, but larvaceans and spiders are among the few that don’t collect building material or dig and sculpt soil. Instead, they secrete all their architecture.

"And much like a spider weaving a web anew each day, larvaceans are thought to make and remake their mucus houses. A millimeter-sized gob of mucus beads up on a larvacean’s head. Then the blob can inflate into a finished house in 45 minutes.

"When fully inflated, a plump, curved, inner mucus house cradles the larvacean as the animal’s swishing tail pumps seawater through the structure. Encasing all of this plumbing and the animal cuddled against it lies the big floaty envelope of the outer house. A larvacean creates the whole palace, even ribbed walls and intricate chutes, without arms or legs or even a snout that pokes the mucus into shape or nudges parts together.

***

"As seawater throbs through this plumbing, the stream of food particles grows more concentrated as it approaches the animal’s mouth. As Katija, a bioengineer interested in taking design inspiration from nature, points out, these animals have evolved an inflatable filtration system."

Comment: Amazing. Not really comparable to spider. They design their own web patterns. These creatures have self-forming mucous it seems. My guess is the mucous contains charged molecules which by attraction form the shapes. A God design? Certainly not by chance.

Natures wonders: barn owlet food for grooming

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 16, 2020, 20:33 (1371 days ago) @ David Turell

It is a tit for tat zero sum game:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/barn-owlets-share-food-younger-siblings-exchange-gr...

"If ever there were a competition to rank sibling relationships in the animal kingdom, barn owls would be close to the top. That’s because elder barn owlets will sometimes give away their meal to their younger siblings. Such cooperative behavior has been reported in adult nonhuman primates and birds, but rarely among young.

***

"Barn owls (Tyto alba) raise six chicks at once, on average, and sometimes as many as nine (SN: 9/19/17). But not all chicks hatch at the same time, which means that elder chicks are usually healthier and larger than their younger brothers and sisters.

"That’s because all chicks are entirely dependent on the parents for food, and food, in this case, is usually a small rodent, like a vole or a shrew, that can’t be easily split. So at any given visit, mom or dad can feed only one chick at a time. In many bird species, the eldest siblings would simply outcompete the rest, but not barn owls.

***

"The team found that older chicks preferentially shared food with the younger siblings that extensively groomed them. And younger owlets, in general, groomed elder siblings more often than the older ones groomed the youngsters, “perhaps to maximize the probability of being fed in return,” the researchers write. In some cases, an elder chick would also offer food to the neediest sibling, which called out incessantly, irrespective of whether it groomed or not.

"But food sharing occurred only when the researchers provided extra food to the owlets. So it wasn’t a case of the older chicks risking their survival to feed the youngsters. But when there was enough food to go around, the elder siblings chose to share instead of hoard.

“'[It’s an] interesting study with a large sample size and technically nice observation techniques,” says Ronald Noë, a retired behavioral ecologist from the Netherlands who was not part of the research. “One usually reads about competition among siblings and even siblicide,” he says."

Comment: Note this altruistic behavior occurs only when there is plenty of food available.

Now the Darwinist twist, the author's conclusion as pure Darwinism:

"Ducouret says that this food-sharing behavior could have evolved because the elder siblings enjoy both indirect and direct benefits. Being groomed offers such immediate boons as protection against parasites like lice or fleas. Grooming could also reduce conflict and social stress among the owlets. And, by helping their genetically related younger kin survive, the elder siblings ensure that more of their genes stay in the gene pool, thus indirectly benefitting themselves in the long, evolutionary run."

He has the owl's using pure human reasoning. Really??

Natures wonders: the bombardier beetle evolution problem

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 00:58 (1371 days ago) @ David Turell

This animal produces very nasty, toxic fluid for defense. How to evolve this and not react to it at the same time?:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-reveals-chemistry-bombardier-beetle-extraordinary.html

"If you want to see one of the wonders of the natural world, just startle a bombardier beetle. But be careful: when the beetles are scared, they flood an internal chamber with a complex cocktail of aromatic chemicals, triggering a cascade of chemical reaction that detonates the fluid and sends it shooting out of the insect's spray nozzle in a machine-gun-like pulse of toxic, scalding-hot vapor. The explosive, high-pressure burst of noxious chemicals doesn't harm the beetle, but it stains and irritates human skin—and can kill smaller enemies outright.

"The beetle's extraordinary arsenal has been held up by some as a proof of God's existence: how on earth, creationists argue, could such a complex, multistep defense mechanism evolve by chance? Now researchers at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. show how the bombardier beetle concocts its deadly explosives and in the process, learn how evolution gave rise to the beetle's remarkable firepower. (my bold)

***

"The team at Stevens showed that in fact just one of the beetle's benzoquinones derived from hydroquinone, with the other springing from a completely separate precursor: m-cresol, a toxin found in coal tar.

"It's fascinating that the beetles can safely metabolize such toxic chemicals, Attygalle said. In future studies, he hopes to follow the beetles' chemical supply chain further upstream, to learn how the precursors are biosynthesized from naturally available substances.

"The team's findings also show that the beetles' explosives rely on chemical pathways found in many other creepy-crawlies. Other animals such as millipedes also use benzoquinones to discourage predators, although they lack the bombardier's ability to detonate their chemical defenses. Evolutionarily distant creatures such as spiders and millipedes use similar strategies, too, suggesting that multiple organisms have independently evolved ways to biosynthesize the chemicals.

"That's a reminder that the bombardier beetle, though remarkable, is part of a rich and completely natural evolutionary tapestry, Attygalle said. "By studying the similarities and differences between beetles' chemistry, we can see more clearly how they and other species fit together into the evolutionary tree," he explained. "Beetles are incredibly diverse, and they all have amazing chemical stories to tell.'"

Comment: note the bolds and the red colored section. All the scientists learned was how the beetle produces the toxins, not how it protects itself or even more so, how the necessary two processes, production and protection developed simultaneously by chance. This is one of Dr. Behe's prime examples in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box". The Darwinists are so insulated from true thought, they seem to have no idea what they did not prove! Fitting into an evolutionary tree proves nothing. Note the tree is not talking, even if we can see the tree..

Natures wonders: flying snakes

by David Turell @, Monday, June 29, 2020, 19:05 (1359 days ago) @ David Turell

Not in a plane, but slither through the air from tree to tree:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-flying-snakes-stay-aloft

"Certain species of tree snakes can glide through the air, undulating their bodies as they soar from tree to tree. That wriggling isn’t an attempt to replicate how the reptiles slither across land or swim through water. The contortions are essential for stable gliding, mechanical engineer Isaac Yeaton and colleagues report June 29 in Nature Physics.

“'They have evolved this ability to glide, and it’s pretty spectacular,” says Yeaton, of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. Paradise tree snakes (Chrysopelea paradisi) fling themselves from branches, leaping distances of 10 meters or more (SN: 8/7/02). To record the snakes’ twists and turns, Yeaton, then at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and colleagues affixed reflective tape on the snakes’ backs and used high-speed cameras to capture the motion.

"Physicists had previously discovered that the tree snakes flatten their bodies as they leap, generating lift (SN: 1/29/14). The new experiment reveals that the snakes also exert a complex combination of movements as they soar. Gliding snakes undulate their bodies both side to side and up and down, the researchers found, and move their tails above and below the level of their heads.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKSKxQcyYdE&feature=emb_rel_end

"Once the researchers had mapped out the snakes’ acrobatics, they created a computer simulation of gliding snakes. In the simulation, snakes that undulated flew similarly to the real-life snakes. But those that didn’t wriggle failed spectacularly, rotating to the side or falling head over tail, rather than maintaining a graceful, stable glide.

"If confined to a single plane instead of wriggling in three dimensions, the snakes would tumble. So snakes on a plane won’t fly."

Comment:No way of knowing how they learned this as an instinct. trial and error don s't seem likely. By design?

Natures wonders: the mad hatterpillar

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 16:08 (1358 days ago) @ David Turell

A moth caterpillar with an odd head ornament:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632881-200-weird-caterpillar-uses-its-old-head...

The picture:

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/22132353/40559610_web.jpg


"As the caterpillar of the moth Uraba lugens grows, it sheds its exoskeleton – but rather than getting rid of the previous head section, it stays attached to its body to create a bizarre “hat”.

"This has earned it the nickname the mad hatterpillar, after the Mad Hatter in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Found in Australia and New Zealand, U. lugens is also known as the gum-leaf skeletoniser, thanks to the caterpillars’ tendency to demolish eucalyptus leaves down to the veins.

"U. lugens moults up to 13 times while in its caterpillar phase, with the tower of heads starting to be built from the fourth moult. As the caterpillar grows, each empty head is bigger than the last.

"The headpiece isn’t just for show, however. “The function is to protect them from predators – they use it to bat predators away,” says photographer Alan Henderson of Minibeast Wildlife, an invertebrate resource centre based in Queensland, Australia. The “hat” probably boosts the caterpillars’ survival chances, by prolonging how long it takes predators to get a clear shot, he says."

Comment: A weird result of moulting

Natures wonders: the mad hatterpillar

by dhw, Wednesday, July 01, 2020, 10:35 (1357 days ago) @ David Turell

A moth caterpillar with an odd head ornament:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632881-200-weird-caterpillar-uses-its-old-head...

The picture:

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/22132353/40559610_web.jpg


"As the caterpillar of the moth Uraba lugens grows, it sheds its exoskeleton – but rather than getting rid of the previous head section, it stays attached to its body to create a bizarre “hat”.

"This has earned it the nickname the mad hatterpillar, after the Mad Hatter in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Found in Australia and New Zealand, U. lugens is also known as the gum-leaf skeletoniser, thanks to the caterpillars’ tendency to demolish eucalyptus leaves down to the veins.

"U. lugens moults up to 13 times while in its caterpillar phase, with the tower of heads starting to be built from the fourth moult. As the caterpillar grows, each empty head is bigger than the last.

"The headpiece isn’t just for show, however. “The function is to protect them from predators – they use it to bat predators away,” says photographer Alan Henderson of Minibeast Wildlife, an invertebrate resource centre based in Queensland, Australia. The “hat” probably boosts the caterpillars’ survival chances, by prolonging how long it takes predators to get a clear shot, he says."

Comment: A weird result of moulting

Great stuff! I love the pun - and these natural wonders are an ongoing treat. Thank you.

Natures wonders:seabird movement same in air and water

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2020, 20:06 (1356 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolved or designed, the seabird movements are analyzed:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200630193211.htm

"New insight on how four species of seabirds have developed the ability to cruise through both air and water has been published today in the open-access journal eLife.

"The study reveals that these birds, from the Alcidae family which includes puffins, murres and their relatives, produce efficient propulsive wakes while flying and swimming. This means that the animals likely spend relatively low amounts of metabolic energy when creating the force they need to move in both air and water. The findings suggest that alcids have been optimised for movement in very different environments through the course of their evolution.

***

"Lapsansky and his team tested whether alcids exhibit 'efficient Strouhal numbers' when flying in water and air. Animals move in these environments by using oscillating appendages. The Strouhal number describes the frequency at which an animal produces pulses of force with these appendages to power its movement. Only a narrow range of Strouhal numbers are efficient -- if a bird flaps its wings too fast or too slow, for a given amplitude and flight speed, then it wastes energy. But most birds have converged on this narrow range of Strouhal numbers, meaning that selection has tuned them to exhibit efficient flapping and swimming movements.

***

"Their measurements showed that alcids cruise at Strouhal numbers between 0.10 and 0.40 in both air and water, similar to animals that stick to air or water only, but flap their wings approximately 50% slower in water. This suggests that the birds either contract their muscles at inefficient velocities or maintain a two-geared muscle system, highlighting a clear cost to using their wings for movement in air and water.

"'Our work provides detailed new insight into how evolution has shaped alcid flight in response to competing environmental demands in air and water," concludes senior author Bret Tobalske,"

Comment: Once these birds developed air and water movement, they could have adapted further. Originally they may have been designed.

Natures wonders: perfect stingers follow same design

by David Turell @, Monday, July 06, 2020, 21:07 (1351 days ago) @ David Turell

The pattern is described by math ratio, perfect except for hollow stingers. that ratio is still to be determined:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stingers-have-achieved-optimal-pointiness-ph...

"The spines of a cactus, the proboscis of a mosquito, the quills of a porcupine: straight, pointed objects serve a plethora of functions in nature. Yet no matter the size, from bacteriophages’ nanometer-scale tail fibers to narwhals’ two- or three-meter-long tusk, these structures tend to be long and slender cones whose base diameter is much smaller than their length. Now researchers have used physics to explain why this narrow shape is optimal for stingers and other piercing objects—including human-made tools such as hypodermic needles.

"A stingerlike object’s dimensions are limited by two opposing constraints. To puncture its target, it must apply a force large enough to overcome the pressure created by friction. At the same time, this force must be smaller than the “critical load,” the maximum force that the structure can support without bending or breaking. A large range of geometries, from long and narrow to short and wide, satisfy both constraints. Yet living organisms do not exhibit all the possible variability. Instead nature seems to prefer narrow designs with a base-diameter-to-length ratio of around 0.06.

***

"Although Jensen and Christensen’s equation describes the shape of a multitude of stingerlike structures, others have complexities not considered in the model. Some plant “stingers” are hollow or contain liquids, and some wasps intentionally bend their stinger during insertion. In both cases, the equation overestimates the base diameter. Jensen hopes to build on his research to understand the physics governing curved teeth, claws and other sharp objects in the natural world. This work could, in turn, inspire a new wave of engineering innovations, he says: “There’s quite substantial potential for learning from nature on how to design these things.'”

Comment: Most of God's designs are perfect. I would guess the hollow stingers will also follow a definite perfect mathematical pattern meeting all physical requirements.

Natures wonders: rock bacteria know quantum theory

by David Turell @, Friday, July 10, 2020, 20:10 (1347 days ago) @ David Turell

They understand, interpret and use electron spin:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-rock-breathing-bacteria-electron-doctors.html

"Researchers at USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science have found that protein "wires" connecting a bacterial cell to a solid surface tend to transmit electrons with a particular spin.

"This ability to select an electron's quantum spin could have implications for the use of bacteria in the biotechnology industry and in burgeoning efforts to create bacteria-based energy cells, as well as future electronic technologies, they said.

***

"...the scientists have been studying certain bacteria that can use solid surfaces in the same way animals use oxygen to breathe. Instead of dumping electrons generated during metabolism onto inhaled oxygen molecules, the bacteria send the electrons down specialized proteins that plug into an external surface.

"'Unlike most organisms that are able to use oxygen as the electron acceptor," said USC Dornsife Senior Research Associate Sahand Pirbadian, "these bacteria transfer the electrons to a solid mineral or, as they do in our lab, to electrodes that are outside the cell."

"In terms of metabolism, they "breathe" the minerals or electrodes.

"To reach the external surface, the electrons are shuttled through various protein molecules that form electrical conduits. These proteins have magnetic fields that can favor a particular spin as the electrons shuttle through.

"Scientists found, says Pirbadian, that these magnetic fields are affected by a characteristic of the proteins called "chirality."

***

"'By the time the electrons traverse the molecular wire, the majority end up having the same quantum spin—up or down—depending on the chirality," said El-Naggar, who holds the Robert D. Beyer ('81) Early Career Chair in Natural Sciences. "This study is the first to confirm that the electrically conductive proteins in these cells are selecting the spin of electrons."

***

"Understanding how proteins affect electrons' quantum spin could also help the scientists understand how magnetic fields affect some biological processes."

Comment: Bacteria are the earliest life form, and I've shown the quantum activity in photosynthesis. Quantum mechanics is the basis of reality, and God has used this activity through life forms.

Natures wonders: hiding in dark waters

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 20:02 (1338 days ago) @ David Turell

Strange very black squid hidden in deep waters:

http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/588/this-animal-hides-using-is-kept-up-byits-own-glowin...

"The Hawaiian bobtail squid (Euprymna scolopes) has adopted a camouflage strategy that turns the classical tropes of light and darkness upside down. The palm-sized mollusks are nocturnal, inhabiting shallow coastal waters around the globe, where they forage for shrimp in the cover of darkness. But shadows are often the squid’s undoing. Even on the darkest nights, its body blocks the moonlight and starlight that penetrates the water around it, leaving an eight-legged silhouette that’s visible from below—a tell exploited by predators who’ve learned to cruise along the ocean floor looking up. The squid have a clever defense, though: In a nearly pitch-black environment, they’ve evolved to camouflage themselves in a most counterintuitive way—by lighting up.

"The Hawaiian bobtail squid emits a glow that camouflages them against the night sky. To predators passing below, the squid blend right in with the rest of the dimly lit water. “It’s like a Klingon cloaking device,” said Margaret McFall-Ngai, a University of Wisconsin researcher who has been studying Euprymna scolopes for decades.

"Producing light is a tricky and energy-expensive endeavor. Fortunately for the squid, they’ve managed to outsource the job. A luminescent strain of bacteria called Vibrio fischeri has struck up a symbiotic partnership with the squid. The microbes supply photons of faux starlight; the squid provide a sugar-and-amino-acid solution that feeds the bacteria, in addition to a safe place to live.

***

"The extraordinary ability of the Hawaiian bobtail squid to detect freeloaders comes from a unique structure in the squid’s body, called the light organ, which houses the bacteria. When McFall-Ngai and her team examined the light-organ tissue, they found something remarkable: it contained many of the tissue types usually associated with the eye. Most important among these was a tissue with photo-sensitive proteins analogous to the retina. When the bacteria fluoresce, the light organ detects the photons and lets the squid know its tenants are paying rent. The squid’s all-seeing inner eye watches to make sure it isn’t being cheated.

***

"The research shows that bacteria living in the squid aren’t just providing it with starlight camouflage—they’re also influencing its biological clock. A group of light-sensitive proteins in squid (and other animals) called cryptochromes have been identified as key regulators of the circadian rhythm. Elizabeth Heath-Heckman, a doctoral candidate in McFall-Ngai’s lab, found that the cryptochromes are controlled by two genes, called Cry1 and Cry2. She also discovered that Cry2 expression increased in response to the light from Vibrio fischeri, while Cry1 cycled in response to environmental light. Much like how staring at a smartphone screen late at night can trick your body into thinking it’s still daytime, the bacteria control their host’s biological clock with the light they produce. “By influencing cryptochromes, the symbionts have the capability to change transcription [the activity] of all of the downstream genes that are controlled by Cry gene,” said Heath-Heckman.

***

"Heath-Heckman’s discovery that symbiotic bacteria can influence the circadian rhythms of their host was the first of its kind, and has since been confirmed by other experiments. The understanding of how the microbiome influences host health is still in its infancy, but already we’ve learned that microbes have a profound effect on everything from immune system development to vitamin metabolism. It appears their talents extend to giving their hosts cloaking devices and different internal clocks as well."

Comment: Another strange symbiosis in which it is a wonder as to how the squid and the luminescent bacteria came together. Not by chance. I would assume directed by God.

Natures wonders: hiding in dark waters

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 20:15 (1338 days ago) @ David Turell

And also a very black fish hiding in dark waters:

https://futurism.com/scientists-discover-vantablack-creatures?mc_cid=09e716c10b&mc_...

"A team of marine biologists have discovered 16 new species of terrifying deep-sea fish that reflect almost no light at all, much like the ultra-black material Vantablack.

"Marine biologist Karen Osborn was astonished when she attempted to take pictures of a fangtooth, a terrifying fanged monster of the deep sea, for cataloguing reasons. The fish appeared to absorb almost all of the light her underwater studio shone at it, leaving only eerie silhouettes.

***

"Some of the newly discovered species are so dark that they absorb 99.956 percent of light that hits it. For context, last year MIT engineers claimed they accidentally created the darkest material that absorbs 99.995 percent of incoming light — 10 times darker than Vantablack, an extremely dark and difficult to produce carbon nanotube material designed by British nanotech company Surrey Nanosystems.

***

"So how do these fish get so dark? Special layers of melanosomes, tiny cellular structures stuffed with melanin — the same natural pigment that colors human skin — scatter incoming photons and stop them from finding their way back out.

"One species, the threadfin dragonfish, was even found to only be ultra-black when its young — likely a defense mechanism to protect it when it needs to hide from predators.

"Other species had melanosomes lining their guts to make sure any bioluminescent fish they ate won’t give away their position. “You don’t want to be swimming around with a glowing belly, right?” Osborne told Wired. “That’s just asking for trouble.'”

Comment: Not by trial and error. Requires design especially if sixteen different species developed it by so-called convergence. That means it was built into the DNA programming.

Natures wonders: hiding in dark waters

by dhw, Monday, July 20, 2020, 12:09 (1338 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: “The understanding of how the microbiome influences host health is still in its infancy, but already we’ve learned that microbes have a profound effect on everything from immune system development to vitamin metabolism. It appears their talents extend to giving their hosts cloaking devices and different internal clocks as well."

David’s comments: Another strange symbiosis in which it is a wonder as to how the squid and the luminescent bacteria came together. Not by chance. I would assume directed by God.
And: Not by trial and error. Requires design especially if sixteen different species developed it by so-called convergence. That means it was built into the DNA programming.

First of all, once again many thanks for these wonderful articles. They are an education in themselves, regardless of one’s religious beliefs or non-beliefs. And I agree with you that they are a devastating riposte to anyone who believes in chance. But I wonder why your God would directly dabble or preprogramme the “marriage” between bacteria and black squid/fish when his sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens. However, the versatility of microbes suggests that they are remarkably intelligent – a gift perhaps bestowed on them by your God! :-)

Natures wonders: hiding in dark waters

by David Turell @, Monday, July 20, 2020, 14:54 (1338 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: “The understanding of how the microbiome influences host health is still in its infancy, but already we’ve learned that microbes have a profound effect on everything from immune system development to vitamin metabolism. It appears their talents extend to giving their hosts cloaking devices and different internal clocks as well."

David’s comments: Another strange symbiosis in which it is a wonder as to how the squid and the luminescent bacteria came together. Not by chance. I would assume directed by God.
And: Not by trial and error. Requires design especially if sixteen different species developed it by so-called convergence. That means it was built into the DNA programming.

dhw: First of all, once again many thanks for these wonderful articles. They are an education in themselves, regardless of one’s religious beliefs or non-beliefs. And I agree with you that they are a devastating riposte to anyone who believes in chance. But I wonder why your God would directly dabble or preprogramme the “marriage” between bacteria and black squid/fish when his sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens. However, the versatility of microbes suggests that they are remarkably intelligent – a gift perhaps bestowed on them by your God! :-)

God always makes sure the particular echoniches are well organized for food supply. From the top down everyone eats. ;-)

Natures wonders: neurotoxic spider webs

by David Turell @, Monday, August 03, 2020, 23:11 (1323 days ago) @ David Turell

How did this develop? If it stuns or kills insects on the web, what protects the spider itself?:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spiders-poisonous-webs-neuro-toxins-genes

"Orb weaver spiders are known for their big, beautiful webs. Now, researchers suggest that these webs do more than just glue a spider’s meal in place — they may also swiftly paralyze their catch.

"The idea first came to him about 25 years ago, when Palma lived near a rice plantation where orb weavers were common. He says he often saw fresh prey, like bees or flies, in the spiders’ webs, and over time, noticed the hapless animals weren’t just glued — they convulsed and stuck out their tongues, as if they’d been poisoned. If he pulled the insects free, they struggled to walk or hold up their bodies, even if the web’s owner hadn’t injected venom.

"Palma had worked with neurotoxins for many years, and these odd behaviors immediately struck him as the effects of such toxins.

"The pair and their colleagues analyzed the active genes and proteins in the silk glands of banana spiders (Trichonephila clavipes) — a kind of orb weaver — and found proteins resembling known neurotoxins. The neurotoxins may make the webs paralytic traps, the team reports online June 15 in the Journal of Proteome Research. The prey-catching webs of other species probably have similar neurotoxins, Palma says.

"These neurotoxin proteins also showed up on the silk of webs collected in Rio Claro, packed into fatty bubbles in microscopic droplets on the strands. And when the researchers rinsed substances from webs and injected them into bees, the animals became paralyzed in less than a minute.

***

"Paralytic toxins may be just part of the underappreciated complexity of web design. Palma plans to have his students dive deeper into smaller, as of yet unidentified proteins his team found. He thinks they may help keep the prey alive until the spider’s ready for a fresh meal."

Comment: An insect cannot develop a toxin by trial and error and survive. Designed by God.

Natures wonders: desert moss under quartz crystals

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 22, 2020, 06:12 (1305 days ago) @ David Turell

Saves some moisture for the plants:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/desert-moss-beats-heat-growing-under-quartz-c...

"To survive in the hot, arid Mojave Desert, the moss Syntrichia caninervis needs to avoid drying out but also needs to catch a few rays to photosynthesize and keep growing. The moss manages to strike this perfect, yoga-like balance by growing beneath translucent quartz blocks.

"The quartz’s cloudy interior filters out much of the sun’s desiccating radiation, which keeps things wetter than the surrounding environment, but just enough light sneaks through to keep the moss’s green engine running, the researchers reported last month in the journal PLOS ONE. The quartz also keeps the moss warmer when the temperature drops in the winter, reports Paul Simons for the Guardian.

***

"When the researchers set up a formal study of the phenomenon, they found the moss could be picky about the dimensions and properties of its stone shelter, according to the Guardian. Most of the moss-harboring quartz pieces were roughly an inch thick and were sufficiently clear to allow some 4 percent of sunlight to reach the plant below. Outside these parameters, the quartz would either offer too much or not enough protection from the elements.

"Using sensors wedged under some of these hunks of quartz, the researchers found the stones kept things twice as humid as the surrounding environment and buffered swings in temperature by 7 degrees Fahrenheit in either direction, according to the Times.

"This moss isn’t the only life form known to take advantage of the unique perks found underneath semi-transparent rocks. Hardy cyanobacteria, studied by astrobiologists looking for organisms that might survive elsewhere in the solar system, also live under translucent minerals, per the Guardian. The Syntrichia caninervis moss is the first plant known to adopt the strategy."

Comment: This whole setup looks fortuitous to me. The moss can't move around looking for quartz of the right dimensions and neither can bacteria move around very far in the desert. It seems like a lucky arrangement, nothing more.

Natures wonders: the math of Emperor penguin huddles

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 23, 2020, 15:34 (1304 days ago) @ David Turell

Keeping warm by huddling is the Emperor's trick, and it follows a math pattern, but the birds don't do math, they constantly shift to find the warmest spot:

http://abstractions.nautil.us/article/604/math-of-the-penguins?mc_cid=52cd39af09&mc...

“'A penguin huddle looks like organized chaos,” said François Blanchette, a mathematician at the University of California, Merced. “Every penguin acts individually, but the end result is an equitable heat distribution for the whole community.”

"It turns out that penguins execute their huddles with a high degree of mathematical efficiency, as Blanchette and his team discovered.

***

"Though dominant winds can appear to push a huddle along the ice, the truth is more nuanced. Blanchette and his team’s model made clear that the birds do not move in unison. Penguins in the huddle’s center, where temperatures reach a sweltering 100 degrees Fahrenheit, mostly stand still. A bird who finds himself on the huddle’s windward side is soon driven to relocate to its warmer, leeward side. As more birds leave the windward side, penguins in the center soon find themselves exposed. In due course, these penguins also depart for the leeward side.

"Huddles typically last a few hours, during which the penguins may cycle through multiple rotations from the huddle’s cold exterior to its warm interior. In the process, each individual prioritizes his own warmth, yet the huddle’s heat is shared by all.

***

"Penguins seem to know what mathematicians learned long ago: The densest packing of shapes on a plane is a hexagonal grid. According to Blanchette’s model, the birds arrange themselves as if they were each standing on their own hexagon in a grid. Most huddles start off as misshapen blobs. Wind flow and temperature around the huddle prompt a first penguin—typically the coldest on the windward side—to relocate. This penguin, known as the mover, waddles in search of new neighbors in the relative warmth of the huddle’s leeward side."

Comment: The diagrams are a must-see to fully understand. The math is pure human observation math. Penguins don't understand the packing trick of hexagons. They have learned how to keep warm.

Natures wonders: predatory bacteria

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 25, 2020, 15:29 (1302 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria have two main enemies, bacteriophages and predatory bacteria. Both can help control disease:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/science/bacteria-bdellovibrio-predator-prey.html?cam...

"Predatory bacteria carry immense promise in an extraordinarily small package. Deployed under the right circumstances, they could help people beat back harmful microbes in the environment, or purge pathogens from the food supply. Some experts think they could someday serve as a sort of living therapeutic that could help clear drug-resistant germs from ailing patients in whom all other treatments have failed.

"But even the small community of researchers who study predatory bacteria have not fully figured out how these cells select and slaughter their hosts. Teasing out those answers could reveal a range of ways to tackle stubborn infections, and provide a window onto predator-prey dynamics at their most microscopic.

"To potentially use this group of microbes as “a living antibiotic, we need to know how it grows,” said Terrens Saaki, a microbiologist studying predatory bacteria at the de Duve Institute in Belgium. “We can’t use it if we don’t understand it.”

"Predatory bacteria were discovered by accident. Scientists stumbled upon them more than a half-century ago while hunting for another type of murderous microbe called a bacteriophage, or phage, a virus that can infect and kill bacteria. Before then, Dr. Williams said, “it was not known that a bacterium would prey on other bacteria in this fashion.”

***

"But phages and predatory bacteria are very different beasts. Phages tend to target a narrow range of hosts, whereas many predatory bacteria are far less finicky. Some predatory bacteria are amenable to eating dozens, if not hundreds, of bacterial species, enabling them to thrive in most habitats. And whereas phages work quickly, massacring entire populations within hours, predatory bacteria are plodding, sometimes taking weeks to grow in the lab.

"And while other microbes are content to feast on nutrient-rich broth, predatory bacteria demand a steady supply of live prey.

***

"Once a bacterial predator has homed in on its prey, little can stop it. Whereas antibiotics and bacteriophages tend to target very specific parts of a bacterium’s anatomy bacterial predators are blunt agents of gluttony: A microbe can no more easily evolve resistance to them than a rabbit can evolve resistance to a wolf.

"Even before latching onto their prey, BALOs are formidable foes, capable of chemical sensing that allows them to “sniff” out their prey and then give chase, propelling themselves forward by rotating a corkscrew-like tail called a flagellum. “They can swim 100 times their body lengths in a second,” Dr. Kadouri said. “Pound for pound, that’s faster than a cheetah.”

***

"Some evidence suggests that “healthy human beings usually have predatory bacteria as part of their microbiome,” she said. Little is understood about their role, she added. But they likely maintain order in the gut and ensure that no single species runs amok."

Comment: It follows the usual rule. Everyone has to eat something. But we humans have the smarts to make them into a good therapeutic agent.

Natures wonders: mussels extreme adherence in the wet

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 02, 2020, 18:26 (1294 days ago) @ David Turell

The design of mussel adherence is further explored:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17597-4

Abstract:

"The mussel byssus has long been a source of inspiration for the adhesion community. Recently, adhesive synergy between flanking lysine (Lys, K) and 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA, Y) residues in the mussel foot proteins (Mfps) has been highlighted. However, the complex topological relationship of DOPA and Lys as well as the interfacial adhesive roles of other amino acids have been understudied. Herein, we study adhesion of Lys and DOPA-containing peptides to organic and inorganic substrates using single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS). We show that a modest increase in peptide length, from KY to (KY)3, increases adhesion strength to TiO2. Surprisingly, further increase in peptide length offers no additional benefit. Additionally, comparison of adhesion of dipeptides containing Lys and either DOPA (KY) or phenylalanine (KF) shows that DOPA is stronger and more versatile. We furthermore demonstrate that incorporating a nonadhesive spacer between (KY) repeats can mimic the hidden length in the Mfp and act as an effective strategy to dissipate energy.

Introduction:

"One of the great challenges faced by man-made adhesives is binding in the presence of water, salts, and surface contaminants1. Marine mussels, on the other hand, have perfected the art of adhering tenaciously to a variety of surfaces in wet conditions. The strong attachment of mussels is mediated by the byssus, a proteinaceous holdfast that is formed by secretion and solidification of specialized adhesive proteins. A unique feature of these interfacial proteins is the presence of large amounts of post-translationally modified amino acid 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA), a catechol-containing residue that is believed to be a major contributor to wet adhesion. Bioinspired design principles based on mimicking these interfacial proteins have been employed extensively and resulted in a variety of catechol functionalized polymers for bio-compatible adhesives, self-healing hydrogels, and surgical wound closure materials.

***

"The findings in this work can provide a solid foundation to tailor properties and further guide the deliberate design and synthesis of bioinspired wet adhesives."

Comment: The above sentence is a referral to stealing nature's secrets to help us with biomimetic products. Nature is much smarter than we are. The key thought here is mussels have worked out a worthwhile lifestyle adhering to ships. The obvious issue is how did they evolve these adhesive proteins in the first place? How did they find the first good adhesive so teh process could start in place? Only help from a designer is reasonable.

Natures wonders: carpenter ant bacterial symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 02, 2020, 21:37 (1293 days ago) @ David Turell

Acting as one organism now:

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-complex-life-revealed.html

"The bacteria Blochmannia and members of the hyper-diverse ant tribe Camponotini have forged a symbiotic relationship that goes back 51 million years in which each species can no longer survive without the other (termed obligate endosymbiosis by biologists). The ants are thought to have initially ingested the bacteria from sap-sucking insects called hemipteran bugs, with whom they share an ecological niche. The bacteria, which live inside the cells of the ant, helps regulate the size distribution of workers in the colony by enhancing the ants' ability to synthesize nutrition. The ants, in turn, provide the bacteria with a protected cellular environment and ensure their survival from one generation to the next. But how they came together has been unclear until now.

***

"'Instead of the germline genes being localized in just one location in the egg like all other insects, now they are in four. No one has ever seen anything like this in any other insect," says Arjuna Rajakumar, a senior Ph.D. student in Prof. Abouheif's lab and a first co-author of the paper with Ab. Matteen Rafiqi, a former postdoc in the Abouheif lab who is now based at Bezmialem Vakif University in Istanbul. "We were also surprised that the hox genes, which set up the layout of the body and normally come on late in embryo development appeared very early and localize in the same four locations as the germline genes." says Rafiqi.

"'The localization of these genes in these 4 different areas creates a system of coordinates in the ant embryo, where each performs a different function to integrate the bacteria." says Abouheif.

"Working with over 30 closely-related species of ants allowed the researchers to reconstruct the steps in this unification. They discovered that the merger happened in a series of steps, going from embryos where germline genes were localized in only one location, until eventually both germline and hox genes could be found in all four. However, a major surprise was that embryos with two locations of these genes evolved prior to the merger between the two species. This means that there was a pre-existing capacity to evolve new locations within the ant embryos, which the bacteria were then able to exploit to make radical alterations to embryo development and integrate the two species."

Comment: Not surprising after 51 million years of cooperating.

Natures wonders: the amazing slingshot spider

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 02, 2020, 23:00 (1293 days ago) @ David Turell

He accelerates at blackout acceleration. His web is super strong:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/08/research-reveals-biological-design-in-the-sensing-and...

"A tiny spider has been found that can launch itself at 10 times the speed that would make a test pilot black out. And if that isn’t amazing enough, it builds its own catapult out of web material that can tolerate sustained tension for hours and days. The story of the “slingshot spider” of Peru is told by Georgia Tech. Scientists measured this spider’s acceleration at 100 times that of a cheetah, with a force of 130 Gs. How this one-millimeter spider has mastered physics baffles even the engineers who traveled six hours by boat in Peru to watch it in its native habitat.

"Another mystery is how the spider patiently holds the web while waiting for food to fly by. Alexander and Bhamla estimated that stretching the web requires at least 200 dynes, atremendous amount of energy for a tiny spider to generate. Holding that for hours could waste a lot of energy.

“'Generating 200 dynes would produce tremendous forces on the tiny legs of the spider,” Bhamla said. “If the reward is a mosquito at the end of three hours, is that worth it? We think the spider must be using some kind of trick to lock its muscles like a latch so it doesn’t need to consume energy while waiting for hours.”

"Think of the design requirements for this feat: mastery of materials science, mastery of potential energy to stretch the web and latch it in a cocked position, ability to target fast-moving prey, mastery of ballistics, possessing a body able to withstand exceptional acceleration, and ability to wrap the prey and consume energy from it after a dizzying flight. This is a spider with a PhD in both physics and engineering!"

Comment: Taken from the ID website. Designer required

Natures wonders: Australian stinging tree

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 20:18 (1279 days ago) @ David Turell

The venom is similar to spider venom:

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-native-tree-toxins-pain-spiders.html

"The Gympie-Gympie stinging tree is one of the world's most venomous plants and causes extreme long-lasting pain.

"Associate Professor Irina Vetter, Dr. Thomas Durek and their teams at UQ's Institute for Molecular Bioscience found a new family of toxins, which they've named 'gympietides' after the Gympie-Gympie stinging tree.

***

"'The Australian stinging tree species are particularly notorious for producing excruciatingly painful sting, which unlike those of their European and North American relatives can cause symptoms that last for days or weeks.

"'Like other stinging plants such as nettles, the giant stinging tree is covered in needle-like appendages called trichomes that are around five millimetres in length—the trichomes look like fine hairs, but actually act like hypodermic needles that inject toxins when they make contact with skin," Associate Professor Vetter said.

***

The team did find such neurotoxins—a completely new class of miniproteins that they termed "Gympietides", after the indigenous name for the plant.

"Although they come from a plant, the gympietides are similar to spider and cone snail toxins in the way they fold into their 3-D molecular structures and target the same pain receptors—this arguably makes the Gympie-Gympie tree a truly "venomous" plant.

"Associate Professor Vetter said the long-lasting pain from the stinging tree may be explained by the gympietides permanently changing the sodium channels in the sensory neurons, not due to the fine hairs getting stuck in the skin.

***

"The researchers point to two possibilities for the toxin's evolution from either an ancestral gene in an ancient shared ancestor or convergent evolution, where nature re-invents the most fitting structure to fit a common purpose."

Comment: The suggestion of convergent evolution raised the observation that perhaps only so many molecules are available in a form that cause this type of reaction.

Natures wonders: dark eyed guppies are never lunch

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 17, 2020, 21:51 (1278 days ago) @ David Turell

A weird technique to avoid being dinner:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-matador-in-your-fish-tank/?utm_source=ne...

"Guppies make unassuming pets, but in the wild they adopt a daring and counterintuitive tactic to avoid becoming dinner. When they spot a predator, they suddenly darken their eyes from silver to jet black—enticing the attacker to go straight for the guppy's head.

***

"Robert Heathcote, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Exeter in England, says he came up with this hypothesis while eating a blueberry muffin on a train. He had noticed in high-speed videos that ambush predator fish called pike cichlids seemed to aim their attacks at the heads of the guppies with black eyes. “The guppy would wait right until the last minute and then kind of reverse itself and dodge out of the way,” says Heathcote, the study's lead author.

***

"Pike cichlid attacks are ballistic and do not deviate from their course once launched, so the researchers could “simulate” whether a guppy would have escaped without the barrier's intervention.

***

"These guppies may not be the only prey animals using such a strategy. Other fish also change their eyes' tint, and species including epaulette sharks and rock doves have attention-grabbing color patterns on their backs.

“This [study] opens a whole new area of research, and it might explain cases where eyes or eyespots are very conspicuous,” says Karin Kjernsmo, a behavioral and evolutionary ecologist at the University of Bristol in England, who was not involved in the study. “Maybe together with an evasive strategy, [these results] could explain why that is so.'”

Comment: A neat designed defense. This could not have developed over time or guppies would not have survived.

Natures wonders: bacteria fungus symbiosis

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 10, 2020, 14:19 (1256 days ago) @ David Turell

The bacteria travels easily in soil and the fungus gets a supplement:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/183.3

"Filamentous fungi such as Aspergillus nidulans grow by hyphal branching and extension in a multicellular network. These networks make “highways” through the soil for motile bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, but whether this relationship is exploitative or mutualist is not well understood. Abeysinghe et al. found that when B. subtilis grows together with A. nidulans, the bacteria's thiamine biosynthesis operon is induced. However, the fungal equivalent is repressed, and the authors presume that this is to save metabolic costs. If the fungal operon is experimentally ablated, the resulting growth defect of the fungus can be rescued by intact B. subtilis. It appears that bacteria using the fungal highway to reach new foraging grounds pay for the ride by delivering thiamine to the hyphal tips."

Comment: Happily working it out by mutual adaptation using modifying mechanisms that I believe are God designed.

Natures wonders: bee hivemate microbiome identification

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 19:53 (1252 days ago) @ David Turell

A bee knows his mates by the genetic makeup of his microbiome:

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-gut-bacteria-key-bee-id.html

"New research from Washington University in St. Louis shows that honey bees rely on chemical cues related to their shared gut microbial communities, instead of genetic relatedness, to identify members of their colony.

"'Most people only pay attention to the genetics of the actual bee," said Yehuda Ben-Shahar, professor of biology in Arts & Sciences and corresponding author of the study published Oct. 14 in Science Advances. "What we show is that it is genetic, but it's the genetics of the bacteria."


"Honey bees recognize and respond to chemical signals from other bees that they detect from skin compounds known as cuticular hydrocarbons, or CHCs. This study determined that a bee's particular CHC profile is dependent on its microbiome—the bacteria that make up its gut microbial community—and is not something innate or genetic to the bee alone.

"'Different colonies do in fact have colony-specific microbiomes, which has never been shown before," said Cassondra L. Vernier, postdoctoral associate at the University of Illinois,

"'Bees are constantly sharing food with one another—and exchanging this microbiome just within their colony," said Vernier, first author of the new study.

***

"'The importance of this paper is that it's one of the first papers that actually shows that the microbiome is involved in the basic social biology of honey bees—and not just affecting their health," Vernier said. "The microbiome is involved in how the colony as a whole functions, and how they are able to maintain nest defenses, rather than just immune defense within an individual."

"The gut microbial community—or microbiome—supplies humans and other animals with vitamins, helps digest food, regulates inflammation and keeps disease-causing microbes in check. Increasingly a topic of research interest, scientists have discovered many ways that the microbiome blurs the borders between a host and its bacteria.

"The microbiome has been found to influence communication in several different organisms—including, notably, large animals like hyenas.

"For honey bees, this study shows that the microbiome plays a critical role in defining the tightly regulated chemical signals for group membership."

Comment: Once again the fact that bacteria are still here is in their importance to more complex evolved forms. The designer knew exactly what He was doing as He started with bacteria.

Natures wonders: addicted to microbiome

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 29, 2023, 22:52 (202 days ago) @ David Turell

A new theory:

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-hosts-evolutionary-addiction-microbiome.html

"We've long known that hosts malfunction without their microbiome—whether they are missing key microbial species or are completely microbe free. This malfunctioning is usually explained by the need for microbes to perform unique and beneficial functions, but evolutionary ecologist Tobin Hammer of the University of California, Irvine, is questioning that narrative.

"In an opinion article publishing August 29 in the journal Trends in Microbiology, Hammer argues that, in some cases, microbes might not actually be helping their hosts; instead, microbe-free hosts might malfunction because they have evolved an addiction to their microbes. In this case, hosts are dependent on the microbes to function, but the microbes don't actually provide any benefits in return.

"Evolutionary addiction is also sometimes called "evolved dependence," and it could occur in any host system— from the human gut, to plant roots, to microbes that host other microbes. Hammer compares it to his own dependence on coffee.

***

"'By largely ignoring evolutionary addiction, the microbiome field has missed a plausible and likely common evolutionary explanation for microbially dependent host traits," writes Hammer. "The host organism is a complex, internally interconnected system, and the absence of a microbe that has been integrated into it, like a cog in a machine, will cause components to malfunction."

"There are several possible ways that a host could become evolutionarily addicted to a microbe. During one pathway, hosts adapt to accommodate and function in the presence of microbes and in the process become dependent on them. This pathway is one explanation for how mammalian immune systems came to be dependent on gut microbes: if, as well as receiving benefits, a host experiences inflammation during the early stages of a symbiotic relationship, it might be selected to have a less-sensitive immune response. In this way, our immune systems have been calibrated to function in the presence of microbes and so their absence causes immune malfunction.

***

"One such example of evolutionary addiction is the wasp Asobara tabida, which is chronically infected with the bacterial endosymbiont Wolbachia and requires the bacteria in order to produce eggs. Other Asobara species that are not chronically infected with Wolbachia do not need the bacteria to produce eggs, and A. tabida does not have an improved ability to produce eggs because of Wolbachia; having the bacteria simply brings it back to baseline functionality.

"Hammer notes that evolutionary addiction and missing benefits are not mutually exclusive, and in the case of some host-microbe pairs, both mechanisms could be at play. "One process may engender the other," Hammer writes. "A microbe providing an adaptive function can be expected to spread among hosts, facilitating the subsequent evolution of dependence."

"Knowing whether hosts benefit from their microbes or are evolutionary addicted to them could help us predict the consequences of microbial biodiversity loss. Evolutionary addiction might be reversible in some cases if hosts can adapt to regain the lost function, either through genetic variation within their population or via new mutations.

"In contrast, if microbe-free hosts malfunction due to missing benefits—for example, a plant host that depends on rhizobia to fix nitrogen, an essential nutrient—then the plant is very unlikely to be able to adapt to losing those microbes because no plant has ever been able to independently fix nitrogen. Hammer notes that more work is needed to test this hypothesis.
'
"Reversibility matters when we consider disruptions of long-associated microbial symbionts," Hammer writes. "Which traits, in which hosts, will evolution be able to rescue in the microbes' absence?'"

Comment: Another view touting good bacteria. What we all know is bacteria must be here to do their good and necessary roles. dhw asks why did God allow bad activity? God granted free will to humans which resulted in wonderful human activities, granting some evil humans turned up. In bacteria God set up freedom-of-action as also with protein molecules, which can result in bad mistakes. God is good and certainly well-intentioned so why did He do this? All-knowing, He could find no other way that would allow life as we know it or in any other workable form. All-knowing, He provided immune and editing mechanisms we have discovered. This must be the only way possible for God to provide life. The problem is dhw's critical mindset, not mine.

Natures wonders: more microbiome benefits

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 18:11 (202 days ago) @ David Turell

Infant microbiome and allergies:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqNLlcJLXDmVgZwVLgfVHsWN

"Millions of children worldwide suffer from allergic disorders, including eczema, asthma, and hay fever. Although these conditions have different symptoms, microbiologists and immunologists wondered if they might have a common origin. They examined stool samples from more than 1000 children, roughly half of whom were diagnosed with one or more allergic disorders. In a new Nature Communications study, the researchers report that these infants shared a common trait: a compromised gut microbiome.

“'Typically, our bodies tolerate the millions of bacteria living in our guts because they do so many good things for our health,” first author Courtney Hoskinson says in a press release. We accomplish this feat, she explains, by maintaining a strong barrier between these bacteria and our immune system. In babies with allergies, these protective mechanisms break down, causing inflammation. (my bold)

"The study also identified several factors that can shape the infant microbiome—for better or for worse. Babies who received antibiotics in their first year were more likely to develop allergies, while babies who were breastfed for the first six months were protected. Using these findings, the researchers hope to develop ways of correcting imbalanced guts. The goal: fewer runny noses, fewer itchy eyes, and fewer kids developing lifelong allergies."

Comment: the bugs are necessary for digestion and gut health. Some of the bugs are dangerous while useful. Note my bold showing the barrier from the immune system. The theodicy issue comes from mistakes in the system, and dhw wants perfection from God. Since that does not exist, it tells use this is the best God can produce. As a believer, I'm content with it.

Natures wonders: corpse flower plant gene loss

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 19:33 (1063 days ago) @ David Turell

Living off others means genes not needed:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/dna-of-giant-corpse-flower-parasite-surprises-biologists...

"More than a decade ago, Rafflesiaceae parasites caught the eye of Jeanmaire Molina, an evolutionary plant biologist at Long Island University in Brooklyn, who wondered if their genomes were as bizarre as their outward forms. Her initial investigations suggested they were. As she and her colleagues described it in a 2014 paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, they successfully assembled the mitochondrial DNA from one Philippines species of Rafflesia. But they were unable to detect any functional genes from its chloroplasts. The plants seemed to have simply ditched their entire chloroplast genome.

***

"This shocking finding has now been confirmed by an independent research team from Harvard University. The draft genome for another member of the Rafflesiaceae family that they recently published in Current Biology is full of surprises, showing how far parasites can go in shedding superfluous genes and acquiring useful new ones from their hosts. It also deepens mysteries about the role of highly mobile genetic elements that don’t encode proteins in enabling evolutionary changes. Perhaps the greatest lesson of the study is how much we still have to learn about genomics, particularly in plants, and in parasites — a category of organisms that includes more than 40% of all known species.

***

"Sapria’s genome follows several trends seen in many other parasitic plants (and in parasites more generally). Like them, Sapria has done away with many genes considered essential to its free-living relatives. Because parasites steal from their hosts, they essentially outsource the labor of metabolism, so they don’t need all the moving biochemical parts of an independent plant cell.

"Still, Davis was shocked to see that nearly half of the genes widely conserved across plant lineages had disappeared from Sapria. That’s more than twice as many genes as are lost from the parasitic plants called dodders (genus Cuscuta), and four times the losses in cereal-killing witchweeds (genus Striga). “We knew that there would be loss,” he said, “but we didn’t think it would be on the order of 44% of its genes.'”

Comment: Life requires the information in genes to function properly. If the host plant is doing most of the work, shucking unneeded genes is a logical result.

Natures wonders: sheep herding by air

by David Turell @, Monday, July 26, 2021, 15:24 (967 days ago) @ David Turell

See video:

https://aeon.co/videos/watch-the-elegant-flow-of-a-sheep-herd-seen-from-the-sky-above-i...

Comment: man-controlled but like bird flocks. Based on fixed individual reactions.

Natures wonders: how bat echolocation works

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 03, 2020, 23:26 (1231 days ago) @ David Turell

It takes multiple hits over time for calculation:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/bats-predict-where-prey-is-headed/?utm_source...

"Bats calculate where their prey is headed by building on-the-fly predictive models of target motion from echoes, US researchers have found.

"They use the time delay between each echolocation call and the resulting echoes to determine how far away prey is, and tilt their heads to catch the changing intensity of echoes to figure out where it is in the horizontal plane, according to a paper in the journal PNAS.

"And the process is robust enough to keep working even when the prey vanishes behind echo-blocking obstacles like trees.

“'[A] bat needs to anticipate when and where it will make contact with the insect it’s hunting,” says senior author Cynthia F Moss, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University.

“'The insect is flying. The bat is also flying. In this very rapidly changing environment, if the bat were to just rely on the information it got from the most recent echo, it would miss the insect.”

***

"Their findings, they say, upend the previous accepted notion that bats do not predict an insect’s future position – a conclusion largely drawn from a 1980s study done before high-speed video was widely available.

"And they apply to any animals that track moving sounds, and even to people, such as the vision impaired who use clicks and cane taps to help navigate while avoiding obstacles.

“'The question of prediction is important because an animal must plan ahead to decide what it’s going to do next,” said co-first author Angela Salles.

“'A visual animal or a human has a stream of information coming in, but for bats it’s remarkable because they’re doing this with only brief acoustic snapshots.'”

Comment: In a sense the bat brain is doing differential calculus. How did chance evolution develop that trick?

Natures wonders: owl wing silence design

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 19, 2020, 22:53 (1215 days ago) @ David Turell

Owls in flight are essentially silence and this is importance since they swoop down to catch their next meat meal:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/sciences/physics/on-the-wings-of-an-owl/?utm_source=Cosmos+-...

"Last month, as reported in Cosmos, researchers in the UK revealed how Lily the barn owl could cope with winds that gust as fast as her flight speed by changing the shape and posture of her wings.

"Now a new study has shown how micro-structured finlets on owl feathers enable silent flight – which, the researchers say, may provide clues to reducing aircraft noise.

"In a paper in the journal Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, they describe how these arrays of finlets coherently turn the flow direction near the aerodynamic wall and keep the flow for longer and with greater stability, avoiding turbulence.

“'This work describes a novel mechanism of laminar flow control of straight and backward swept wings with a comb-like leading edge device,” they write. “It is inspired by the leading-edge comb on owl feathers and the special design of its barbs, resembling a cascade of complex 3D-curved thin finlets.”

"The project started with Hermann Wagner and colleagues at RWTH Aachen University in Germany, who had captured the complex geometry of the extensions along the front of the owl’s feathers using high-resolution micro-CT scans.

"Christoph Bruecker and his team at City University London then used this to create experimental models and carry out flow simulations around them using computational fluid dynamics. This clearly indicated the aerodynamic function of these extensions as finlets, they say, which turn the flow direction in a coherent way.

"During flow studies in a water tunnel, Bruecker was surprised to find that instead of producing vortices, the finlets acted as thin guide vanes due to their 3D curvature. The regular array of finlets over the wingspan turns the flow direction near the wall in a smooth and coherent manner."

Comment: The owl as a carnivore has to fly silently to pounce on its food. Its wings match its diet. This has to be designed all together, not one aspect at a kind.

Natures wonders: male sea horses give birth

by David Turell @, Friday, November 20, 2020, 17:32 (1215 days ago) @ David Turell

A species in Asia:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/see-a-male-seahorse-give-birth/?utm_source=n...

"In all of the vast animal kingdom spanning the planet, seahorses (and their pipefish and sea dragon relatives) are the only species whose male members give birth to young. This underwater photograph shows a male Korean seahorse (Hippocampus haema) releasing juveniles into the water off the coast of Japan. The tiny species, which was only recognized in 2017, generally grows to between about five and nine centimeters long and is native to the Korea Strait and the seas to the east of the Korean peninsula and to the south and west of Japan. After an elaborate courtship “dance,” females deposit their eggs into a male’s brood pouch, where he fertilizes them. As the embryos grow, the male’s abdomen becomes distended, just as in a human pregnancy. When he is ready to give birth, the abdomen opens, and contractions expel the juvenile seahorses. Some newborns resemble miniature versions of adults, while others may still be curled up and covered by some of their egg membrane. A male and female seahorse pair can have multiple broods. It is unknown why seahorses have this sex reversal when it comes to procreation, but one idea is that having the male bear young leaves the female free to start producing the next batch of eggs."

Comment: Another twist in the sexual revolution.

Natures wonders: a gliding animal

by David Turell @, Friday, November 20, 2020, 20:31 (1214 days ago) @ David Turell

Tree dwelling mammal in Asia:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colugo-flying-lemur-mammal-southeast-asia

"Colugos are found only in Southeast Asia. The Sunda colugo ranges from Vietnam to Indonesia and the Philippine colugo lives in the southern Philippines.

***

"My first colugo. The size of a house cat, colugos are nocturnal mammals that live in trees. Colugos are also called “flying lemurs,” which is a misnomer because they cannot fly and they are not lemurs. A colugo has a cape of skin that stretches from its neck to the tips of its four limbs and tail. That skin, furry on top, helps colugos glide far and hide well in the canopy.

“'Wait … Oh, it has a baby!” called zoologist Priscillia Miard of Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang and leader of that evening’s search. She passed me her binoculars as the team discussed the identity of this colugo.

"'A tiny head popped out from beneath the mother’s fur, like a child peering out from under a blanket. Baby colugos cling to their mother’s furless undersides until about age 6 months, nursing on nipples near mom’s armpits.

***

"All colugos are master gliders, considered among the best of the 60-odd species of mammals that can glide. One Sunda colugo (Galeopterus variegatus) was recorded gliding 145 meters, almost the length of three Olympic swimming pools.

***

"Colugos pull off those long-distance glides with their gliding skin, known as a patagium. While other gliders like flying squirrels have a patagium that stretches to the hind feet, a colugo’s patagium continues all the way to the tip of the tail. A more expansive patagium gives a colugo extra “wing area,” which lifts and slows the animal, allowing a gentler descent than other gliders, Byrnes says. The extra skin also helps the animal glide far.

"And there is more to the patagium than skin and fur. Byrnes and his collaborators have found that the thin patagium is rich in muscles, and some parts are stiffer than others. A colugo may be able to flex those muscles to change the shape and stiffness of its patagium and thereby adjust its aerodynamics midair. Understanding the gliding biomechanics of colugos might help in the design of robotics and wing technology, Byrnes says."

Comment: I had no idea there were 60 gliding mammals. The question in my mind is why did evolution stop with gliding in these mammals and only bats developed flight wings. I'll stick with it is what God wanted.

Natures wonders: leaf-cutter ants are armored

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 24, 2020, 22:58 (1210 days ago) @ David Turell

It is calcite:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/ants-with-armour/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+...

"The calcite biomineral has been extremely important in animal evolution, according to Cameron Currie from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US, senior author of a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

"Commonly found in crustaceans such as lobsters, molluscs and other marine animals, calcium carbonate skeletons evolved more than 550 million years ago when the oceans’ ratios of magnesium to calcium dropped dramatically.

"The calcite found in leaf cutter ants (Acromyrmex echinatior) is rich in magnesium, which Currie says is rare in the biosphere.

“'This higher magnesium content in our ants’ biomineral is very important for the function, as it increases the hardness of the armour,” he says. “So, our ants have really unique and strong armour.”

***

"They found the biomineral develops as the ants mature, increasing the hardness of their exoskeleton and covering virtually their whole body, and showed that it acts as armour in staged fights with Atta cephalotes soldier ants.

“'Having found that the biomineral really increased the hardness, we conducted ‘ant wars’ with and without the biomineral to show that the armour helped the ants in their battles with other ants,” explains Currie.

"Finally, they found that worker ants with biomineralized exoskeletons were less prone to infection by pathogenic fungi than those without, showing a further protective role for the armour.

"Leaf-cutter ants evolved into complex societies around 20 million years ago from the ancient fungus farming Attini tribe. Dominating the new world tropics, their success in domesticating crops parallels the key role of agriculture in human dominance over the past 10,000 years.

"Like us, they’ve also evolved ways to control crop infection, using bacteria to fight pathogens. This study adds a further intriguing resemblance to our own fledgling species’ farming history.

“'Our finding of biomineral armour in a leaf-cutting ant provides another exciting new parallel to humans,” says Currie. “The evolution of protective armour for engaging in wars with other agriculturalists.'”

Comment: Certainly it provides protection in wars. The parallelization between us and ants is amazing. God sees to it protection is designed into His creations

Natures wonders: bumble bees great navigators

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 24, 2020, 23:10 (1210 days ago) @ David Turell

Carefully watched in flight for flowers:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/bumblebees-self-image-gets-them-through-tight-...

"Sridhar Ravi was outdoors with his colleagues on a summer day in Germany when a group of bumblebees grabbed his attention.

"As the bees made their way from flower to flower, they skillfully flew between obstacles, dodging branches and shrubs. These actions seemed to require a complex awareness of one's physical body in relation to one’s environment that had only been proven to exist in animals with large brains.

"To examine this, a team of researchers at Australia’s University of New South Wales, Canberra, led by Ravi, set up a hive of bumblebees inside their laboratory. The bees could come and go via a tunnel, which could be partially blocked with an adjustable barrier. Ravi and his team made the gap progressively smaller over time, and observed how the bees’ reactions changed.

"The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found the bumblebees measured the gap by flying side-to-side to scan it. When the gap became narrower than their wingspan, the bees took a longer time to scan the opening. And then they did something remarkable: they turned their bodies to fly through sideways. Some of the bees’ bodies did bump the sides of the narrowed opening—but every one of the 400 recorded flights through the gap was a success." (my bold)

Comment: Wow!! Bee aerobatics. I doubt they have flight schools. Question inborn ability or training? No answer yet.

Natures wonders: leaf-cutter ants are armored

by dhw, Wednesday, November 25, 2020, 11:55 (1210 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you for a number of fascinating posts. I’ll comment only briefly, in order to restore the balance between your theories and others.

Leaf-cutter ants

QUOTE: “'Our finding of biomineral armour in a leaf-cutting ant provides another exciting new parallel to humans,” says Currie. “The evolution of protective armour for engaging in wars with other agriculturalists.'”

DAVID: Certainly it provides protection in wars. The parallelization between us and ants is amazing. God sees to it protection is designed into His creations.

I suggest that the amazing parallel may lie in the ability of their intelligent cell communities and ours to design the physical protections, just as their intelligence and ours design manufactured protections. (Your God may be the source of all forms of intelligence.)
xxx

bumble bees

QUOTE: When the gap became narrower than their wingspan, the bees took a longer time to scan the opening. And then they did something remarkable: they turned their bodies to fly through sideways. Some of the bees’ bodies did bump the sides of the narrowed opening—but every one of the 400 recorded flights through the gap was a success."

DAVID: Wow!! Bee aerobatics. I doubt they have flight schools. Question inborn ability or training? No answer yet.

I suggest simple intelligence. The experiment was an intelligence test, and they passed.
xxx

intracellular organization

QUOTE: How do the right proteins organize themselves in a sea of fluid swarming with millions of molecules? Do they bump into each other by chance, or does the cell actively organize its fluid space to bring the correct partners together?

DAVID: Cells are manufacturing factories and they have to be organized just like production lines, but they don't appear that way to the naked eye; just sloppy soups. I had a course in physical chemistry in 1953!! Why has biology research just beginning to catch up? Try to tell me this was not designed!!!!

I agree that it looks designed. And if the cell “actively organizes its fluid space…”, the implication would seem to be that the cell knows what it’s doing – a mark of intelligence.

xxx

Milky Way

QUOTE: "Large sky surveys of our galaxy are certain to revolutionize our understanding of the Milky Way. As even these early results show, it is clear we still have much to learn."

DAVID: Lesson is that we still have lots to learn, which really means today's thoughts about how and/or why God did what He seems to have done may be entirely off the mark.

Learning does not “really mean” thoughts about how or why your God did it, but I have no doubt that in a few hundred, let alone a few thousand years, humans (if still around) will have found out a lot more about every aspect of the universe’s history, God or no God. But that won't stop you and me from guessing now, will it?!:-)

Natures wonders: leaf-cutter ants are armored

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 25, 2020, 15:35 (1210 days ago) @ dhw

Thank you for a number of fascinating posts. I’ll comment only briefly, in order to restore the balance between your theories and others.

Leaf-cutter ants

QUOTE: “'Our finding of biomineral armour in a leaf-cutting ant provides another exciting new parallel to humans,” says Currie. “The evolution of protective armour for engaging in wars with other agriculturalists.'”

DAVID: Certainly it provides protection in wars. The parallelization between us and ants is amazing. God sees to it protection is designed into His creations.

I suggest that the amazing parallel may lie in the ability of their intelligent cell communities and ours to design the physical protections, just as their intelligence and ours design manufactured protections. (Your God may be the source of all forms of intelligence.)
xxx

bumble bees

QUOTE: When the gap became narrower than their wingspan, the bees took a longer time to scan the opening. And then they did something remarkable: they turned their bodies to fly through sideways. Some of the bees’ bodies did bump the sides of the narrowed opening—but every one of the 400 recorded flights through the gap was a success."

DAVID: Wow!! Bee aerobatics. I doubt they have flight schools. Question inborn ability or training? No answer yet.

I suggest simple intelligence. The experiment was an intelligence test, and they passed.
xxx

intracellular organization

QUOTE: How do the right proteins organize themselves in a sea of fluid swarming with millions of molecules? Do they bump into each other by chance, or does the cell actively organize its fluid space to bring the correct partners together?

DAVID: Cells are manufacturing factories and they have to be organized just like production lines, but they don't appear that way to the naked eye; just sloppy soups. I had a course in physical chemistry in 1953!! Why has biology research just beginning to catch up? Try to tell me this was not designed!!!!

I agree that it looks designed. And if the cell “actively organizes its fluid space…”, the implication would seem to be that the cell knows what it’s doing – a mark of intelligence.

xxx

Milky Way

QUOTE: "Large sky surveys of our galaxy are certain to revolutionize our understanding of the Milky Way. As even these early results show, it is clear we still have much to learn."

DAVID: Lesson is that we still have lots to learn, which really means today's thoughts about how and/or why God did what He seems to have done may be entirely off the mark.

Learning does not “really mean” thoughts about how or why your God did it, but I have no doubt that in a few hundred, let alone a few thousand years, humans (if still around) will have found out a lot more about every aspect of the universe’s history, God or no God. But that won't stop you and me from guessing now, will it?!:-)

Let the guessing continue!!!

Natures wonders: venus fly trap mechanism

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 13, 2020, 23:16 (1191 days ago) @ David Turell

Rapid electric signals from hairs:

https://phys.org/news/2020-12-pressure-sensor-venus-flytrap.html

"All plant cells can be made to react by touch or injury. The carnivorous Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) has highly sensitive organs for this purpose: sensory hairs that register even the weakest mechanical stimuli, amplify them and convert them into electrical signals that then spread quickly through the plant tissue.

***

"The hinged trap of Dionaea consists of two halves, each carrying three sensory hairs. When a hair is bent by touch, an electrical signal, an action potential, is generated at its base. At the base of the hair are cells in which ion channels burst open due to a stretching of their envelope membrane and become electrically conductive. The upper part of the sensory hair acts as a lever that amplifies the stimulus triggered by even the lightest prey.

"These micro-force-touch sensors thus transform the mechanical stimulus into an electrical signal that spreads from the hair over the entire flap trap. After two action potentials, the trap snaps shut. Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.

***

"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz. How is the mechanical stimulus converted into electricity? "To answer this, we focused on the ion channels that are expressed in the sensory hair or are found exclusively there," says Hedrich.

"The sensory-hair-specific potassium channel KDM1 stood out. Newly developed electrophysiological methods showed that without this channel, the electrical excitability of the sensory hairs is lost, i.e. they can no longer fire action potentials. "Now we need to identify and characterize the ion channels that play an important role in the early phases of the action potential," Hedrich said."

Comment: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

Natures wonders: arctic squirrel hibernation

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 19:29 (1188 days ago) @ David Turell

They recycle muscle amino acids over eight months:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arctic-squirrels-recycle-proteins-hibernation-survi...

"Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works,” says Sarah Rice, a biochemist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

***

"From autumn to spring, Arctic ground squirrels (Urocitellus parryii) hibernate in bouts of deep torpor. In a state akin to suspended animation, the squirrels breathe just once a minute, and their hearts beat five times per minute. Every two or three weeks, the squirrels revive somewhat for about 12 to 24 hours; their body temperatures rise, and the animals shiver and sleep, but don’t eat, drink or defecate.

***

"By recycling nutrients from their muscles, the squirrels sustain themselves and also avoid a toxic consequence of muscle breakdown, says team member Kelly Drew, a neurochemist also at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. During hibernation, nitrogen would otherwise end up in ammonia, which could build up to potentially deadly levels. Instead, the squirrels are able to incorporate that nitrogen into new molecules, she says.

***

"Other studies have pointed to a role for the microbiome — the microbes living on and inside animals — in recycling nitrogen while animals hibernate, says James Staples, an environmental physiologist at Western University in London, Canada, who was not part of the work. Typically, the breakdown of proteins eventually creates urea, a nitrogen-containing chemical that gets excreted. Microbes can scavenge that urea and release its nitrogen back into the blood. But in the squirrels, the muscle is “being broken down and then recycled directly back into these amino acids … the gut microbiome may not be as important as we thought it used to be.'”

Comment: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed

Natures wonders: kangaroos, like dogs ask for help

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 21:10 (1188 days ago) @ David Turell

Just observed:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2263145-kangaroos-can-learn-to-ask-for-help-from-h...

"Kangaroos in zoos and sanctuaries use body language to ask humans for help, much like horses and dogs do, which suggests that even wild animals can learn to engage in interspecies communication just by being around humans.

"This overturns previous theories that animals’ ability to communicate with humans resulted from domestication, says Alan McElligott at City University of Hong Kong.

***

"McElligott and his colleagues studied 16 kangaroos of three different subspecies living in captivity in Australia. Using methods similar to those used in previous studies on horses, dogs and goats, the scientists first trained the kangaroos to find a tasty treat – bits of carrots, corn or sweet potatoes – in a small box. Then they closed the box in a way that made it impossible for kangaroos to open and observed how the animals responded.

"Like their domestic counterparts in earlier experiments, the kangaroos consistently turned to a nearby human for help.

“'They’d look straight up at my face, like a dog or a goat would do, and back at the box, and some even came up and scratched my knee like a dog pawing [for attention],” says McElligott. This happened across the range of subspecies, from the typically “friendly” western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus fuliginosus) to the generally more “skittish” eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) and red kangaroos (Macropus rufus).

“'I was really shocked,” says McElligott, referring to the less docile eastern species. “I didn’t even think we would get through the training protocol with them.”

"Although little is known about social behaviour and cognition in kangaroos, it is possible that living in social groups makes them more likely to reach out for help, even to someone outside their own species, he says."

Comment: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK

Natures wonders: antlion sand trps

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 31, 2020, 15:31 (1174 days ago) @ David Turell

Engineering wonders:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/how-voracious-antlions-engineer-deadly-sand-tra...

"You’d never know it by looking at the dragonflylike adult antlion, but its wingless larvae—fingernail-size eating machines with huge, poison-filled jaws—build deadly sand traps to capture tiny insects, including ants. Now, scientists know precisely how they do it: As the hapless prey falls into its pit, an antlion at the bottom uses its head to fling a blizzard of sand grains up the funnel-shaped slope, creating a minilandslide that pulls the unfortunate insect to its doom. The pits, scientists say, are feats of engineering—and physics.

"To figure out how the larvae create such effective pitfalls, German scientists used high-speed videography to watch lab-reared antlions ensnare ants and small crickets in small, sand-filled terrariums (see video, above). The researchers then dug their own artificial sand traps and saw that the prey was able to escape out of the pit when a larva wasn’t inside flinging up sand.

"Comparing decades-old biological observations with engineering models, the researchers found that by hurling sand grains, the antlions constantly maintain the pit’s “angle of repose”—the steepest possible angle before the sandy slope starts to slide. The sand storms not only discombobulate prey, but they also maintain the geometry of the sand traps and ensure the antlions don’t get buried themselves"

Comment: As usual I think God designed this, the engineering is so highly complex.

Natures wonders: Weddell seal dives

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 13:47 (1167 days ago) @ David Turell

An amazing adaptation to fighting off anoxia on deep dives:

http://nautil.us/issue/94/evolving/we-didnt-evolve-for-this?mc_cid=cc0dd336e4&mc_ei...

"When a Weddell seal, native to Antarctica, plummets 400 meters beneath the ice on one of its hour-long dives, an ensemble of adaptations come together to keep it alive. The seal’s heart rate slows. At this pace, it will burn through its deep reserve of oxygen—provided by extra-large volumes of blood and hemoglobin—more slowly. The seal’s muscles free massive stores of trapped oxygen from another protein, called myoglobin. If oxygen levels become deficient in its tissues, causing hypoxia, cells can use the high levels of the sugar glycogen stored in its heart and brain to begin anaerobic metabolism, creating energy without oxygen. The seal’s extra-large liver also holds its own store of oxygen-rich red blood cells, like a backup scuba tank. And as oxygen levels plummet well below levels that would leave a human diver unconscious, fine control of the veins that oxygenate the seal’s brain cells allow it to swim on unaffected. Together, these systems ensure that the seal survives these intensely hypoxic events again and again, dive after dive, for the many decades of its life."

***

The human body was never built to survive such extreme oxygen restrictions. That fact becomes especially stark when you compare humans to diving marine mammals.

Comment: Deep diving humans have a small set of changes like the seal, bu t haven.t had the centuries of adaptation time the seals had.

Natures wonders: delayed gratification in cuttlefish

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 13:54 (1167 days ago) @ David Turell

Just reported:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/cuttlefish-think-ahead-marshmallow-test-reveals...

"Eat one marshmallow now—or wait a few minutes and get two? This famous behavioral test is supposed to distinguish between impulsive children and those more likely to think through their actions—and thus, do better in academic life. Now, scientists have given a similar test to cuttlefish, The New York Times reports. Replacing the marshmallow with a shrimp, researchers gave the mollusks the option to eat two shrimp now—or eat one shrimp with the promise of an extra reward. Most of the cuttlefish chose the latter, researchers report in Royal Society Open Science. The find suggests that—like people—these mollusks can delay gratification if they think it will pay off in the long run."

Comment: A widespread ability

Natures wonders: glass sponge lattice design

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 21:41 (1161 days ago) @ David Turell

Better than past human engineered design:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-curious-strength-of-a-sea-sponges-glass-skeleton-202...

"The skeleton is indeed made of glass, which the animal, Euplectella aspergillum — nicknamed “Venus’ flower basket,” — creates using acid extracted from seawater.

"Scientists still marvel at this sponge 180 years later. Its notable properties include stunning longevity — some glass sponges are thought to live many thousands of years, placing them among the longest-lived animals — and the ability to channel light through its silica strands in the manner of fiber optics. For the last two decades, a group of biologists, materials scientists and engineers at Harvard University has focused on the feature of Venus’ flower basket that attracted Owen: the intricate design of its glass skeleton. Their recent work reveals that the skeleton is, for unknown reasons, exceptionally strong — nearly as uncrushable as possible for this kind of structure.

“'It’s sort of the holy grail of engineering design,” said Dhruv Bhate, an associate professor of engineering at Arizona State University who studies the Venus’ flower basket but is not involved in the work of the Harvard team.

"The skeleton’s strength derives from its peculiar lattice pattern, which first intrigued the Harvard materials scientist and chemist Joanna Aizenberg about 20 years ago. Katia Bertoldi, one of Aizenberg’s co-authors on the recent studies, was also captivated by the lattice pattern as soon as she saw it. “It’s this periodic architecture, but it’s not a simple one,” Bertoldi said. She and her colleagues wondered, “Why this particular architecture?”

***

"For well over a century, engineers’ preferred design for trusses has been a sturdy lattice consisting of a square grid with diagonals running in both directions for added support. “We’ve been doing this the same way for a long, long time,” said Matheus Fernandes, a graduate student on the team. The skeleton of the Venus’ flower basket, however, has pairs of diagonals running in both directions rather than the single diagonals crisscrossing a typical truss. These pairs are spaced apart so the grid looks like a checkerboard, with diagonals crossing every other square.

***

"In simulations and experiments, they saw the bio-inspired lattice withstand the most stress — first from compression in one direction, and then from opposing pressures at three points in another test — before breaking. In further simulations, they varied the number of diagonals as well as their spacing and thickness to find the lattice that could sustain the most compression. It turned out to be the one modeled on the sponge.

"With its additional diagonals, the sponge’s lattice has more joints than a traditional truss and less distance between the joints, which may allow the structure to sustain greater compression before buckling, Fernandes said.

Comment: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers

Natures wonders: snakes repel their own venom

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 00:59 (1159 days ago) @ David Turell

Several species developed this separately (convergence):

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/animal-magnetism-is-real/?utm_source=Cosmos+-...

"A study by Richard Harris and Bryan Fry of the University of Queensland found that snakes may have evolved to resist their own venom by utilising a magnet-like mechanism to “repel” the molecules in their venom from damaging their nerves.

"While all snake venom contains toxins, only some are neurotoxins – those that damage nerve tissue and help a venomous snake slow down or kill its prey. They work by disrupting the signals that tell nerves what to do.

“'A nerve releases the neurotransmitter acetylcholine that acts as an email telling the muscle to contract,” explains Fry. “The toxins block the binding of acetylcholine to the receptor located on the muscle, thereby preventing these instructions from getting through.”

"This happens because neurotoxins have a positive charge and are pulled towards molecules with a negative charge – such as these receptors. This is an electrostatic interaction that pulls the molecules together like a magnet.

"But not all snakes experience this.

"In a delightful collision of biology, physics and chemistry, the researchers found that some snakes evolved to have a different, positively charged molecule – lysine – in the place of the normal receptor amino acids. This, instead, makes both molecules positively charged and pushes them apart, they show in their paper, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“'In this form of resistance, a mutation occurs where a newly evolved, positively charged amino acid (lysine) replaces one or both of the characteristic negatively charged amino acids in the nerve receptor, thereby repelling the neurotoxins since same-charges repel each other,” says Fry. “An analogy would be like two magnets with the same side facing each other.”

"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.

“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”

Comment: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

Natures wonders: plants repel their own toxins

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 01:32 (1159 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants are like snakes in that they produce toxins against munching insects and sedlf-protect:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-defensive-toxins.html

"To their surprise, the researchers found that tobacco plants which had been transformed so they could no longer produced two proteins involved in the biosynthesis of the diterpene glycosides and thus also not form the defensive substances otherwise stored in the leaves in large amounts, showed conspicuous symptoms of self-poisoning: they were sick, unable to grow normally, and could no longer reproduce. Further experiments revealed that certain components of the cell membrane, so-called sphingolipids, had been attacked.

"Sphingolipids are substances found in all animals and plants, including the enemies of wild tobacco, the larvae of the tobacco hawkmoth Manduca sexta. The researchers therefore asked whether the sphingolipid metabolism could be the target of the diterpene glycosides. In fact, Manduca sexta caterpillars, which had fed on plants without diterpene glycosides, grew significantly better than larvae, which had fed on controls that contained the defensive chemicals. Analyses of the frass of Manduca sexta larvae, which had ingested diterpene glycosides with their food, provided further insights, as the degradation of the plant toxins during larval digestion is more or less in reverse order to the synthesis of the substances in the plant. Plants prevent self-harm by storing the defensive substances in a non-toxic form. However, when insects feed on the plant, a part of the non-toxic molecule is cleaved off and the chemical becomes activated or "armed." "Interestingly, in both cases, in plants with incomplete diterpene glycoside biosynthesis and in feeding caterpillars, the target of the toxins is the sphingolipid metabolism," says first author Jiancai Li."

Comment: Same song, second verse: there is no way this could develop unless both the toxins and the defenses appeared simultaneously. Only careful design fits.

Natures wonders: insects can adapt to leg amputation

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 02:07 (1159 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study follows their gait:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-insects-muscles-limbs.html


"The insect nervous system is comprised of approximately 105 to 106 neurons. Understanding the process behind this requires researchers to consider the role of the intrinsic neural circuits that influence the adaptions of insects under unfavorable circumstances and the sensory feedback mechanisms reflected in their body characteristics and physical interactions with the environment.

"A research group comprising associate professor Dai Owaki from Tohoku University's Department of Robotics at the Graduate School of Engineering and associate professor Hitoshi Aonuma from the research institute of electronic science at Hokkaido University simultaneously recorded the leg movements and muscle activation of crickets, both before and after middle leg amputation.

"Their findings showed that the walking manner of crickets shifted from a tetrapod/tripod gait to a four-legged trot after the middle leg had been removed.

"Electromyogram (EMG) analysis of the muscles at the base of the middle leg revealed that the muscles were active in opposite phases when walking. Activation timing of the middle leg muscles synchronized in phase when both legs had been removed, whereas the activation timing showed anti-phase synchronization for crickets with all of their legs.

"The findings demonstrated two things. First, an intrinsic contralateral connection exists within the mesothoracic ganglion, which generates in-phase synchronization of muscle activation. Second, mechanoreceptive informational feedback from the campaniform seensilla of the legs overrides the centrally generated patterns, resulting in the anti-phase leg movements of a normal gait."

Comment: It doesn't take many neurons to find an adaptation. Either learned or built-in response.

Natures wonders: some eels hunt in packs

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 02:16 (1159 days ago) @ David Turell

In a deep lake:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210114163927.htm

"Deep in the Brazilian Amazon River basin, scientists discovered a small, river-fed lake filled with more than 100 adult electric eels. Researchers witnessed the electric eels working together to herd small fish into tightly packed balls. Groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties. Those smaller groups then surrounded the prey and launched simultaneous electric attacks. The findings overturn the idea that these serpentine fish are exclusively solitary predators.


***

"the researchers witnessed the eels working together to herd small fish called tetras into tightly packed balls. Then groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties, not unlike packs of wolves or pods of killer whales. Those smaller groups then surrounded the prey ball and launched simultaneous electric attacks, stunning the tetras into submission.

"'This is an extraordinary discovery," de Santana said. "Nothing like this has ever been documented in electric eels."

***

"'Hunting in groups is pretty common among mammals, but it's actually quite rare in fishes," de Santana said. "There are only nine other species of fishes known to do this, which makes this finding really special."

***

"In these twilight hours, the eels started interacting with each other and then began swimming in a large circle. This churning circle of electric eels corralled thousands of the 1-to-2-inch tetras into tighter and tighter shoals. The researchers watched the group herding the concentrated tetras from the deeper end of the lake -- around 12 feet deep -- to shallow, 3-foot deep waters.

"With the tetras trapped by the main group, de Santana says bands of two to 10 eels would separate, move in closer and then launch joint electric attacks on the prey ball. The electric shocks sent the tetras flying out of the water, but when they splashed down the small fish were stunned and motionless. Finally, the attacking eels and their compatriots easily picked off their defenseless prey. According to de Santana, each dawn or dusk hunting ritual took around one hour and contained between five to seven high-voltage attacks."

Comment: thnis obvious cooperation will delight dhw.

Natures wonders: male butterflies leave warning on ladies

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 01:11 (1154 days ago) @ David Turell

Have sex and then leave a mark to warn off other males:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/butterfly-turn-off-flower-turn-on/?utm_source...

"A new study, led by Chris Jiggins of the University of Cambridge, UK, has found that male postman butterflies (Heliconius melpomene) make a chemical compound called ocimene in their genitals, which they leave on female butterflies to deter other males.

"Fascinatingly, and somewhat ironically, ocimene is also produced by some flowers to attract butterflies, so postman butterflies and flowers evolved the genes that produce the compound independently – for different, context-dependent purposes.

***

“'Male butterflies use it to repulse competitors and flowers use the same smell to entice butterflies for pollination.”

"Postman butterflies can live as long as six months, and the females store sperm from a small number of sexual partners. They can then fertilise their eggs over many months from a single fling.

"'This smelly substance is no deterrent when on flowers, though.

“'The visual cues the butterflies get will be important – when the scent is detected in the presence of flowers it will be attractive, but when it is found on another butterfly it is repulsive to the males; context is key,” says Darragh.

"One potential explanation for this strange convergent evolution is that a single smell requires less scent receptors to recognise, but in combination with how something looks it can communicate a different scenario. This is somewhat like the aroma of garlic cooking in a pan as opposed to its smell on somebody’s breath.

“'The butterflies presumably adapted to detect [ocimene] and find flowers and they have then evolved to use it in this very different way,” says Jiggins. “The males want to pass their genes onto the next generation, and they don’t want the females to have babies with other fathers, so they use this scent to make them unsexy.'”

"While not all butterflies produce this anti-aphrodisiac, the male postman’s chemical-making capacity sheds interesting light on smell as a form of communication in insects."

Comment: Many male animals mark territories with their urine. This is similar. The so-called explanation three paragraphs above is just a wild guess guess. Why a repellent is an attractant seems strange. How much 'context' do butterflies appreciate. Maybe approaching a 'hot' female prospect who smells like a flower is just confusing to the male who wants sex, not a meal!

Natures wonders: ant farms with fungal protection

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 04:39 (1153 days ago) @ David Turell

The bacteria they use produce a protective chemical:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-antifungal-compound-ant-farms.html

"Attine ants are farmers, and they grow fungus as food. Pseudonocardia and Streptomyces bacteria are their farmhands, producing metabolites that protect the crop from pathogens. Surprisingly, these metabolites lack common structural features across bacteria from different geographic locations, even though the ants share a common ancestor. Now, researchers report in ACS Central Science they have identified the first shared antifungal compound among many of these bacteria across Brazil. The compound could someday have medical applications.

***

"In a study of bacteria from ant nests at multiple sites in Brazil, the team discovered that nearly two thirds of Pseudonocardia strains produced a potent antifungal agent, which they called attinimicin. This discovery marked the first report of a specialized metabolite with broad geographic distribution produced by ant-associated bacteria. While this metabolite was safe for the fungal crop, it inhibited growth of fungal parasites, though—unlike many antibiotics—only in the absence of iron. It was also effective in fighting a Candida albicans infection in mice, comparable to azole-containing antifungal treatments that are used clinically, making it a potential drug candidate. The researchers ascertained attinimicin's structure and studied its evolutionary relationship to two similar bacterial peptides produced by Streptomyces—oxachelin A and cahuitamycin A."

Comment: All farmers use pesticides. The ants are no different.

Natures wonders: how butterflies fly

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 23, 2021, 00:26 (1151 days ago) @ David Turell

By clapping their wings:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210121132059.htm

"The results suggest that butterflies use a highly effective clap technique, therefore making use of their unique wings. This helps them rapidly take off when escaping predators.

"The study explains the benefits of both the wing shape and the flexibility of their wings.

"The Lund researchers studied the wingbeats of freely flying butterflies during take-off in a wind tunnel. During the upward stroke, the wings cup, creating an air-filled pocket between them. When the wings then collide, the air is forced out, resulting in a backward jet that propels the butterflies forward. The downward wingbeat has another function: the butterflies stay in the air and do not fall to the ground.

"The wings colliding was described by researchers almost 50 years ago, but it is only in this study that the theory has been tested on real butterflies in free flight. Until now, the common perception has been that butterfly wings are aerodynamically inefficient, however, the researchers suggest that the opposite is actually true.

"'That the wings are cupped when butterflies clap them together, makes the wing stroke much more effective. It is an elegant mechanism that is far more advanced than we imagined, and it is fascinating. The butterflies benefit from the technique when they have to take off quickly to escape from predators," says biology researcher Per Henningsson, who studied the butterflies' aerodynamics together with colleague Christoffer Johansson.

***

"'The shape and flexibility of butterfly wings could inspire improved performance and flight technology in small drones," he continues.

***

"'Our measurements show that the impulse created by the flexible wings is 22 percent higher and the efficiency 28 percent better compared to if the wings had been rigid," concludes Christoffer Johansson."

Comment: Sure is a bright design from a great designer. Nothing a human ever thought of doing for wing design. Now we have one from drones. T hank you, God.

Natures wonders: fungus ended Ediacaran ice age

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 03, 2021, 15:02 (1140 days ago) @ David Turell

A wild discovery:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-635-million-year-old-fossil-...

"When the Ediacaran period began, the planet was recovering from a catastrophic ice age, also known as the "snowball Earth." At that time, ocean surfaces were frozen to a depth of more than a kilometer and it was an incredibly harsh environment for virtually any living organism, except for some microscopic life that managed to thrive. Scientists have long wondered how life ever returned to normalcy -- and how the biosphere was able to grow larger and more complex than ever before.

"With this new fossil in hand, Tian and Xiao are certain that these microscopic, low profile cave dwellers played numerous roles in the reconditioning of the terrestrial environment in the Ediacaran time. One role involved their formidable digestive system.

"Fungi have a rather unique digestive system that plays an even greater role in the cycling of vital nutrients. Using enzymes secreted into the environment, terrestrial fungi can chemically break down rocks and other tough organic matter, which can then be recycled and exported into the ocean.

"'Fungi have a mutualistic relationship with the roots of plants, which helps them mobilize minerals, such as phosphorus. Because of their connection to terrestrial plants and important nutritional cycles, terrestrial fungi have a driving influence on biochemical weathering, the global biogeochemical cycle, and ecological interactions," said Gan.

"Although previous evidence stated that terrestrial plants and fungi formed a symbiotic relationship around 400 million years ago, this new discovery has recalibrated the timeline of when these two kingdoms colonized the land.

"'The question used to be: 'Were there fungi in the terrestrial realm before the rise of terrestrial plants'," said Xiao, an affiliated faculty member of the Fralin Life Sciences Institute and the Global Change Center. "And I think our study suggests yes. Our fungus-like fossil is 240 million years older than the previous record. This is, thus far, the oldest record of terrestrial fungi.'"

Comment: Gould believed in contingency. It is either that or luck or God's hand in guiding the evolution of this privileged planet.

Natures wonders: spiders lasso, lift huge prey

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 03, 2021, 18:07 (1140 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders are amazing using their silk stronger than steel:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2266333-some-spiders-use-their-silk-to-hoist-helpl...

"Some spiders take on prey that is far larger than they are, including lizards. To stop such prey from running away, they use their webs as pulleys to lift the doomed animals off the ground.

"Gabriele Greco and Nicola Pugno at the University of Trento in Italy used high-speed video to watch five captive spiders from the Theridiidae family catch cockroaches up to 50 times more massive than themselves. These are the most common type of spider found in human homes.

"The researchers found that the spiders seemed to be using their body weight to put tension on the silk threads to keep them taut before attaching them to the cockroaches. The spiders then continued to attach more and more threads to their prey until it was lifted into the air.

“'In the end, all these threads create enough tension to lift the prey, and that is when the spider wins,” says Greco. “Then the prey cannot escape because it cannot grab the surface below.” Once the prey is off the ground and unable to run away, the spider can take its time to kill and devour it.

"The researchers found that the silk didn’t stretch much during lifting, possibly because the spiders had already stretched it out before attaching it to their prey. This allowed the threads to recover when the cockroaches struggled instead of permanently sagging. “This silk used to lift the prey, it’s very strong, comparable to steel, but it is as elastic as the normal silk you would use to make clothes,” says Greco.

"This is interesting because you might not expect such a relatively simple animal to know how to use tools to catch its prey in such a sophisticated way, he says. It may allow spiders to have an outsized impact on their ecosystems by eating all sorts of small animals instead of just bugs."

Comment: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

Natures wonders: like birds, bats ride thermals

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 21:21 (1138 days ago) @ David Turell

But they do it at night when the thermals are not as strong:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2266807-bats-soar-to-heights-of-1600-metres-by-rid...

"Bats can get lift from their landscape. The flying mammals surf on air currents, which sweep upwards as they hit hills or slopes, to reach altitudes of up to 1600 metres.

***

“'Because the sun heats up the landscape, there’s rising warm air. Winds come in and lift and push birds through,” says O’Mara. Birds also benefit from long-distance visibility, which may allow them to “read” and exploit the landscape.

“'But at night the energy in the atmosphere drops, and the wind drops, and there’s just not a lot going on,” he says. Even so, prior studies have shown that bats can soar to great heights on night flights, so O’Mara and his colleagues set out to discover how they do it.

"The researchers studied a maternity colony of European free-tailed bats (Tadarida teniotis) in northeastern Portugal. Using lightweight GPS collars or backpacks, they gathered high-resolution GPS data from eight lactating female bats on night flights.

"The researchers also built a digital model containing information on the local topography and weather patterns. They found that the bats sought out hillsides and cliffs with south or west-facing slopes, where they could benefit from prevailing night-time winds that sweep up these slopes upon meeting the topography. This strong upward push allowed the bats to gain altitude while using very little energy, says O’Mara.

"The bats would then dip back down towards the ground and find a new slope that would allow them to rise again, repeating the process many times – making a flight path reminiscent of a roller-coaster ride, the team writes.

"The flying style suggests the bats have a detailed mental map of the region’s topography, despite flying in low-visibility night-time conditions. Even echolocation isn’t particularly helpful: it allows a bat to perceive no more than 50 metres ahead.

“'They seem to know their surroundings and remember them,” says O’Mara, adding that they might also use each other’s echolocation calls to “find out what’s going on”.

"Exactly how the bats orientate their bodies and “huge flappy wings” when soaring upwards isn’t yet clear – but O’Mara is keen to find out, hopefully in future studies, he says."

Comment: Not a surprising finding. I'm not doubting bats learned to do this even if their God-designed echolocation was only partially useful at night. Glider pilots look for thermals to ride above slopes and they would learn that also.

Natures wonders: sperm are fiercely competitive

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 21:37 (1138 days ago) @ David Turell

Some are downright nasty in their weaponry:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sperms-poison-competitors.html

"Competition among sperm cells is fierce—they all want to reach the egg cell first to fertilize it. A research team from Berlin now shows in mice that the ability of sperm to move progressively depends on the protein RAC1. Optimal amounts of active protein improve the competitiveness of individual sperm, whereas aberrant activity can cause male infertility.

"It is literally a race for life when millions of sperm swim towards the egg cells to fertilize them. But does pure luck decide which sperm succeeds? As it turns out, there are differences in competitiveness between individual sperm. In mice, a "selfish" and naturally occurring DNA segment breaks the standard rules of genetic inheritance—and awards a success rate of up to 99 percent to sperm cells containing it.

"A team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin describes how the genetic factor called "t-haplotype" promotes the fertilization success of sperm carrying it.

"The researchers for the first time showed experimentally that sperm with the t-haplotype are more progressive, i.e., move faster forward than their "normal" peers, and thereby establish their advantage in fertilization. The researchers analyzed individual sperm and revealed that most of the cells that made only little progress on their paths were genetically "normal", whereas straight moving sperm mostly contained the t-haplotype.

"Most importantly, they linked the differences in motility to the molecule RAC1. This molecular switch transmits signals from outside the cell to the inside by activating other proteins. The molecule is known to be involved in directing e.g., white blood cells or cancer cells towards cells exuding chemical signals. The new data suggest that RAC1 might also play a role in directing sperm cells towards the egg, "sniffing" their way to their target.

"'The competitiveness of individual sperm seems to depend on an optimal level of active RAC1; both reduced or excessive RAC1 activity interferes with effective forward movement," says Alexandra Amaral, scientist at the MPIMG and first author of the study.

""Sperm with the t-haplotype manage to disable sperm without it," says Bernhard Herrmann, Director at the MPIMG and of the Institute of Medical Genetics at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and corresponding author of the study. "The trick is that the t?haplotype "poisons" all sperm, but at the same time produces an antidote, which acts only in t-sperm and protects them," explains the scientist. "Imagine a marathon, in which all participants get poisoned drinking water, but some runners also take an antidote."

***

"The "antidote" comes into action after the set of chromosomes are split evenly between sperm during their maturation—each sperm cell now containing only half of the chromosomes. Only the half of sperm with the t-haplotype produce an additional factor that reverses the negative effect of the distorter factors. And this protective factor is not distributed, but retained in t-sperm.

***

"The results explain why male mice with two copies of the t-haplotype, one on each of the two chromosomes 17, are sterile. They produce only sperm that carry the t-haplotype. These cells have much higher levels of active RAC1 than sperm from genetically normal mice, as the researchers now found out, and are almost immotile.

"But sperm from normal mice treated with the RAC1 inhibitor also lost their ability to move progressively. Thus, too low RAC1 activity also is disadvantageous. Aberrant RAC1 activity might also be underlying particular forms of male infertility in men, speculate the researchers.

"'Our data highlight the fact that sperm cells are ruthless competitors," says Herrmann. Furthermore, the example of the t-haplotype demonstrates how some genes use somewhat dirty tricks to get passed on. "Genetic differences can give individual sperm an advantage in the race for life, thus promoting the transmission of particular gene variants to the next generation," says the scientist."

Comment: Is this design provision to enhance the ability of 'better' sperm? Or is it a haphazard mechanism. Perhaps God's purpose will be found.

Natures wonders: highest speed claw snapping

by David Turell @, Monday, February 08, 2021, 23:06 (1134 days ago) @ David Turell

In a tiny shrimp-like fellow in water:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/marine-life/quick-claw/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Master+Ma...

"Turns out that the claws of the male amphipod (Dulichiella appendiculata) can repeatedly snap shut in less than 0.01% of a second, shooting out high-energy water jets and popping sounds.

"That’s some serious speed for such a little critter. Amphipods are tiny, shrimplike crustaceans that only grow to a few millimetres long. They tend to live in cool, scummy water, spending their days scrounging for dead algae and seaweed – and, apparently, snapping their claws.

“'What’s really amazing about these amphipods is that they’re sitting right on the boundary of what we think is possible in terms of how small something can be and how fast it can move without self-destructing,” says lead researcher Sheila Patek from Duke University in the US. “If they accelerated any faster, their bodies would break.”

***

"You might assume that the fastest motions in nature might come from large animals or robots, but in fact they come from much smaller organisms and structures – including cnidarian stinging cells, fungal shooting spores, and the mandible strikes of ants, termites and spiders.

“'These diverse systems share common features: they rapidly convert potential energy — stored in deformed material or fluid — into kinetic energy when a latch is released,” the researchers explain in their paper.

“'However, the fastest and smallest known movements often cannot be used multiple times, because mechanical components are broken or ejected.”

"It’s especially difficult to produce fast motions in water, which has a higher density and viscosity than air.

But the snaps of these amphipods in water were not only ultra-fast, but also repeatable.

***

"Intriguingly, the observations also revealed that sometimes the resulting water jets caused “cavitation”, where rapid changes in water pressure cause bubbles to form – and when they pop, they release an immense amount of energy, enough to degrade the steel of boat propellers. (my bold for emphasis)

"But why do amphipods snap their claws in the first place?

“'The claws make up a third of a male’s body weight,” says Patek. “We want to know why they invest so much into this action, whether it plays into male-female interaction or territorial disputes. That’s something we’re excited to pursue.'”

Comment: Is this a slowly developed adaptation, and if so 'why' as the authors pose? If it appeared all at once it had to designed to make everything work and be protected from such force.

Natures wonders: koala fingerprints like ours

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 00:11 (1133 days ago) @ David Turell

A weird factoid:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/02/09/the_most_amazing_fact_about_koalas_659...

"Koalas are absolutely fascinating creatures. Females have two vaginas, and males have a bifurcated penis split into two prongs. They also have one of the smallest brains in proportion to body weight of any mammal, perhaps an adaptation to their eucalyptus diet, which probably isn't nourishing enough to support a large brain. Koalas also digest their food for as long as 200 hours!

"But all of those incredible factoids pale in comparison to this one: koalas have fingerprints that are almost indistinguishable from human prints! (Below: a koala's print is on the left and a human's is on the right.)

"Maciej Henneberg, a forensic scientist and Wood Jones Professor of Anthropological and Comparative Anatomy at the University of Adelaide, originally made the discovery back in 1996. As reported by NewScientist:

"With his colleagues Kosette Lambert and Chris Leigh, Henneberg obtained three male koalas that had been killed by cars and a 46-year-old female chimpanzee that had died in captivity. Using a scanning electron microscope, they compared the koala and chimp prints with those from humans. Strangely, given that chimpanzees are our closest relatives and themselves have human-like fingerprints, the koala prints were even more like those of humans.

"Even more amazing, primates and koalas' ancestors branched apart between 70 and 80 million years ago, suggesting that both independently evolved their fingerprints.

"While the modern human experience with fingerprints centers around crime and identification, the mesmerizing whorls on our fingers (and chimpanzees' and gorillas') did not evolve for that purpose. One theory is that fingerprints function as 'tactile enhancers', amplifying vibrations to boost the sense of touch. Another is that fingerprints boost an individual's ability to grasp objects.

"The latter reason makes the most sense for why koalas – who spend much of their life in the trees – have fingerprints. Surprising and wonderful chance made their prints so much like ours."

Comment: Kangaroos also have a forked penis among other animals that do and there are others. The finger print comparison can be easily seen in the pictures in the article, a strange coincidence that I don't view as evolutionary convergence.

Natures wonders: honeybee antibiotic honey

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 14:56 (1125 days ago) @ David Turell

Honey dos not spoil ever; it kills any organism that tries it:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/02/put-some-of-this-on-that-wound-honey/

"Unlike most biological substances, one can leave honey in the cupboard at room temperature for centuries without it spoiling. Its antimicrobial property explains why Samson didn’t get sick when he tasted honey that a beehive had left in the carcass of a lion.

***

"Why does this substance seem to have an eternal shelf life? Natasha Geiling writes in Smithsonian Magazine:

"The answer is as complex as honey’s flavor — you don’t get a food source with no expiration date without a whole slew of factors working in perfect harmony.

"Those factors include pH, viscosity, hydrogen peroxide, enzymes added by honeybees, and sugar. Honey is, essentially, sugar — but not your typical table sugar. A special sugar called methylglyoxal appears to be responsible for its antibiotic properties. A paper in PubMed says, “Relief of pain, a lower incidence of hypertrophic scar and postburn contracture, low cost and easy availability make honey an ideal dressing in the treatment of burns.”

***

"Honey did not invent itself; it is a biological wonder made by honeybees. The manufacturing process involved, from hive to flower to honeycomb, involves design at many levels. The honeybee must have navigation and sensory equipment to find suitable nectar. It must collect the nectar and pollen and transport it back. An individual bee also has a “waggle dance” language to communicate the location to other bees. And the chemical processing inside the bee is “magical,” says Geiling in the Smithsonian article. She quotes Amina Harris, a pollination expert at UC Davis:

"But there is certainly a special alchemy that goes into honey. Nectar, the first material collected by bees to make honey, is naturally very high in water — anywhere from 60-80 percent, by Harris’ estimate. But through the process of making honey, the bees play a large part in removing much of this moisture by flapping their wings to literally dry out the nectar. On top of behavior, the chemical makeup of a bees stomach also plays a large part in honey’s resilience. Bees have an enzyme in their stomachs called glucose oxidase. When the bees regurgitate the nectar from their mouths into the combs to make honey, this enzyme mixes with the nectar, breaking it down into two by-products: gluconic acid and hydrogen peroxide. “Then,” Harris explains, “hydrogen peroxide is the next thing that goes into work against all these other bad things that could possibly grow.'”

Comment: There are many steps in making honey. N ot by chance. The process was designed.

Natures wonders: insects silence plant defenses

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 21:53 (1124 days ago) @ David Turell

Releasing defensive enzymes:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210217151011.htm

"'We have discovered a new strategy whereby an insect uses saliva to inhibit the release of airborne plant defenses through direct manipulation of plant stomata," said Gary Felton, professor and head of the Department of Entomology at Penn State, noting that stomata are tiny pores on plant leaves that regulate gas exchange, including plant defensive emissions and carbon dioxide, between the plant and the environment.

"Specifically, the researchers studied the effects of a particular enzyme -- glucose oxidase (GOX) -- that occurs in the saliva of tomato fruitworm caterpillars (Helicoverpa zea) on plant stomata and plant defensive emissions, called herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPV).

"'HIPVs are thought to help protect plants from insect herbivores by attracting natural enemies of those herbivores and by alerting neighboring plants to the presence of herbivores nearby," Felton said. "Consequently, stomatal closure has the potential to alter interactions across the entire plant community."

***

"Indeed, the team -- comprising experts in molecular biology, chemical ecology, plant physiology and entomology -- found that GOX, secreted by the caterpillar onto leaves, causes stomatal closure in tomato plants within five minutes, and in both tomato and soybean plants for at least 48 hours. They also found that GOX inhibits the emission of several HIPVs during feeding, including (Z)-3-hexenol, (Z)-jasmone and (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, which are important airborne signals in plant defenses. Interestingly, they did not find an effect of GOX on the cotton plants, which, the team said, suggests that the impacts of GOX on stomatal conductance is species dependent."

Comment: War between organisms is a part of life. What the plants are capable of producing affords secondary defenses, not immediate lethal. That allows the insects to try to adapt, but as I view it, enzymes are enormous complex molecules that God might have designed

Natures wonders: phytoplankton special sugar

by David Turell @, Friday, February 19, 2021, 20:33 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell

Part of the carbon cycle protection:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sweet-marine-particles-resist-hungry.html

"A major pathway for carbon sequestration in the ocean is the growth, aggregation and sinking of phytoplankton—unicellular microalgae like diatoms. Just like plants on land, phytoplankton sequester carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide. When algae cells aggregate, they sink and take the sequestered carbon with them to the ocean floor. This so called biological carbon pump accounts for about 70 per cent of the annual global carbon export to the deep ocean. Estimated 25 to 40 per cent of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning emitted by humans may have been transported by this process from the atmosphere to depths below 1000 meter, where carbon can be stored for millennia.

"Yet, even it is very important, it is still poorly understood how the carbon pump process works at the molecular level. Scientists...investigate in this context marine polysaccharides—meaning compounds made of multiple sugar units—which are produced by microalgae. These marine sugars are very different on a structural level and belong to the most complex biomolecules found in nature. One single bacterium is not capable to process this complex sugar-mix. Therefore a whole bunch of metabolic pathways and enzymes is needed. In nature, this is achieved by a community of different bacteria that work closely and very efficiently together—a perfect coordinated team. This bacterial community works so well that the major part of microalgal sugars are degraded before they aggregate and start to sink. A large amount of the sequestered carbon therefore is released back into the atmosphere.

"But, how is it possible that nevertheless a lot of carbon is still transported to the deep-sea? The scientists of the group Marine Glycobiology now revealed a component that may be involved in this process and published their results in the journal Nature Communications. "We found a microalgal fucose-containing sulphated polysaccharide, in short FCSP, that is resistant to microbial degradation," says Silvia Vidal-Melgosa, first author of the paper.

***

"The discovery of FCSP in diatoms, with demonstrated stability and adhesive properties, provides a previously uncharacterised polysaccharide that contributes to particle formation and potentially therefore to carbon sequestration in the ocean. One of the next steps in the research is "to find out, if the particles of this sugar exist in the deep ocean," says Hehemann. "That would indicate that the sugar is stable and constitutes an important player of the biological carbon pump." Furthermore, the observed stability against bacterial degradation, and the structure and physicochemical behavior of diatom FCSP points towards specific biological functions. "Given its stability against degradation, FCSP, which coats the diatom cells, may function as a barrier protecting the cell wall against microbes and their digestive enzymes," says Hehemann. And last but not least, another open question to be solved: These sugar particles were found n the North Sea near the island of Helgoland. Do they also exist in the sea of other regions in the world?"

Comment: Current incomplete research, but it features the discovery of a special sugar which fights hungry bacteria to protect the vital carbon cycle on Earth. Could be a God designed molecule to help this econiche work properly.

Natures wonders: macaques smarts

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 15:28 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell

Stealing for reward:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/794.1?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2021-02-18&am...

"The use of tokens as a bartering tool in nonhuman primate studies has taught us much about the willingness of nonhuman primates to engage in economic transactions. The question of whether it reflects a phenomenon that might emerge in natural conditions has received less attention. Long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) living in a Balinese temple regularly steal visitors' possessions and then barter for food with humans anxious to regain their belongings. Leca et al. discovered that they preferentially steal items of high value (for example, digital devices and wallets) over those with low value (for example, empty bags or hairpins) because higher-value food rewards tend to be offered for items that humans value more. The ability to identify high-value objects increases with age and experience, as does the macaques' skill as thieves. The animals in this group have been stealing and trading for more than 30 years, suggesting that the practice is culturally transmitted."

Comment: Primate brains are used for planning and cleverness by their soul/owners. We souls are just bigger and better at it, because our bigger better brain allows it..

Natures wonders: male mosquitos don't bite, won't drink

by David Turell @, Monday, February 22, 2021, 20:14 (1120 days ago) @ David Turell

That activity is blocked by a gene:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-male-mosquitoes-humans.html

"Male mosquitoes won't bite you. For one thing, they cannot—males are hopelessly bad at finding humans and lack a specialized stylet to pierce your skin. But even if they could bite you, they would not want to. They refuse blood meals served to them in the lab through netting, even as their female counterparts engorge on what must appear to be a free lunch.

"It appears that both mosquito sexes share the same neurons and brain structures needed to find humans, but that this hardware is hidden in the male mosquito brain, locked behind a simple genetic switch. Mutate the right gene, the researchers discovered, and male mosquitoes begin buzzing toward human scents in search of a prize that they do not even want.

***

"Basrur and colleagues began their work by examining a gene called fruitless, which is known to control courtship behavior in fruit flies. When they knocked out the analogous gene in male mosquitoes, these insects, like fruit flies, failed to mate effectively with females. But the scientists chose to investigate further, suspecting that the mutation might also impact male mosquitoes' desire for blood.

"When offered warm blood through a net, however, mutant males abstained just like non-mutant males, even as female mosquitoes partook. When exposed to body heat, females liked what they felt. Mutant males, true to their sex, remained unimpressed by the promise of a blood meal—suggesting the corrupted gene doesn't play a role in feeding behavior, per se.

"But when the scientists offered these mutant males a human arm, they suddenly swarmed. "This was a truly unexpected—and spectacular—finding," says Vosshall, who is the Robin Chemers Neustein Professor as well as an HHMI investigator. "We had never seen males interested in the scent of a human before."

"'Later tests confirmed that, while mutant male mosquitoes still lacked the desire to drink blood and the ability to sense body heat, turning off the fruitless gene had allowed their brains to process the unique smell of a live human—activating a repressed urge to seek out humans just like a female. "This suggests that male mosquitoes actually possess the neural circuits required to hunt humans," Basrur says. "Removing fruitless appears to reveal this latent behavior in males."

***

"'For a long time, the assumption was that sex-specific behaviors came from sets of neurons entirely specific to that sex," Basrur says. "But recent work, including our study, has shown that both sexes often have the same neurons and that genetics controls how they are used.'"

Comment: A very interesting finding. Hopefully it wi lead to a solution for malaria transmission.

Natures wonders: how roots fight compacted soils

by David Turell @, Monday, February 22, 2021, 22:28 (1120 days ago) @ David Turell

It is all about ethylene gas:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/agriculture/root-problem-in-compact-soil/?utm_source=C...

"An international team of researchers, led by Bipin Pandey from the University of Nottingham, UK – and including researchers from the University of Adelaide’s Waite Campus – found that it isn’t the physical toughness of the ground that stops roots from growing properly, but a hormone signal pathway that acts as a warning signal.

***

"Plants release many hormones, which largely affect how, when and where they grow. One of these is ethylene, produced as a gas, which regulates growth and aging of plant organs.

"It would make sense to think that roots in compact soil would stop growing because it’s physically too hard, but the team found the roots were actually responding to the amount of ethylene in the soil.

“'Interestingly, being gaseous in nature, ethylene is easily diffused away from root tips through soil pores,” says Pandey. “Noncompacted soils have large air-filled pores which allow the gaseous exchange from roots to soil.

“'When the soils are compacted, these large soil pores become very narrow and collapsed, thus blocking the diffusion of ethylene from the root tips. Gradually, a large amount of ethylene is trapped near root tips.”

"The ethylene instead “pools” in a more concentrated batch near the root tissue, which sends a feed-back message to the roots to tell them to stop growing so quickly. This means, the authors report, that the concentration of ethylene acts like an early warning signal to the roots to inform them of tough soil.

“'Eventually, poor root growth and thus poor nutrient and water uptake results in severe yield reduction,” says Pandey."

comment: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

Natures wonders: red light stimulates moth sex

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 18:48 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

No explanation of why it is important:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2268874-moth-species-becomes-more-sexually-active-...

"An Asian-Australian moth becomes more sexually active under red light than under another colour of light or in the dark.

"Dim red light appears to stimulate chemical changes in the antennae of male yellow peach moths (Conogethes punctiferalis), making them more sensitive to the smells emitted by nearby females. This increases their copulation rates, says Wei Xiao at Southwest University in Chongqing, China.

"Xiao and his colleagues made the accidental discovery while studying the general behaviour of the moths, which invade orchards and spice farms across Asia and Australia.

***

"his team realised that every time the red lights were on, the moths responded by laying more eggs. So the researchers decided to test the effects of red light on mating.

"They set up four cages, three of which were dimly lit by either red, white or blue light. The last was in complete darkness. Then they placed 30 male and 30 female moths in each cage.

"They found that the moths in the cage exposed to red light mated significantly more frequently and laid more eggs than the moths in the other cages, says Xiao.

"To understand why, the scientists analysed the antennae of male moths that they had raised in conditions with 15 hours of normal light and 9 hours of dim red light. They found that these moths had more odorant binding proteins (OBPs) in the smell receptors of antenna neurons, apparently making them hypersensitive to female sex pheromone odours.

"It is possible that this occurs because red light has a long wavelength that can pass through animal tissue and stimulate cellular activity, the researchers speculate."

Comment: an oddball finding. Does this phenomenon have any real purpose? Real light has a red band, and moths aren't normally bathed only in red light.

Natures wonders: how plants control directional growth

by David Turell @, Monday, March 01, 2021, 19:07 (1113 days ago) @ David Turell

Reaching toward the sun makes good sense to help photosynthesis:

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-growth.html

"Plants grow towards the light. This phenomenon, which already fascinated Charles Darwin, has been observed by everyone who owns houseplants. Thus, the plant ensures that it can make the best use of light to photosynthesize and synthesize sugars. Similarly, the roots grow into the soil to ensure that the plant is supplied with water and nutrients.

"These growth processes are controlled by a hormone called auxin, which plays a key role in the formation of polarity in plants. To do this, auxin is transported in the plant body polar, from the shoot through the plant body into the roots. In this process, a family of polar transport proteins distributes the auxin throughout the plant. To better understand this process, the research team investigated it in more detail with the help of a chemical.

"Scientists around the world are studying transporter proteins in more detail due to their central role in plant development processes. Naptalam (NPA) is an important tool to elucidate the structure of the transporters.

"Naptalam is the registered name of Napthylphphthalic acid. It inhibits the directional flow of auxin, thus severely inhibiting plant growth. It was used in in the European Union until 2002, and the sodium salt of naptalam is still used in the USA as a pre-emergence herbicide to control broadleaf weed in cucurbits and nursery stock.

"'We wanted to know how naptalam exerts its effects," says PD Dr. Ulrich Hammes, the study's principal investigator. "Our studies show that the activity of the auxin transporters is really completely shut down by the inhibitor." When NPA binds to the transporter proteins, auxin can no longer get out of the cell, and thus the plant is no longer able to grow polarly. The roots no longer grow to the center of the earth, and flowers and seed formations are massively disrupted.

"An effect of the inhibitor NPA on the activators of the transporters, known as kinases, could be ruled out through collaboration with Claus Schwechheimer, Professor of Plant Systems Biology of at the TUM, where the work was carried out. He explains, "This makes it clear that the inhibitor NPA acts directly on the transport proteins.'"

Comment: we can see how it works, but not what guides auxin to exert its effects in specified ways. A designed vsystem will be found with future research.

Natures wonders: immortal bacteria

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 14:54 (1109 days ago) @ David Turell

100 million years old and still alive:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-million-year-old-seafloor-sediment-bacte...

"In 2010, Japanese scientists from the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program’s Expedition 329 sailed into the South Pacific Gyre with a giant drill and a big question.

"The gyre is a marine desert more barren than all but the aridest places on Earth. Ocean currents swirl around it, but within the gyre, the water stills and life struggles because few nutrients enter.

"The sea here is so miserly that it takes one million years for a meter of marine “snow”—corpses, poo and dust—to accumulate on the bottom. The tale of all that time can total as little as 10 centimeters. It is the least productive patch of water on the planet.

***

"...the tubes contained up to 100 million years of Earth history. What the team wanted to know was how long and in what state microbes trapped in this milieu could survive in an almost-completely raided oceanic refrigerator.

***

"Their results, published in Nature Communications in July, revealed that the sediments contained bacterial cells, which they expected (not many, though: just 100 to 3,000 per cubic centimeter). But when given food, most of them quickly revived, which the scientists did not expect.

"The microbes got straight to work doing what bacteria do, and within 68 days of incubation had increased their numbers up to 10,000-fold. They doubled about every five days (E. coli bacteria in the lab double in around 20 minutes). Their progeny contained specially labeled isotopes of carbon and nitrogen that made the scientists sure that the microbes were eating what they had been offered.

"It’s worth pausing to consider the meaning of these results. In this experiment, cells awoke and multiplied that settled to the bottom when pterosaurs and plesiosaurs drifted overhead. Four geologic periods had ground by, but these microbes, protected from radiation and cosmic rays by a thick coat of ocean and sediment, quietly persisted. And now, when offered a bite, they awoke and carried on as if nothing unusual had happened.

***

"Somewhat surprisingly, the majority of the cells were, like us, forms that breathe oxygen. In fact, the sediment they were pulled from is full of oxygen. Clearly, lack of “air” is not the problem for the life in gyre sediments. It’s the lack of food.

***

"Putting it all together—the tight quarters, the lack of spores and the rapid reanimation—these scientists think it’s likely that the majority of the bacteria in this impoverished sediment have been alive but idling these 100 million years.

"A few years ago, I wrote about bacteria that may have been resurrected from coal from the Paleozoic. Now we have reports of bacteria from the Cretaceous seafloor sediment waking apparently nonplussed. Back then I speculated that under certain highly constrained but possibly abundant conditions, bacteria may be effectively immortal. Now it seems even more likely we may be sitting atop a planet that’s full of living fossils that are literally that—both fossils and alive."

Comment: two major points. Some forms are designed to be able to live forever. The need to survive does not drive evolution. That 99% are gone is of no import. And here must be adequate food supply for life to thrive.

Natures wonders: C. elegans feels colors

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 07, 2021, 14:43 (1108 days ago) @ David Turell

Senses wave lengths:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/eyeless-worm-c-elegans-perceives-colors-stud...

"Yet C. elegans still harbors secrets, and a big one is unveiled today (March 4) in Science: this eyeless worm can, in a way, see, using color to help it discriminate between toxic and harmless bacteria when searching out food.

"Researchers have previously shown that C. elegans can sense some types of light, notes study coauthor Dipon Ghosh, a biology postdoc at MIT who started the project when he was a graduate student at Yale University. The new results show that the worms are “actually comparing ratios of wavelengths, and using that information to make decisions,” he says. “And that, I think, was completely surprising and unexpected.”

***

"In the wild, C. elegans favors environments such as rich soil and decomposing food heaps, where it feeds on bacteria. The worm is known to avoid munching on the poisonous species Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and the study came about, says Ghosh, because he was curious about how C. elegans does this. In reading studies relevant to the question, he learned that one of the toxins P. aeruginosa secretes is blue.

***

"While C. elegans avoided ordinary, unaltered P. aeruginosa, it didn’t shy away from either the nontoxic blue or the toxic, colorless version, leaving Ghosh confused. Ultimately, he found he could get the worms to avoid the toxic, colorless bacteria by shining blue-filtered light on their dishes—suggesting that color did indeed influence C. elegans’s foraging behavior.

"In further experiments, Ghosh discovered that he could affect the worms’ foraging behavior by varying the ratio of blue to amber light shining on their dishes. But when he ran the same test on dozens of wild strains of C. elegans, not all responded in the same way to the same ratios.

"Through genetic analyses, Ghosh and his colleagues identified two genes, jkk-1 and lec-3, that appear to be involved in the responses to color. Neither code for opsins, the class of light-sensitive proteins needed for vision in the eye; rather, the study’s authors suggest, they may be involved in light-influenced stress-response pathways."

Comment: P. aeruginosa is a nasty bug, can make humans very sick. Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

Natures wonders: immortal bacteria (spores)

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 06, 2022, 19:39 (530 days ago) @ David Turell

The biochemistry of how they work; new research:

https://phys.org/news/2022-10-undead-dormant-bacteria-life.html

"Facing starvation and stress conditions, some bacteria enter a dormant state in which life processes stop. Shutting down into a deep dormancy allows these cells, called spores, to withstand punishing extremes of heat, pressure and even the harsh conditions of outer space.

"Eventually, when conditions become favorable, spores that may have been dormant for years can wake up in minutes and spring back to life.

"Spores wake up by re-hydrating and restarting their metabolism and physiology. But until now scientists did not know whether spores can monitor their environment "in their sleep" without waking up. In particular it was not known how spores deal with vague environmental signals that do not indicate clearly favorable conditions. Would spores just ignore such mixed conditions or take note?

***

"They found that spores use stored electrochemical energy, acting like a capacitor, to determine whether conditions are suitable for a return to normal functioning life.

***

"Süel and his colleagues tested whether dormant Bacillus subtilis spores could sense short-lived environmental signals that were not strong enough to trigger a return to life. They found that spores were able to count such small inputs and if the sum reached a certain threshold, they would decide to exit the dormant state and resume biological activity.

"Developing a mathematical model to help explain the process, the researchers discovered that spores use a mechanism known as integrate-and-fire, based on fluxes of potassium ions for appraising the surrounding environment. They found that spores responded to even short-lived favorable signals that were not enough to trigger an exit from dormancy. Instead of waking up, spores released some of their stored potassium in response to each small input and then summed consecutive favorable signals to determine if conditions were suitable for exiting. Such a cumulative signal processing strategy can reveal whether external conditions are indeed favorable, and prevents spores from "jumping the gun" into a world of unfavorable conditions.

"'The way spores process information is similar to how neurons operate in our brain," said Süel. "In both bacteria and neurons, small and short inputs are added up over time to determine if a threshold is reached. Upon reaching the threshold spores initiate their return to life, while neurons fire an action potential to communicate with other neurons." Interestingly, spores can perform this signal integration without requiring any metabolic energy, while neurons are among the most energy-dependent cells in our bodies."

Comment: did this develop in natural evolution by trial and error? A highly complex mechanism of this sort imitating neurons demands it be designed. It is by definition, irreducibly complex.

Natures wonders: orchids and fungi work together

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 08, 2022, 05:18 (528 days ago) @ David Turell

High up on trees:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2341255-a-complex-network-of-fungi-links-orchids-i...

"High in the rainforest canopy, a network of fungal threads links the roots of orchids in a kind of suspended, bark-bound network. This shared community of symbiotic fungi could make life away from the soil a bit more tolerable for orchids that grow on trees, and could also provide a target for conservation efforts.

"The plants are reliant on fungi for survival, says Rémi Petrolli at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France.

“'Orchids are incredibly weird,” says Nicole Hynson at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, who wasn’t involved with the study. They create many hundreds of thousands of minuscule, dust-like seeds that blow on the wind, but have negligible calorie reserves. So, they depend on fungi to feed a growing seedling, she says.

"Much of what is known about these orchid-fungi ties comes from orchids that grow in soil in temperate environments, says Petrolli. But the majority of orchid species live in the tropics and are epiphytic plants, meaning that they live and grow on other, larger plants like trees.

***

"The team used genetic sequencing and analysis to figure out what kinds of fungi were in the samples and how they were spread among the 10 orchid species found in the trees. By comparing the coordinates of each sample’s location on the tree trunk, they found that orchids were sharing the same fungus by way of their root systems, creating clustered networks across the bark. Sometimes, three or more different orchid species would share the same fungal mass.

***

"The team also found that young orchid seedlings were associated with a fungus that was linked with neighbouring adult orchids. “Seed germination may be facilitated by the presence of adult orchids, around which symbiotic fungi are concentrated,” says Petrolli.

“'[The researchers] did an awesome job of showing that [orchids] can share fungi,” says Melissa McCormick at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in the US, but adds that she isn’t necessarily convinced that orchids are facilitating the growth of others, and that the findings could actually show competition between orchids. “If you have only so much fungus available and that fungus can feed 10 orchids, well, it could be 10 of your offspring or it could feed a bunch of different species,” she says."

Comment: Still early research with much to be learned. Fungi are helpful to plants all over the world

Natures wonders: plant responses to drought

by David Turell @, Monday, March 29, 2021, 23:45 (1085 days ago) @ David Turell

They use GABA a major protein animals have controlling nervous activity:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/https/cosmosmagazinecom/nature/plants/animal-relax-gene-help...

"A team of Australian and German researchers, led by Bo Xu of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, found that the GABA molecule, which is usually associated with relaxation in animals, can help the plant control the size of leaf pores to prevent water loss.

“'GABA minimised pore openings in a range of crops such as barley, broad bean and soybean, and in lab plants that produce more GABA than normal,” says Matthew Gilliham, director of the Waite Research Institute at the University of Adelaide.

“'This led to the lab plants using less water from the soil and surviving longer in the drought experiments.

“'We found plants that produce lots of GABA reduce how much their pores open, thereby taking a smaller breath and reducing water loss.”

GABA is usually used by animals as a nerve signal, where it acts as a small chemical message to tell the brain and body to relax.

"Previously, researchers found that GABA also acted as a receptor in plants. In their paper, published in Nature Communications, they show that the GABA tells the plants to keep pores closed when it has experienced drought stress previously, in order to save water.

“'Both plants and animals produce GABA and they put it to different uses,” says Xu.

“'Plants don’t have nerves, instead they appear to use GABA to match their energy levels with their response to the environment.

“'GABA doesn’t close pores on leaves like other stress signals, it acts in a different way – how much a plant accumulates GABA when it is stressed determines how much it applies the brake pedal to reduce the pore opening the following morning, and water loss that day – like a stress memory of the day before.'”

Comment: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

Natures wonders: nasty butterflies

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 00:53 (1083 days ago) @ David Turell

Really, some are:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/butterflies-behaving-badly-what-they...

"Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.

"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.

"Once you know that a pupa is the butterfly in its chrysalis—in between being a larva and an adult—then pupal rape is pretty much what it sounds like. As a female gets ready to emerge from her chrysalis, a gang of males swarms around her, jostling and flapping wings to push each other aside. The winner of this tussle mates with the female, but he’s often so eager to do so that he uses his sharp claspers to rip into the chrysalis and mate with her before she even emerges.

***

"And don’t think for a minute that zebra longwings are an anomaly—plenty of their kin are bad boys, too.

"One day in Kenya’s North Nandi forest, Dino Martins, an entomologist, watched a spectacular battle between two white-barred Charaxes. A fallen log was oozing fermenting sap, and while a fluffy pile of butterflies was sipping and slowly getting drunk, the two white-barred butterflies showed up and started a bar fight. Spiraling and slicing at one another with serrated wings, the fight ended with the loser’s shredded wings fluttering gently to the forest floor.

"Martins, a former National Geographic Emerging Explorer, wrote about Charaxes, or emperor butterflies,

“'They are fast and powerful,” he writes. “And their tastes run to stronger stuff than nectar: fermenting sap, fresh dung and rotting carrion are all particular favourites.”

"It’s called mud-puddling, and it’s very common butterfly behavior. It doesn’t have to be dung, although that’s always nice; you may see flocks of butterflies having a nip of a dead animal (as depicted in this diorama of butterflies eating a piranha), drinking sweat or tears, or just enjoying a plain old mud puddle.

***

"Butterflies start life as caterpillars, which are far from harmless if you’re a tasty plant, and can be carnivorous. Some are even parasites: Maculinea rebeli butterflies trick ants into raising their young. The caterpillars make sounds that mimic queen ants, which pick them up and carry them into their colonies like the well-to-do being toted in sedan chairs. Inside, they are literally treated as royalty, with worker ants regurgitating meals to them and nurse ants occasionally sacrificing ant babies to feed them when food is scarce. Butterflies invented the ultimate babysitting con."

Comment: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in .

Natures wonders: the light dance of squid

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 15:44 (1080 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazing controls of of light reflection in their skin from brain connections:

http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/686/the-light-magic-of-squid?mc_cid=1196952500&mc_e...

{These schools of squids coordinate their movements through their lateral line receptors and their vision, enabling collective movement almost instantaneously.

"Squid intelligence is movement, in this sense of moving through the water, and in other ways as well. The flashing colors and shimmering of their skin heighten the dynamics of their continually changing and moving arms and mantle. Anyone who has seen living cephalopods has felt compelled to remark that their brilliant colors make them among the most beautiful of all animals,

***

"The actual colour changes are caused by the chromatophores, complex organs numbering in the hundreds of thousands which can be described as sacs that are opened and closed by the surrounding muscles. Muscular contraction opens individual sacs to reveal the granular pigment within, and relaxation closes the sacs to make the colour disappear. The muscles and chromatophores are controlled by the same lobes of the brain that control the funnel, making for a direct connection between jet propulsion and colouration. The nervous control of the muscles also means that expansion and contraction can take place very rapidly, with some chromatophores expanded and others closed to create patterns in the skin that are impossible in other animals. Tracing the neurological line of control, scientists have learned that chromatophores are regulated by the eyes, which send information to the regulating lobe in the brain that ensures all parts of the squid’s body respond together, just as in the case of the muscular contractions in jet propulsion. The neural control can also determine the brightness, contrast and colour of the patterns, which means that they can appear, disappear or change almost instantly, enabling a squid to shift its physical appearance continually to confront predators and prey with completely different shapes. Not only are perception and motion intertwined, but they are also connected directly with body patterning.

"Their luminescence can be understood as light altered—digested, if you will—into intentional actions.

***

"The brief acute patterns squids make are innumerable. Among them, ‘very dark’ occurs either as a single brief flash or as several flashes over the span of five seconds. The brief version appears to work as a warning of some threat coming from another squid or some other species (‘a person in the laboratory’), and the longer version appears aimed at startling the other creature. Another pattern, called the ‘blanch-ink-jet maneuver’, is believed to be universal among squids. The individual blanches clear, jets away, and ejects an inky ‘pseudomorph’, or decoy, that remains in the approximate position from which the squid swam off. This defensive action confuses an attacker that believes the ink cloud to be the squid, which has safely left the area.

"The chromatophores lie over reflective cells called iridophores, which change the wavelength of light bouncing off them. As chromatophores expand and contract, they cover and uncover the underlying reflective cells without extinguishing the reflected light, giving an effect of changing colors and iridescence all at once. The colors might create patterns, while the iridescence shifts the light from non-polarized to polarized, and towards the shorter wave length of blue light. The iridophores vary in thick- ness, which also affects the wavelengths that they each reflect. Structurally, they contain stacks of protein plates interspersed by cytoplasm, and the thicker the protein stack, the more reflected light moves towards the longer wavelengths of yellow and red, while the thinner stacks reflect short wavelengths of blue light. This reflecting mechanism has been compared to the iridescent surface of soap bubbles, in that the tone and quality of the light shifts so continually that identification of a particular colour is impossible.

***

"The control of the photophores comes from photosensitive receptors lying close to the olfactory lobe in the brain. Two groups of receptors appear to operate: one dorsally, which scientists believe registers downwelling light, and the other ventrally, which would register the light emitted by the ventral photophores. Generally, the photophores emit a weak blue light, matching the intensity of the light filtered through the water. On the basis of this detail, scientists surmise that the photophores on the underside function to blend individuals into the down-streaming light, so that predators from below cannot see them."

Comment: Amazing complex organs force reflecting light to make color patterns. The schooling is the same movement pattern as in masses of the Wildebeest migration pattern across the Serengeti Plaines and streams with predators working only on the edges of the mass. Great evidence of design. I can't imagine stepwise development of the reflectors by chance.

Natures wonders: honeybee communication

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 10, 2021, 15:37 (1074 days ago) @ David Turell

Not just the waggle dance, but answering where is the queen:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/honey-bees-rally-their-queen-game-telephone?utm...

"Honeybees can’t speak, of course, but scientists have found that the insects combine teamwork and odor chemicals to relay the queen’s location to the rest of the colony, revealing an extraordinary means of long distance, mass communication.

***

"Honeybees communicate with chemicals called pheromones, which they sense through their antennae. Like a monarch pressing a button, the queen emits pheromones to summon worker bees to fulfill her needs. But her pheromones only travel so far. Busy worker bees, however, roam around, and they, too, can call to each other by releasing a pheromone called Nasanov, through a gesticulation known as “scenting; they raise their abdomens to expose their pheromone glands and fan their wings to direct the smelly chemicals backward.

"Scientists have long known individual bees scented, but just how these individual signals work together to gather tens of thousands of bees around a queen, such as when the colony leaves the hive to swarm, has remained a mystery.

***

"Once the first worker honeybees located the queen, they began to assemble chains of evenly spaced bees that extended outward from the queen, with each bee wafting Nasanov to its neighbor down the line. The findings, reported this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are the first direct observations of this collective communication in honey bees. Like smelly bread crumbs, the branching communication lines guided far-off honey bees back to the queen’s location—a feat no single bee could achieve alone."

Comment: this seems like a learned behaviour considering all the special attributes honeybees have.

Natures wonders: monkey 'talk'

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 11, 2021, 19:51 (1073 days ago) @ David Turell

Newly discovered monkey call meanings with a predator nearby:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274135-female-monkeys-call-to-males-when-they-see...

"When faced with a predator, female putty-nosed monkeys will call males to help protect them from the threat.

"Putty-nosed monkeys (Cercopithecus nictitans) live in the forests of West Africa in groups of one male with multiple females and their offspring. The male will tend to roam further from the group and leave females to forage for themselves, but the females and lone male will alert each other when predators are nearby.


"Communication in this species differs based on sex. Females produce a single “chirp” to alert others when any form of predator is nearby, while the lone males will use different calls based on the type of predator spotted: “pyow” calls for those on the ground, like leopards, and “hack” calls for predatory eagles.

***

"With her colleague Frederic Gnepa Mehon, also at the Wildlife Conservation Society, Stephan located 19 different groups of monkeys in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park. For each group, the two researchers and their colleagues waited until the lone male was around 20 metres from the group. One volunteer, covered in a leopard print fabric to mimic a predator, then approached either the lone male or the group of females.

"If the “leopard” approached the lone male, he responded by making a “kek” call. Stephan says this call hadn’t been recorded during research on male putty-nosed monkeys in other regions, so could be a local dialect. But Stephan points out that earlier studies into alarm calls involved stationary leopard models, rather than a moving leopard model. “It could also be that moving danger on the ground elicit ‘kek’ calls, and any danger on the ground is ‘pyow’ calls,” she says.

"The lone male then started to show typical mobbing behaviours, like tree shaking, to deter the “predator”. The females could hear this display, but didn’t respond and continued foraging as normal.

"When the “predator” approached females first, the female monkeys emitted “chirp” calls. Upon hearing this, the lone male began “pyow” calling and approached the group. Females continued chirping until the lone male spotted the “predator” and started “kek” calling. At this point, females would take their offspring to safety.

"Stephan suggests that this means female chirps may have evolved as a call to arms for males and not as an alarm call to predators. By giving as little information as possible about the threat, she says female calls are more persuasive to males. “They are obliging their males to come over,” says Stephan. “It’s like us calling for help. If you hear someone screaming for help, you come running even if you don’t know the threat.'”

Comment: Not at all surprising. Even very early erectus 'language' was much more nuanced than that.

Natures wonders: bat radar tells distance

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 05, 2021, 18:32 (1049 days ago) @ David Turell

When a bat pounces on an insect in mid-flight it automatically calculates distance, a process it knew in childhood!:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2276404-bats-dont-have-to-learn-the-speed-of-sound...

"Bats are born knowing the speed of sound. This may not be shocking, as they rely on echolocation to find food and avoid crashing into trees in the dark. But unlike birds that learn their songs, or lions that learn to hunt, bats seem to be born knowing how to echolocate.

"Bats make high-pitched calls that reflect off distant objects, and then they translate the time until the echo returns into some measure of distance. Depending on air temperature, sound can move faster or slower, and it is a reasonable expectation that bats would accommodate for this.

"To see whether bats can adjust their echolocation to accommodate changes in the speed of sound, Eran Amichai and Yossi Yovel at Tel Aviv University in Israel trained eight adult Kuhl’s pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus kuhlii) to fly to a perch within a chamber pumped full of oxygen and helium. Because helium is less dense than other atmospheric gases, sound travels faster through it.

"The helium interfered with the bats’ echolocation timing and caused them to aim short of the perch. At first, this was expected, but the adult bats never learned to adjust.

***

"Both experiments indicate that bats have a rigid, innate reference for the speed of sound. The team says they expect this to be the same in all bats, as the brain structures involved in echolocation are similar across species.

"Because it is such a crucial part of the way the bat understands its world, Yovel says, it is possible that an innate sense of time from birth might be more beneficial than a flexible one that takes a while to learn, even if it isn’t always perfect."

Comment: If bats originally learned to judge distance and created an instinct how did the initial bats catch insects in flight to have enough food to survive. In bats lifestyle they must have enough daily supply of insects to survive. Only God's design of the species fits the facts. This is in addition to the fact bats are the only flying mammals with no known predecessor.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bats-evolution-history-180974610/

Despite these strides, scientists are left with some big questions. For one thing: The 50-million-year-old bat specimens are already recognizable as bats, so where did they come from? When, where, why and how the first bats become airborne is another mystery buried by Deep Time.


Comment: Sure smells of God's design.

Natures wonders: shark magnetic field migration

by David Turell @, Friday, May 07, 2021, 14:43 (1047 days ago) @ David Turell

Another creature joins the magnetic field group:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/sharks-use-earth-s-magnetic-field-navigate-seas...

'A new study suggests some sharks can read Earth’s field like a map and use it to navigate the open seas. The result adds sharks to the long list of animals—including birds, sea turtles, and lobsters—that navigate with a mysterious magnetic sense.

***

"Bryan Keller, an ecologist at Florida State University, and his colleagues decided to do just that. The researchers lined a bedroom-size cage with copper wire and placed a small swimming pool in the center of the cage. By running an electrical current through the wiring, they could generate a custom magnetic field in the center of the pool. The team then collected 20 juvenile bonnethead sharks—a species known to migrate hundreds of kilometers—from a shoal off the Florida coast. They placed the sharks into the pool, one at a time, and let them swim freely under three different magnetic fields, applied in random succession. One field mimicked Earth’s natural field at the spot where the sharks were collected, whereas the others mimicked the fields at locations 600 kilometers north and 600 kilometers south of their homes.

***

"When the applied field was the same as at the collection site, the researchers found that the animals swam in random directions. But when subjected to the southern magnetic field, the sharks persistently changed their headings to swim north into the pool’s wall, toward home, the researchers report today in Current Biology (see video, below). “[This] suggests they’re able to use magnetic fields for long-distance migration,” says Neil Hammerschlag, a shark ecologist at the University of Miami who was not involved in the study.

***

"With magnetic navigation now demonstrated in so many animals, Winklhofer wants researchers to figure out the underlying mechanism. Some say the sense relies on cells containing a magnetic iron mineral, magnetite, whereas others invoke a protein in the retina called cryptochrome. “All the other major senses have been described and understood,” Winklhofer says. “The key question is how do they do it?'”

Comment: The underling mechanism probably uses magnetite as in other species. Evolution as designed by God uses the same process over and over.

Natures wonders: bird magnetic field migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 19:53 (1000 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain molecules in the birds' eyes may be the clue:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2281998-we-may-finally-know-how-migrating-birds-se...

"We may finally know the secret to how migrating birds can sense Earth’s magnetic fields: a molecule in their eyes called cryptochrome 4 that is sensitive to magnetism, potentially giving the animals an internal compass.

"The process may result in the animals seeing darker or lighter areas in their vision when they look in the direction of magnetic field lines, says Henrik Mouritsen at the University of Oldenburg in Germany. “You may be able to see where north is as kind of a shading on whatever else you would be seeing.”

"Previous work has shown that certain species of birds, such as the European robin (Erithacus rubecula), use Earth’s magnetic fields when they migrate, as well as using visual and other cues. Some European robins migrate south every northern hemisphere winter, for instance from Scandinavia to the UK, and return in spring.

"At least part of this ability is thought to lie in their eyes, because their magnetism sensing is disturbed in the absence of light. Mouritsen has previously shown that when birds are using their internal compass, the information is processed in the same parts of the brain that process vision.

"Suspicion had fallen on the cryptochrome 4 molecule because it is present in the eye’s light-detecting cells and has a structure that suggests it can be affected by magnetic fields. Now Mouritsen and his colleagues have shown how the molecule reacts to magnetic fields in the lab.

"The team found that in the presence of light, electrons can jump between different parts of the molecule, and between it and another molecule called flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), ultimately leading to the production of a compound called CRY4-FADH*. The process is suppressed by weak magnetic fields."

Comment: This is a common finding in most migratory species. But a fascinating question for the future is what will happen when the magnetic poles flip as they have done in the past?

Natures wonders: plant response to heat stress

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 27, 2021, 17:44 (996 days ago) @ David Turell

A small group of proteins protect against heat shock:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210610091025.htm

"Researchers have found that plants adapt to heat stress via a specific 'memory' mechanism. The JUMONJI family of proteins can control small heat shock genes, allowing plants to become heat tolerant for better adaptation to future heat stress.

***

"Heat stress is often repeating and changing," says lead author of the study Nobutoshi Yamaguchi. "Once plants have undergone mild heat stress, they become tolerant and can adapt to further heat stress. This is referred to as heat stress 'memory' and has been reported to be correlated to epigenetic modifications." Epigenetic modifications are inheritable changes in the way genes are expressed, and do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequences.


"'We wanted to discover how plants retain a memory of environmental changes," explains Toshiro Ito, senior author. "We examined the role of JUMONJI (JMJ) proteins in acquired temperature tolerance in response to recurring heat within a few days."

"JUMONJI proteins are histone demethylases. Demethylases are enzymes that remove methyl groups from molecules such as proteins, particularly histones, which provide structural support to chromosomes. The team revealed that plants are able to maintain heat memory because of lowered H3K27me3 (histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation) on small heat shock genes.

"'We found that these proteins are necessary for heat acclimation in Arabidopsis thaliana. These results, along with future studies, will further clarify the mechanisms of plant memory and adaptation," says Yamaguchi.

Comment: These plans are not thinking. Climbing heat makes them demethylate DNA and tolerate the heat. JUMONJ2 is an enzyme, which means a giant specialized molecule that must have been designed for the task.

Natures wonders: bird magnetic field migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 16:26 (780 days ago) @ David Turell

Another study:

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-magnetic-songbirds-earth-field-migration.html

"The team analyzed data from nearly 18,000 reed warblers to investigate whether the birds used the Earth's magnetic field when finding their breeding site. Reed warblers are tiny songbirds that fly across the Sahara Desert each year to spend the summer in Europe.

"They found that, as the magnetic field of Earth moved slightly, the sites to which birds returned moved with it, suggesting that birds homed to a moving magnetic target. Birds appeared to use magnetic information as a 'stop sign', with magnetic inclination in particular telling birds that they had arrived at their breeding location.

"The work utilized 'ringing' data. For nearly a century, uniquely numbered metal rings have been attached to the legs of birds from across Europe.

"Dr. Wynn added that "Ringing data are a fantastic way to answer questions about migration, simply because they've been gathered for so many years across a very large area…and when looking at where birds and ringed and then recovered, it seems that reed warblers use a single magnetic coordinate a bit like a 'stop sign'; when they reach the right magnetic field value, they stop migrating."

"Dr. Wynn explains that "Magnetic information seems to be pretty stable, meaning the magnetic field doesn't change very much in a given location year-on-year. Aiming for a specific magnetic value during migration might make sense then, and the cue we think birds are using, inclination, appears the most stable aspect of the magnetic field. We think this gives the birds the best chance of making it back to the breeding site."

"In conclusion Dr. Wynn said that "the trans-continental migration of birds that weigh less than a teaspoon is remarkable for so many reasons, but the ability to precisely pinpoint the breeding site from half the world away is perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of all. That we can investigate this using data gathered by scientists and bird-watchers alike is extremely exciting, and we hope that this use of citizen science data inspires others to go out, watch birds and get excited about science more generally.'"

Comment: More conformation of a recognized phenomenon.

Natures wonders: plants sense what's happening

by David Turell @, Friday, May 07, 2021, 16:08 (1047 days ago) @ David Turell

But the scientists do not accept plant consciousness:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/can-plants-feel-pain

"plants — like every form of life — have evolved tools to avoid and mitigate damage to themselves. Over the past few decades, biologists have learned much about their astonishing ability to sense and react to danger in their environments. Easy as it is to imagine ourselves in their roots, though, we must remember the immense physiological gap between humans and plants. “We anthropomorphize so readily, and that’s why we use the word ‘pain’,” says Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh, a professor of biology at the University of Washington. “But it’s not appropriate to apply to a similar response in plants.”

"In the 1970s and 80s, a rift opened which still divides plant scientists to this day. It began with The Secret Life of Trees, a 1973 book in which the journalist Peter Tompkins espoused — among other pseudoscientific claims — the concept of plant sentience. A few years later, while Van Volkenburgh was a graduate student at UW, a researcher there named David Rhoades discovered that plants, when wounded, emit “volatile compounds” as a kind of distress signal and warning to their neighbors. In other words, they could communicate their condition to other plants.

"Rhoades’ work was genuinely scientific and, it seems, accurate. But when the popular press relayed it in terms of “talking trees” — a shade too close to sentience — establishment academics promptly sterilized the line of inquiry. “Those scientists could no longer get funded,” Van Volkenburgh says. “The subject became taboo.” In recent years, however, there’s been a resurgence of investigation into the idea that plants are intelligent in ways we’ve historically overlooked.

***

"Lincoln Taiz, a professor of biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, accepted the invitation. In 2019, he and his colleagues published a paper titled “Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness.” Arguing that plant neurobiology lacked an “intellectually rigorous foundation,” they gave their assessment: “We consider the likelihood that plants, with their relative organizational simplicity and lack of neurons and brains, have consciousness to be effectively nil.”

"Plants clearly sense the world around them. They are “aware,” in whatever alien way. A few examples, like the Venus flytrap and the aptly named "sensitive plant", or Mimosa pudica, demonstrate this plainly. Others are subtler. But none imply a sensation of pain (or anything else) that we would recognize as akin to our own. Most biologists doubt that shrubs and flowers possess the complexity necessary for such subjective experience. “Plants don’t have that part of intelligence that we call emotional intelligence,” Van Volkenburgh says. (She still keeps an open mind, though: “Who knows? We could be missing it.”)

"Van Volkenburgh says, “Plants can detect light, but I don’t think you can say plants can ‘see.’” The same goes for hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling. The terms we use to describe our own interface with the world don’t seem transferable to plants. They describe the contours of a human-centric reality, made possible by our animal anatomy.

"Looking at our respective evolutionary histories, it may be as Taiz suggests: Plants simply don’t need consciousness, nor pain. While disagreeable sensations taught our ancestors to avoid imminent threat — to withdraw their hands from the fire, so to speak — plants developed their own, unconscious strategies. Besides, bodily injury isn’t a grave concern for an organism that can regenerate at will. “When tissues are damaged in a plant,” Van Volkenburgh says, “it’s not as dire a situation as in an animal.'”

Comment: Using terms that apply to humans confuses the issue as usual. Plants are sentient but not conscious in our sense of the word.

Natures wonders: useful fake pollen

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 13, 2021, 18:23 (1041 days ago) @ David Turell

Orchids do it:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/bees-and-hoverflies-gobble-fake-pollen-benefiti...

"Orchids are among the most devious flowering plants on the planet. Many species trick pollinators into helping them reproduce. Some release sex pheromones that attract male insects, whereas others make fake pollen to tempt bees and other pollinators with the promise of a meal. Scientists have now shown this pseudopollen isn’t just an alluring counterfeit: It’s as nutritious as the real thing.

"The work is “a step forward” for the field says Kevin Davies, a botanist and specialist in orchid anatomy at Cardiff University who was not involved with the research. This is the first time scientists have been able to show pseudopollen isn’t just fool’s gold, he says.

"Like most orchids, Cypripedium wardii doesn’t produce edible pollen. The species—native to China and Tibet and characterized by slipper-shaped peppermint blossoms—must use other means to entice its insect pollinators. Its flowers don’t offer nectar, nor do they seem to have an appealing fragrance. Instead, their lips are dusted with a powder formed by small hairs that break off, coating the surface; it looks a lot like actual pollen.

***

"In the new study, researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences observed 12 species of solitary bee and hoverfly, harmless relatives of the pests that swarm our garbage, collecting pseudopollen from C. wardii orchids in the forested mountains of Sichuan province. The scientists caught some of the insects and brought them back to their lab for dissection. Slicing into the tiny corpses, they discovered particles of pseudopollen moving through their digestive tracts, as they reported last month on the preprint server bioRxiv. Analysis of the particles found that they contained lipids, indicating their nutritional value.

“'This is the first time we have confirmed that pseudopollen is a real reward,” says co-author Luo Yi-Bo.

"But are the insects really being tricked? Rodrigo Singer, a botanist who studies orchid pollination at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul doesn’t think so. He believes the bees and hoverflies sense that the pseudopollen is nutritious—so the orchids aren’t pulling a fast one on them.

"Either way, Davies hopes the findings will encourage scientists to look at the pseudopollen produced by other orchids to see whether it, too, might be eaten. Regardless of whether they deceive their guests, C. wardii orchids seem to have evolved a clever way to ensure that their flowers get fertilized."

Comment: It well may not be as trick, since the peudopollen is nutritious. This may simply be a human overinterpretation of the facts.

Natures wonders: female elephant seal lifestyle

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 13, 2021, 18:41 (1041 days ago) @ David Turell

Simply mind-blowing:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/female-elephant-seals-hunt-nonstop-sleeping-jus...

"There’s no 9-to-5 for female northern elephant seals. After the winter breeding season, the animals spend more than 19 hours—and up to 24 hours—per day hunting in the northern Pacific Ocean, killing up to 2000 small fish daily to survive, according to a new study of these elusive animals. The work, made possible by cameras and devices attached to the seals’ heads, could also help scientists monitor other deep-ocean life.

“'This study is fascinating,” says Jeremy Goldbogen, a marine biologist at Stanford University who was not part of the research. “The advanced technology provides unprecedented levels of detail on where and when the elephant seals forage in a deep, dark ocean.”

"Northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) are mysterious animals. They appear onshore, on some Pacific Coast beaches, only twice a year: in late December or early January to mate or give birth, and about 2 months later to shed their fur.

"They spend the rest of their time, almost 10 months, fishing. Males, which can weigh up to 2 tons—about the weight of a small truck—hunt big fish close to the coast. Females, which are only about one-third of the size, hunt smaller fish in a deep-sea region known as the twilight zone. To get food from the zone, which reaches depths of 1500 meters, the females must hold their breath for up to 1.5 hours. “The physiological challenges that these animals face to meet their daily energetic demand is an extraordinary feat,” Goldbogen says.

***

"After recording more than 200,000 dives during the 2.5 months between the breeding and molting seasons, the researchers found that the female seals spent day and night, from 80 to 100% of their time, continuously diving in search of fish, they report today in Science Advances. The females barely slept, and when they did, it wasn’t for more than 1.4 hours a day (see video, below).

"The exhausting lifestyle—which scientists suspect lasts the entire time the females are at sea—eventually pays off. It helps them regain the fat they lose on land, when they forgo all food. During their first 2 months back at sea, the females gained about 100 kilograms on average.

"Male elephant seals, meanwhile, have no chance surviving off the bounty of the twilight zone, the researchers conclude. Their huge size and lack of diving skills mean they would need to hunt almost four times as long as the females to get enough energy for 1 day. “They just could not make a living there,” says lead author Taiki Adachi, a marine biologist at the National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo."

Comment: The complex physiological requirements for these female seals not breathing for 1.5 hours, little sleep when most mammals require much more, raises the issue as to how these animals might have naturally evolved? I suspect it is one of God's designs for a special ecosystem.

Natures wonders: even hydras sleep

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 16:16 (1035 days ago) @ David Turell

With just a few nerve cells:

https://www.realclearscience.com/2021/05/19/sleep_evolved_before_brains_hydras_are_proo...

"The hydra is a simple creature. Less than half an inch long, its tubular body has a foot at one end and a mouth at the other. The foot clings to a surface underwater — a plant or a rock, perhaps — and the mouth, ringed with tentacles, ensnares passing water fleas. It does not have a brain, or even much of a nervous system.

"And yet, new research shows, it sleeps. Studies by a team in South Korea and Japan showed that the hydra periodically drops into a rest state that meets the essential criteria for sleep.

***

"...a counterpoint to this brain-centric view of sleep has emerged. Researchers have noticed that molecules produced by muscles and some other tissues outside the nervous system can regulate sleep. Sleep affects metabolism pervasively in the body, suggesting that its influence is not exclusively neurological. And a body of work that’s been growing quietly but consistently for decades has shown that simple organisms with less and less brain spend significant time doing something that looks a lot like sleep. Sometimes their behavior has been pigeonholed as only “sleeplike,” but as more details are uncovered, it has become less and less clear why that distinction is necessary.

"It appears that simple creatures — including, now, the brainless hydra — can sleep. And the intriguing implication of that finding is that sleep’s original role, buried billions of years back in life’s history, may have been very different from the standard human conception of it. If sleep does not require a brain, then it may be a profoundly broader phenomenon than we supposed.

***

"The evidence for sleep in creatures with minimal nervous systems seemed to reach a new high about five years ago with studies of jellyfish. The Cassiopea jellies, about four inches long, spend most of their time upside down, tentacles reaching toward the ocean surface, and pulsating to push seawater through their bodies. When Michael Abrams, now a fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, and two other graduate students at the California Institute of Technology asked if Cassiopea might sleep, they were continuing the line of inquiry that Tobler had followed when she studied cockroaches, investigating whether sleep exists in ever simpler organisms. If jellyfish sleep, that suggests sleep may have evolved more than 1 billion years ago and could be a fundamental function of almost all organisms in the animal kingdom, many of which do not have brains.

***

"The new revelations about sleep in hydras push the sleep discoveries to a new extreme. The hydra’s body and nervous system are even more rudimentary than Cassiopea’s. Yet as the researchers from Kyushu University in Japan and Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea demonstrated, once a hydra entered a rest state, a pulse of light would rouse it, and it too slept longer after repeated deprivation, among other findings.

"Hydra sleep has its peculiarities: Dopamine, which usually makes animals sleep less, caused the hydra to go still. The hydra does not seem to sleep on a 24-hour cycle, instead spending part of every four hours asleep. Something about the hydra’s way of life may have made these traits advantageous, Tobler suggests.

***

"What, then, does sleep do in the absence of a brain? Raizen suspects that at least for some animals, sleep has a primarily metabolic function, allowing certain biochemical reactions to take place that can’t happen during waking hours. It may divert the energy that would be used by alertness and movement into other processes, ones that are too costly to take place while the animal is awake. For example, C. elegans seems to use sleep to enable the growth of its body and support the repair of its tissues. In sleep-deprived hydras, the cell divisions that are part of everyday life are paused. Something similar has been seen in the brains of sleep-deprived rats and in fruit flies. Managing the flow of energy may be a central role for sleep.

***

"Sleep might have helped to maintain the first sleeper’s rudimentary nervous system, but it could just as easily have been for the benefits of its metabolism or digestion. “Before we had a brain, we had a gut,” he said.

"Even deeper questions are now being asked. In a 2019 opinion paper, Raizen and his co-authors wondered: If sleep happens in neurons, then what is the minimum number of neurons that can sleep? Can the need for sleep be driven by other kinds of cells, as work implicating liver and muscle cells suggests?"

Comment: Fascinating. My guess is, considering the furious high speed of living biochemistry reactions, stopping to rest is necessary,

Natures wonders: different species cooperate

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 16, 2021, 18:42 (1038 days ago) @ David Turell

A tale stating with a grouper and an octopus:

http://oceans.nautil.us/article/665/in-the-partnership-of-octopus-and-fish-a-marvelous-...

"The octopus swims to the boulder’s far side and makes a barrier with tentacles now spread flat and turned white. The grouper dives into the hollow, looking for fish whose escape routes have been blocked. Never mind the 500-million-year wide taxonomic gulf that separates them. Hunger, opportunity, and smarts cross that divide easily, hinting at adaptations that could help these unlikely partners navigate lean years ahead and providing an interspecies union to tickle human imaginations.

***

"The animals were not merely taking advantage of the other’s activities, as happens when fish follow turtles across the seafloor, snapping up critters scattered by their sediment-disturbing foraging. They actively communicated with one another

***

"As they recount in a study published in the journal Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, the researchers even started to decipher some of the signals. When octopuses preceded the hunt with what Bayley and Rose called a “pounce” gesture, engulfing corals with their mantle and turning white, it was their fish partners who ate. When instead octopuses made a “groping” gesture, inserting tentacles into a crack or crevice, it was their turn to dine. “It was very much a give-and-take scenario,” Bayley said. Other gestures and skin-pattern signals remain uninterpreted.

"Asked to review the footage, Culum Brown, a behavioral ecologist at Maquarie University who specializes in fish intelligence, said “they are clearly communicating with one another.” Brown, who agrees that the hunts are planned, is curious how about how they’re initiated. Do octopuses give the go-ahead? Or fish? And how are partners chosen? Brown pointed to research on groupers cooperating with moray eels to hunt. Those fish select the most competent eels, demonstrating a collaborative sophistication once thought limited to humans and certain primates. He also noted that, while octopuses seemed to take the lead, the collaborations seen by Bayley and Rose demand quite a bit of intelligence from the fish as well.

***

"Another fascinating question, he said, is how knowledge spreads of hunting strategies and mutually-understood signals. Perhaps each participating octopus and fish works it out for themselves, through trial and error—or perhaps, following an initial breakthrough, knowledge spreads by observation or even active teaching. That would make it a cultural adaptation, a matter of accumulating knowledge passed between generations, an example of species surviving in a fast-changing world not because of some fortunate genetic mutation but because they are learning. This also suggests a potentially key role for grouper. Unlike day octopuses, who reach a ripe old age at 15 months, brown-marbled and peacock grouper can easily live 40 years or longer. They may be a living library for their short-lived partners." (my bold)

Comment: no surprise. they won't attack each other so why not react normally and hunt by instinct with some help. Each knows what to do within their own limits of instinct. It is not at the level of our cooperation with each other but very like the way w e cooperate with our dogs.

Natures wonders: soft-bodied animal, super hard teeth

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 01, 2021, 20:14 (1021 days ago) @ David Turell

A marine animal chews rocks:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/teeth-wandering-meatloaf-mollusk-rare-mineral-magne...

"The hard, magnetic teeth of a leathery red-brown mollusk nicknamed “the wandering meatloaf” possess a rare mineral previously seen only in rocks. The mineral may help the mollusk — the giant Pacific chiton (Cryptochiton stelleri) — meld its soft flesh to the hard teeth it uses for grazing on rocky coastlines, researchers report online May 31 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"C. stelleri is the world’s largest chiton, reaching up to roughly 35 centimeters long. It is equipped with several dozen rows of teeth on a slender, flexible, tonguelike appendage called a radula that it uses to scrape algae off rocks. Those teeth are covered in magnetite, the hardest, stiffest known biomineral to date: It’s as much as three times as hard as human enamel and mollusk shells.

"Materials scientist Derk Joester and colleagues analyzed these teeth using high-energy X-rays from the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Ill. They discovered that the interface between the teeth and flesh contained nanoparticles of santabarbaraite, an iron-loaded mineral never seen before in a living organism’s body.

"These nanoparticles help the underpinnings of the teeth vary in hardness and stiffness by at least a factor of two over distances of just several hundred micrometers — a few times the average width of a human hair. Such variations let these structures bridge the hard and soft parts of the mollusk’s body. Now that santabarbaraite has been found in one organism, the researchers suggest looking for it in insect cuticles and bacteria that sense magnetic fields.

Comment: The purpose is to scrape algae off rocks. Why something so hard? I doubt natural chance evolution helped this organism find such a rare mineral.

Natures wonders: aquatic beetle walks under water surface

by David Turell @, Monday, June 28, 2021, 18:53 (995 days ago) @ David Turell

Newly discovered:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/beetles-walk-on-water-upside-down-underneath-surface

"A water-dwelling beetle can scuttle upside-down along the underside of the water’s surface, as if the water were a solid pane of glass, researchers report June 28 in Ethology. It’s the first detailed documentation of a beetle moving in this manner, which is known only in precious few animal groups.

***

"As Gould quickly filmed the scene, the beetle walked under the water’s surface just as it would on a flat, solid surface, periodically resting and changing direction.

***

"Gould and Valdez identified the insect as a minute moss beetle (family Hydraenidae), but Fikáček thinks it’s actually a water scavenger beetle (family Hydrophilidae). He says he’s seen both beetles move this way.

***

"What’s still unclear is how the insect physically manages this feat, but the researchers have an idea. Gould’s recording of the beetle showed an air bubble trapped along the creature’s upturned belly. The team thinks the bubble’s buoyancy may be flipping and pinning the beetle to the underside of the water’s surface. That allows the insect to put pressure on the water-air boundary with every step, creating what Gould observed as tiny hills of water sprouting from the beetle’s feet.

“'It would have been really interesting to know which parts of the animals are [water-repellant] and which are not, as well as information on feet anatomy,” says Tom Weihmann, a movement physiologist at the University of Cologne in Germany not involved with this study. The beetle might be pushing off against the water like the researchers describe, he says, but this would mean the beetle’s feet are attracted to water, contrasting with a water-repellant body.

"Gould and Valdez think the beetle might use this water-walking superpower to stay far away from ambush predators that lurk along the bottom of these pools. But this must be sussed out with additional research."

Comment: another weird discovery. Note the scientists try to see how the beetle fits into its econiche. dhw always tries to ignore this important aspect of all phases of past and present evolution.

Natures wonders: ant raft movements & shenanigan's

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 19:22 (993 days ago) @ David Turell

New studies watch how the individuals and the whole raft make moves, even escaping the tank!:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/floating-fire-ant-rafts-form-mesmerizing-...

"Fire ants also swarm, but with a slightly different form. They will clump into a floating raft when they encounter a body of water, but they don’t always stick together into a tight glob. Sometimes, a handful of capricious ants will wander out from the middle safe zone and willingly throw themselves off the edge of their cluster, forming finger-like protrusions over the water. This previously undescribed, projection-producing behavior can persist for hours, as reported in a study published today in Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

"Animal groups are tight balls for a reason. “Anything that’s sticking out could get cut off,” says David Hu, a mechanical engineer at Georgia Institute of Technology who wasn’t involved in the study. He was surprised by the article's finding, as ants also usually stay close to their queen. Those severed from their raft won’t survive, “so it does seem like a risk to the ants,” says Hu. Yet the ants seem to be making these moving fingers—up to eight inches long—without fail, researchers found.

"Many insects are veritable engineers, working together to build mighty structures. But few species assemble like the fire ant; they use their bodies as construction material simply by gripping each other with their jaws, claws and sticky legs—the ant equivalent of holding hands. Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior. (my bold)

***

"Protrusion formation probably helps fire ants search their environment for new ground in a flooded environment, akin to casting a wide net and hoping something catches, says Linda Hooper-Bui, an environmental scientist at Louisiana State University. “They've never been described the way [the researchers] described them, that was very novel,” she says. From an environmental perspective, she says that the study is important to help scientists better understand how these ants get around and establish new footholds in the wild, especially after a flood. “The more we know about them, the better,” she adds. (my bold)

***

"When Vernerey’s team looked closely at the raft, they noticed the structure’s innards were churning. The raft seemed to be made of two distinct layers: the ants buoying the raft underneath and the topside ants tromping over their supporting comrades. Ants on the top of the raft would roam off the edge, to start or contribute to growing protrusions. The ants in the submerged half would eventually crawl out from beneath and through the middle of the raft to replenish the topside ants. The circulation of ants within the raft is what the researchers call “treadmilling.”

“'The whole thing is kind of like a doughnut-shaped conveyor belt,” says Robert Wagner, a materials scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the lead author of the study. He calls the ant swarm “a fluid over really long timescales.”

***

"Fire ants are also crafty escape artists, partly thanks to the swarm’s ability to probe with protrusions. After an overnight experiment, Wagner returned to the lab the next morning, only to find the water tank on his table ant-free. His video footage showed that the amoeba-shaped colony had extended one of its arms far beyond the camera frame, probably finding a promising escape route along one of the tank’s side walls. He watched as the blob of ants seeped across the video screen along the protrusion, eventually disappearing from the frame entirely. The next thing he saw was the blurry silhouette of ants in the foreground, marching outside of the container. The stowaway swarm had snaked its way across the water to freedom—only to roost in one corner of the table in a docile clump."

Comment: Note the bolds. The individual ant follows simple rules for himself to create the whole raft behaviour. The escape reminds me of the escaping octopus. The protrusions obviously find new avenues to explore. No overall controlling mind, but swarm action based on programmed individual responses. Videos are a must see.

Natures wonders: beetle tough exoskeleton

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 04, 2021, 22:15 (988 days ago) @ David Turell

Just analyzed and has incredible design:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210629134309.htm

:Beetles are creatures with built-in body armor. They are tiny tanks covered with hard shells, also known as exoskeletons, protecting their soft, skeleton-less bodies inside. In addition to providing armored protection, the beetle's exoskeleton offers functions like sensory feedback and hydration control. Notably, the exoskeletons of many beetles are also brilliantly colored and patterned, which enhances visual communication with other beetles and organisms.

***

"Li and his team launched their research from knowledge of a beetle's shell composition: their outer exocuticle layer contains a unique microstructure with only 1/30 of a millimeter thickness. Its composition is a stack of horizontal nanoscale layers inserted with vertical microscale pillars, providing the exoskeleton with optical coloration and mechanical strength at the same time.

"Unlike pigment-based colorations, the optical appearance of the flower beetle results from the exoskeleton's microstructure. The nanolayered region consists of two alternating material compositions, which selectively reflect light of certain colors. This phenomenon is called structural color or photonic color.

***

"The flower beetle achieves this through reinforcement of its shell's vertical micropillars. When the microstructure is pierced, the shell's micropillars hold a seal around the site of the puncture. This prohibits the beetle's wing from tearing, cracking, or delaminating. The micropillars are also able to spring backward, thus reducing the size of the damage site intruded by the incoming object after unloading.

***

"They found that the presence of micropillars, while reducing some degree of optical reflection, is able to redistribute the reflected light to a greater angular range. This contributes to the beetle's ability to "send out" the optical signals to its potential receivers.

"At the same time, mechanically, the presence of micropillars increases the stiffness, strength, and mechanical robustness of the structure by preventing the formation of shear bands, improving the damage resistance of the outer layer, and localizing damage to the exoskeleton.

***

"The final objective was to determine which property, optical or mechanical, is more optimized when evolution "designs" the microstructure. To answer this question, the team examined the microstructure of flower beetles from the same species group, but with different colors.

"Optical function won the day. They found that the size and distribution of the micropillars in beetles of differing colors were indeed optimized for achieving the most efficient light redistribution. The improvement of mechanical properties, particularly the stiffness, appeared not to be optimized, since the microstructure was not entirely covered with the stiffer and stronger micropillars. This result indicated that optical performance took priority over mechanical performance during the evolution of this peculiar multilayer, micropillar structure."

Comment: This study shows how strength and coloration can be simultaneously achieved through proper design

Natures wonders: how sea otters keep warm

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 08, 2021, 23:04 (984 days ago) @ David Turell

All that fur and no blubber to insulate them:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sea-otter-warmth-mitochondria-muscle-metabolism-bio...

"Sea otters’ secret to staying warm isn’t in thick stores of blubber. It’s in their muscles.

"Leaks in the energy-generating parts of muscle cells help otters maintain a resting metabolism three times as fast as predicted for a creature their size, researchers report in the July 9 Science. The find shows how otters meet the challenge of staying warm at sea — and could apply to other marine mammals, too.

***

"Sea otters are lean and compact, the smallest mammals in the ocean, bobbing like furry barrels on waves. And the insulating properties of sea otters’ fur — the densest on the planet — can’t fully protect them from losing too much heat. Water transfers heat 23 times as efficiently as air, and small bodies with less surface area lose heat faster, even when covered in fluff.

***

"Leaks in mitochondria — the energy-generating part of cells — generate extra heat and cause sea otters’ extreme metabolism, the researchers found. Metabolism describes how food gets converted into energy in cells. Mitochondria pump protons across their inner membrane to store energy that can be used to power the cell. But if those protons leak back over the membrane before being used for work, that energy is lost as heat. Because these proton leaks increase the amount of energy lost as heat, otters need to eat more food to make up for that lost energy, revving up their metabolism.

"Other mammals — including extremely small mice with high metabolisms — can also generate heat this way. But sea otters are much better at it: These proton leaks account for about 40 percent of otters’ muscle cells’ total respiratory capacity, higher than any known mammal. Producing heat this way helps the animals stay comfortable in 0° C Pacific waters. “That message is loud and clear, and just brilliant,” Williams says.

"Sea otters’ high leak capacity “is not necessarily what they’re running all the time,” Wright says, but probably can be activated when otters need to generate more warmth. Scientists don’t yet know how otters’ cells turn this process on and off.

"Baby otters don’t yet have the muscle mass to stay warm through these leaks, but their muscle cells generate heat at adult rates, the researchers found, showing that proton leak begins early. Finding similar leak capacities in wild and captive otters of different ages suggests that these leaks are the “driving force” behind otters’ metabolism, Wright says.

"It’s not yet clear if otters inherit this trait or develop it with exposure to cold water. “We don’t know if this is inherent,” Wright says, “or if this is something that quickly comes on after birth as a means of generating heat on demand.'” (my bold)

Comment: How did otters develop this? Hypothermia kills quickly. Two possibilities: otters developed in warm seas and changed/adapted as seas cooled. Or God designed them that way .

Natures wonders: venus sea sponge controls water flow

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 21, 2021, 17:50 (972 days ago) @ David Turell

All by its design:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deep-sea-sponge-venus-flower-baskets-water-flow-flu...

"A Venus’s-flower-basket isn’t all show. This stunning deep-sea sponge can also alter the flow of seawater in surprising ways.

A lacy, barrel-shaped chamber forms the sponge’s glassy skeleton. Flow simulations reveal how this intricate structure alters the way water moves around and through the sponge, helping it endure unforgiving ocean currents and perhaps feed and reproduce, researchers report online July 21 in Nature.

***

"If the sponge were a solid cylinder, water flowing past would form a turbulent wake immediately downstream that could jostle the creature, Falcucci says. Instead water flows through and around the highly porous Venus’s-flower-basket and forms a gentle zone of water that flanks the sponge and displaces turbulence downstream, the team found. That way, the sponge’s body endures less stress.

"Ridges that spiral around the outside of the sponge’s skeleton also somehow cause water to slow and swirl inside the structure, the simulations showed. As a result, food and reproductive cells that drift into the sponge would become trapped for up to twice as long as in the same sponge without ridges. That lingering could help the filter feeders catch more plankton. And because Venus’s-flower-baskets can reproduce sexually, it could also enhance the chances that free-floating sperm encounter eggs, the researchers say."

Comment: the is no way this developed step wise by chance mutations. To protect the organism from damage by uncontrolled currents tis had to be designed all at once. Tentative adaptations would have had current damage the organism. Try to deny a designer with this example.

Natures wonders: venus sea sponge controls water flow

by David Turell @, Friday, July 23, 2021, 18:19 (970 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, July 23, 2021, 18:26

All by its design:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deep-sea-sponge-venus-flower-baskets-water-flow-flu...

"A Venus’s-flower-basket isn’t all show. This stunning deep-sea sponge can also alter the flow of seawater in surprising ways.

A lacy, barrel-shaped chamber forms the sponge’s glassy skeleton. Flow simulations reveal how this intricate structure alters the way water moves around and through the sponge, helping it endure unforgiving ocean currents and perhaps feed and reproduce, researchers report online July 21 in Nature.

***

"If the sponge were a solid cylinder, water flowing past would form a turbulent wake immediately downstream that could jostle the creature, Falcucci says. Instead water flows through and around the highly porous Venus’s-flower-basket and forms a gentle zone of water that flanks the sponge and displaces turbulence downstream, the team found. That way, the sponge’s body endures less stress.

"Ridges that spiral around the outside of the sponge’s skeleton also somehow cause water to slow and swirl inside the structure, the simulations showed. As a result, food and reproductive cells that drift into the sponge would become trapped for up to twice as long as in the same sponge without ridges. That lingering could help the filter feeders catch more plankton. And because Venus’s-flower-baskets can reproduce sexually, it could also enhance the chances that free-floating sperm encounter eggs, the researchers say."

Comment: the is no way this developed step wise by chance mutations. To protect the organism from damage by uncontrolled currents tis had to be designed all at once. Tentative adaptations would have had current damage the organism. Try to deny a designer with this example.

See these great pictures in the article:


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01891-2

This is perfect design, not by chance

Natures wonders: bootlace sea worms longest animals

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 17:50 (964 days ago) @ David Turell

Lie on the sea floor, up to 55 meters long and skin is highly toxic:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/toxins-bootlace-worm-can-kill-cockroaches

"Bootlace worms with spooky-stretchy bodies secrete a family of toxins new to scientists. These compounds might inspire novel ways to attack pests such as cockroaches.

"Tests first identified the toxins in mucus coating a bootlace species that holds the record as the world’s longest animal, says pharmacognosist Ulf Göransson of Uppsala University in Sweden. This champion marine worm (Lineus longissimus) can stretch up to 55 meters, longer than an Olympic-sized pool, and coats itself in mucus smelling a bit like iron or sewage. That goo holds small toxic proteins, now dubbed nemertides, that are also found in 16 other bootlace worm species, Göransson and colleagues write March 22 in Scientific Reports.

"The newly described nemertides attack tiny channels in cell walls that control the amount of sodium flowing in and out of the cell. Much vital cell business, such as communications between nerves, depends on the right flux through these voltage-gated sodium channels, as they’re called. Injections of small amounts of one of these nemertides permanently paralyzed or killed invasive green crabs (Carcinus maenas) and young cockroaches (Blattella germanica).

***

"Unlike earthworms, the 1,300 or so species of bootlace, or ribbon, worms have no segments. Some scientists give these animals their own phylum, Nemertea. Bootlace worms have a brain but no lungs. Like many other slender marine creatures, bootlace worms breathe directly through the skin. The worms are carnivorous, supping on crustaceans, mollusks and other worms.

***

"Göransson proposes that toxic mucus may be useful for defense. He has seen video with Nemertean worms stretched out on the seafloor. “If you’re a crab or a fish, it must be tempting to take a nip,” he says, but there’s little sign of anything bothering them."

Comment: Defense is likely the reason as they are poisonous. Same point about evolutionary origin. Poison and its personal antidote must be deigned simultaneously since the snake is internally exposed to the produced poison.

Natures wonders: multiple queen fire ant colony

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 21:10 (737 days ago) @ David Turell

Studying the genetic differences with single queen types:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220311095304.htm

"Red fire ants originally had only colonies with one queen. The team previously discovered that about one million years ago, a new social form evolved where colonies could have dozens of queens. A particular version of a large section of chromosome, named the "social supergene," includes the genetic information necessary to make workers accept more than one queen.

"Transfer of large amounts of genetic information across species is rare because of genetic incompatibilities. However, in this case, the advantages of having multiple queens overrode the incompatibilities, and the genetic material repeatedly spread to other species from the one source species in which this new social form evolved. The multiple-queen social form has advantages in several situations. For example, a multiple-queen colony has more workers and thus can outcompete a colony with only one queen. Furthermore, if there is a flood, a colony with multiple queens is less likely to become queenless.

***

"'This research reveals how evolutionary innovations can spread across species. It also shows how evolution works at the level of DNA and chromosomes.

"'It was incredibly surprising to discover that other species could acquire a new form of social organisation through hybridisation. The supergene region that creates multi-queen colonies is a large piece of chromosome that contains hundreds of genes. The many parts of a genome evolve to work together in fine-tuned manners, thus suddenly having a mix with different versions of many genes from another species is complicated and quite rare."

Comment: interesting new hybrid fire ant is old. Not true speciation.

Natures wonders: fire ant raft dynamics

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 09, 2024, 19:47 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

Don't flatten when stretched:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2411139-fire-ants-form-rafts-that-have-weird-prope...

"When their nest is flooded, red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) can survive by linking their bodies together to form a floating raft. Past research has suggested that physics plays an important role in the creation of these rafts. Small objects on the surface of a fluid tend to be pushed together by the forces of surface tension, which give the ants an opportunity to grab onto one another. This phenomenon is known as the Cheerios effect, after the way pieces of breakfast cereal clump together as they float in milk.

"But Chung-Hao Chen at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan and his colleagues suspected that the Cheerios effect isn’t the only factor that explains why fire ants form rafts. This is because some other species of ant, such as Monomorium chinense, which is local to Taiwan, do not form rafts on water – even though the Cheerios effect should push them together in the same way.

"To explore how ant rafts could form without this effect, the researchers put about 500 fire ants on a dry vibrating plate and then shook them either vertically or horizontally.

"After about 5 seconds of vertical shaking, the fire ants clung together to form a ball-like structure. Being shaken horizontally caused them to make a flat, pancake-like structure in just 3 seconds. The M. chinense ants did not cling together to form any structures when shaken.

"Tzay-Ming Hong at National Tsing Hua University, who also worked on the project, says the experiment shows fire ants don’t rely only on the Cheerios effect to come together. Instead, the insects might be linking up by releasing chemicals called pheromones, which “intoxicate” them into intertwining. (my bold)

"The researchers also uncovered new information about the physical properties of ant rafts. For instance, they discovered that a raft is able to withstand being stretched horizontally without becoming much thinner vertically. This highlights the importance of the structure being made of living creatures that can move around and constantly correct its shape, says David Hu at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who wasn’t involved in the research."

Comment: the resistance to flattening means the ants have figured out the best shape for floating. My bold shows the probable mechanism for individual ant responses, which are always the same

Natures wonders: a new plant carnivore

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 14:51 (952 days ago) @ David Turell

Only part time:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/meat-eating-plant-only-part-time-killer?utm_cam...

"The species in the new study, called the western false asphodel (Triantha occidentalis), lives in mountainous bogs and other nutrient-poor locations in western North America. The upper part of its flowering stalk is covered with small red hairs that exude a shimmering, sticky substance. The hairs often trap flies and small beetles in the droplets. But so do many other kinds of plants, which use these hairs as defense against pests rather than as a source of nutrition.

"Qianshi Lin, then a Ph.D. student at UBC, decided to investigate. He prepared a special diet for Triantha: fruit flies that had been fed with an isotope, or form, of nitrogen that is rare in nature, which could reveal whether the plants were absorbing nutrients from the flies. After 150 flies had matured, Lin froze them. Then, he and colleagues visited a bog near Vancouver, where they added fruit flies to 10 individual Triantha plants and, as a control, to a similar-size plant that is not carnivorous.

"One to 2 weeks later, the researchers brought the plants back to the lab. They could detect the nitrogen isotope in the stems, leaves, and fruits of Triantha, but not in the noncarnivorous plants. Triantha got more than half of its nitrogen from prey, similar to sundews, a carnivorous plant living nearby, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

***

"Many carnivorous plants use sticky hairs to snare flies and small beetles, but they locate these traps away from their flowers—it’s no good to eat an insect that’s needed for pollination. The western false asphodel doesn’t do this; it puts these sticky hairs on the main stem bearing its flowers, which grows up to 80 centimeters tall. The authors think the red hairs and shiny droplets attract insects, like in sundews, but the hairs and droplets are small enough that they can’t trap bees or other pollinators.

***

"Triantha is just a part-time carnivore, Lin says, because it only flowers briefly. Aaron Ellison, an ecologist at Harvard University, notes there’s only one other known example of a part-time carnivorous plant, a vine in West Africa that eats insects only as a juvenile but then outgrows the habit.

"There’s something else remarkable about Triantha, Ellison notes: It’s one of just a few examples of carnivorous plants in a large group of plants called the monocots (which includes all grasses and lilies, for example). Why are carnivorous monocots so rare? Lin says it might be because the typical monocot leaf, like a blade of grass, is narrow with parallel veins, which may be less suitable for evolving into complex traps."

Comment: Not like Venus!!! Venus and others like it need insects to get enough nitrogen, not readily available in the soil it lives on.

Natures wonders: venus fly trap mechanism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 14:59 (251 days ago) @ David Turell

A new genetic analysis of the trapping:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00833-3?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip...

Summary

"How the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) evolved the remarkable ability to sense, capture, and digest animal prey for nutrients has long puzzled the scientific community. Recent genome and transcriptome sequencing studies have provided clues to the genes thought to play a role in these tasks. However, proving a causal link between these and any aspect of the plant’s hunting behavior has been challenging due to the genetic intractability of this non-model organism. Here, we use CRISPR-Cas9 methods to generate targeted modifications in the Venus flytrap genome. The plant detects prey using touch-sensitive trigger hairs located on its bilobed leaves. Upon bending, these hairs convert mechanical touch signals into changes in the membrane potential of sensory cells, leading to rapid closure of the leaf lobes to ensnare the animal. Here, we generate mutations in trigger-hair-expressed MscS-like (MSL)-family mechanosensitive ion channel genes FLYCATCHER1 (FLYC1) and FLYCATCHER2 (FLYC2) and find that double-mutant plants have a reduced leaf-closing response to mechanical ultrasound stimulation. While we cannot exclude off-target effects of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, our genetic analysis is consistent with these and other functionally redundant mechanosensitive ion channels acting together to generate the sensory system necessary for prey detection." (my bold)

Comment: note the bold. The genetics of this amazing mechanism is so complex, we are still struggling to figure it out. Only design fits its source.

Natures wonders: Venus fly trap electric trigger

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 27, 2023, 15:50 (236 days ago) @ David Turell

Produces negative ions:

https://www.sciencealert.com/electrical-pulses-that-trigger-venus-flytrap-mapped-for-th...

"Just a few years ago, plant scientists figured out that two, successive brushes of the flytraps' sensory hairs trigger a surge of charged calcium ions inside the plants' leaves before they snap shut. But those studies only resolved plant cell signaling in broad strokes.

"'Our study is the first to map these signals" across the leaves of Venus flytraps, Stavrinidou says, "but more studies are required to fully understand their propagation."

"Like in human cells, an influx of calcium ions creates an action potential that spreads along and between the plant's cells. Although plants have no nervous system, these quick bursts of electrical activity are eerily similar to the electrical impulses of our nerve cells firing.

"Along with calcium ions, potassium and chlorine ions rush into plant cells via ion channels, creating a momentary charge imbalance that travels along cells, creating an electrical signal.

"To measure and map these signals in D. muscipula, the researchers developed a flexible thin-film sensor threaded with electrodes that could wrap around the plant's outstretched lobes. They poked the plant's sensory hairs and filmed its movements, all while recording the electrical impulses generated.

"The recordings reveal how electrical signals in Venus flytraps radiate out at a constant speed from tripped sensory hairs, triggering the trap to close if hairs were touched twice within about 30 seconds.

"If hairs were prodded more than 1 minute apart, the second signal moved faster than the first, as if the plant was still on guard.

"Unexpectedly, though, the team found some electrical signals spontaneously originated from unstimulated hairs, as the trap was closing.

"'This is very interesting," Stavrinidou says, but "we don't know yet why this happens or what the function is."

"It's well known that plants send electrical signals when wounded by leaf-munching herbivores or attacked at the roots, and can even respond to light touch. Stavrinidou and colleagues similarly recorded electrical signals emanating from wounded tissues, not just sensory hairs.

***

"The mechanisms a plant might use to propagate its electrical signal from cell to cell – and from root to tip – are still, as yet, unknown.

"Given how flytrap signals fan out from a hair at a constant speed, the researchers think it's unlikely the signals are traveling via the plant's nutrient transport tissue, called phloem, as previously suggested.

"'Electrical signals are mediators of long-distance signaling in plants and they are also related to plant stress responses," Stavrinidou tells ScienceAlert."

Comment: such a complex mechanism cannot be developed by many chance mutations. It must be designed all at once.

Natures wonders: Venus fly trap reaction to fire

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 17:58 (210 days ago) @ David Turell

Both heat and fire studied:

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-sensor-venus-flytrap.html

"In its location in the swamp, the carnivorous plant is often not visible because it is overgrown by grass. In summer, the grass dries up. Then it can catch fire from the frequent lightning storms typical of North Carolina—a dangerous situation for the Venus flytrap.

***

"The Venus flytrap uses special heat receptors in the sensory hairs for this purpose, as the researchers report in the journal Current Biology.

***

"After the fire, the plants had closed all the traps. Some traps showed no damage, others appeared to be burnt. After a few days, all undamaged traps were open again and working—they snapped after touching their sensory hairs.

"'We had only recently elucidated the stimulus-response chain during trap closure after wounding. Now the question arose whether the traps might already react to the heat wave in the run-up to a fire," says Hedrich.

"The JMU researchers were correct in their assumption: a hot air blower directed at the trap was sufficient to cause the trap to close. Next, the scientists conducted heat experiments under controlled laboratory conditions.

***

"He found that when a local leaf temperature of 37°C was exceeded, the heated area of the trap produced an electrical impulse, an action potential that spread across both halves of the trap. "When the temperature increased further to 55°C, a second action potential was triggered and the trap snapped shut," Shouguang said.

"But the trap's reaction at 37°C and 55°C only kicked in when temperatures increased abruptly, as in a rapid heat wave. If the temperature rose only slowly, as on hot summer days, the traps did not react.

***

"By measuring the temperature rise on its surface and closing its traps in a fraction of a second, the flytrap's sensory hairs remain protected from burns. The damp marshy ground further protects them from excessive heat and burns. This allows it to continue hunting for animal food after a fire.

"Each half of the trap has three sensory hairs that are highly sensitive to touch and generate action potentials. The action potentials are generated at the base of the hairs. There, ion channels that get activated by touch allow calcium to flow into the cells. This calcium signal is the trigger and at the same time an integral part of an action potential. Heat jumps cause the same calcium-dependent electrical events in the sensory hairs as touch.

"'To track the calcium signal, we used flytraps that carry a genetically encoded calcium sensor inside them," Hedrich says. When the cellular calcium levels increase, this sensor begins to fluoresce. "We were quite amazed that when the heat was applied, a sensory hair glowed first," he said. "This shows that the hairs operate as touch and heat sensors at the same time," Hedrich concludes.

"'Currently, we are pursuing the hypothesis that a calcium channel is an integral part of the heat sensor, or even the sensor itself," the researchers said. If this is true, a type of membrane-bound temperature sensor would have been discovered that is still completely unknown in plants.

"So far, research knows calcium channels from the so-called OSCA family, which can be activated mechanically and osmotically. "In the future, we want to test whether there are also OSCAs in the sensory hairs of the Venus flytrap that are switched on by the supply of thermal energy, and which of their protein areas respond to mechanics and which to heat.'"

Comment: more amazing attributes of this plant. This degree of complexity suggests it was designed.

Natures wonders: Venus fly trap electric trigger

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 17, 2023, 17:32 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

From two ion channels:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/how-the-venus-flytrap-captures-its-prey-71429?utm_ca...

"How these two light touches trigger abrupt shutting of the leaves has been hypothesized, but never proven. Now, in a new study published in Current Biology, a team of researchers knocked out two ion channels, making it harder to produce action potentials and proving the channels’ importance in leaf closing.1

“'The paper is a very big technical advance,” said plant biophysicist Rainer Hedrich at the University of Wurzburg who was not involved in the study. “It is possible to knock out genes in an excitable plant and test hypotheses.”

***

"...recently, scientists found mechanosensitive ion channels FLYCATCHER1 (FLYC1) and FLYCATCHER2 (FLYC2) expressed in trigger hairs that may associate with touch sensitivity.5 Even though the Venus flytrap’s genome is sequenced, no targeted mutations of ion channel genes have been made to conclusively prove their roles in leaf closing.

"So, plant biologists Carl Procko and Joanne Chory at the Salk Institute decided to use CRISPR-Cas9 to mutate FLYC1 and FLYC2 to investigate their functions. Scientists had hypothesized that an insect’s touch causes deformation of the trigger hair’s sensory cell membrane, which causes the opening of these ion channels and membrane depolarization and electrical signaling.

***

"He collaborated with molecular neurobiologist Sreekanth Chalasani, also at the Salk Institute, who works with ultrasound. When the team tested the plants with a new, more sensitive assay using ultrasound waves to stimulate the trigger hair, the FLYC1-FLYC2 double mutants showed a significant defect: mutated plants required a greater ultrasound pressure to induce the trap closure than wild type plants. The team noted that single FLYC1 mutants stimulated with ultrasound closed just as well as the wild type plants. Procko believes that brute force mechanical stimulation with the glass rod may be so large that it could act through different mechanosensitive ion channels in the trigger hair.

“'The next step now is to start looking at these other mechanosensitive channels that are within the trigger hair,” said Procko. “We can start to mutate some of these others and put them in various combinations to see exactly which mechanosensitive channels are most important or if they’re all required together to get that very exquisite touch sensitivity of the trigger hair.” Hedrich’s team is currently working to knock out a calcium channel gene hyperosmolality-gated calcium-permeable channel (OSCA).

"Procko acknowledged that he didn’t know exactly how the ultrasound assay relates to touch, which limits the study. “It’s a mechanical stimulus. We like to think it’s related to touch, but it could alternatively be applying that stimulus directly to the sensory membranes and altering the membranes. So, this is still a little bit of a question mark,” said Procko."

Comment: the deeper scientists dig the more complexities appear. The Venus fly trap is a prime example of intelligent design. The plant is irreducibly complex.

Natures wonders: a fly trap with a neurotoxin

by David Turell @, Monday, December 04, 2023, 16:05 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

Found in India:

https://www.science.org/content/article/toxic-bait-indian-pitcher-plants-lures-hungry-i...

"Pitcher plants in the genus Nepenthes thrive in places where they shouldn’t. There’s very little nitrogen in the Southeast Asian and Australian soils where they grow—but they do just fine, thanks to a macabre source for this essential nutrient: the dissolved flesh of small animals, mostly insects, that slip into their bulbous traps.

"A new study suggests why Nepenthes is so effective at catching its victims: It produces a sweet nectar containing a potent neurotoxin that could make them lose their balance at the pitcher’s edge. The work, published as a preprint on bioRxiv this month, is the first known example of nectar acting both as a lure and a poison.

***

'Phytochemist Sabulal Baby has been studying carnivorous plants—“the most unique life forms on Earth,” he says—for more than a decade. He and his colleagues at the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute had previously discovered that the rims of the Indian pitcher plant Nepenthes khasiana are fluorescent and that newly opened traps emit carbon dioxide—features that attract insects. Because they knew the plants also produce nectar on and around their traps, which acts as a lure, they decided to examine it more closely.

"In other plants, such extrafloral nectar isn’t designed to harm insects. The liquid’s high sugar content appeals to ants, whose presence—and aggression—wards off potential herbivores. But when Baby and colleagues teased out the contents of the nectars of N. khasiana and several other pitcher plants growing in their institute’s botanic garden, they found something unexpected. The nectars contained (+)–isoshinanolone—a compound that interferes with the activity of an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, which prevents the buildup of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine between neurons. Too much acetylcholine in lab animals leads to muscle cramps, weakness, blurry vision, and paralysis.

"And indeed when Baby and his colleagues examined ants that had drowned in the pitcher fluid of N. khasiana, they found almost no acetylcholinesterase activity in their tissues. Ants collected on the plant’s exterior showed more of this activity. This indicates that the nectar inhibits the insects’ locomotion, Baby says, making them temporarily clumsy and more likely to tumble into a pitcher. The nectar is a “toxic bait,” he says. “Prey capture by these pitchers is a story of total deception.”

***

"Bauer notes that the authors’ method for nectar sampling—which involved rinsing cut sections of plant to collect the fluid—could have introduced intracellular compounds. So future work should confirm that (+)–isoshinanolone is in the nectar that the ants consume, not just the plant’s tissues.

"Still, she wouldn’t be too surprised if it is. Pitcher plants have “such an amazing diversity of tricks for how to trap insects” that toxic nectar would hardly be the strangest."

Comment: carnivorous plants are always amazing. Adding a neurotoxin to the trapping mix is not surprising. My wife has some Nepenthes in our house. Another design by God.

Natures wonders: single-celled algae know time

by David Turell @, Monday, December 04, 2023, 16:28 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

In the way chlorophyl flows:

https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-algae-made-of-just-one-cell-have-a-clever-way-of-kno...

"A number of large seaweeds, like the leafy green algae Caulerpa, lack microscopic dividing structures, making them some of the biggest single cell systems known.

"Such plant relatives are still able to grow meters in size, and are so great at gobbling up sunlight to expand they've become successful invaders in many new territories.

"But what orchestrates the growth process when a body is in effect one, giant cell?

***

"'A main paradigm in cellular biology is that the internal environment of a cell is dictated by its environment and what happens in the nucleus," says Afik.

"'But in Caulerpa, there's nothing to separate the nuclei from one another."

"Even without membranes and walls to divide the plant's numerous nuclei, this intriguing organism still manages to organize itself into organ-like structures that resemble leaves, stems and roots.

"After cutting off bits of the algae the researchers saw differences in intensity of green pigmentation at its regeneration sites. At night these spots were relatively transparent, whereas during the day they became a solid, opaque green.

***

"Exposing specimens of C. brachypus to 12 hours of bright light followed by 12 hours of darkness, the researchers found the algae's leaves grew longer than those on specimens exposed to bright light for 24 hours straight, suggesting a night of 'sleep' is essential for maintaining their self-organization.

"When bathed in light, parts of Caulerpa's body were flooded with a verdant wave of chlorophyll that allowed it to photosynthesize and grow. At night, this wave of greenness appeared to crash, during which the algae rested.

"What's really interesting, however, is that the algae seemed to predict when dusk and dawn were going to arrive. It changed its chlorophyll activity before the new light conditions even arrived, hinting that the algae has a sort of internal circadian clock which it uses to grow and develop.

"'We find distinct morphologies depending on light temporal patterns, suggesting waves of chlorophyll could link biological oscillators to metabolism and morphogenesis," the researchers explain in their paper.

"As the green chloroplasts spread according to the day-night light cycle, it provides the giant blob with not just a sense of time, but position as well.

"This gives algae the equivalent of knowing its head from its butt, allowing it to determine when and where to grow. No 'cells' required."

Comment: this algae is at the boundary of single cell and multicellular life. That is has a developed diurnal rhythm is not surprising.

Natures wonders: dolphins sense an electric field

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 05, 2023, 00:14 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

Study of two dolphins:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/science/dolphins-electric-fields-sense.html?unlocked...

"Newborn bottlenose dolphins sport a row of hairs along the tops of their jaws. But once the animals are weaned, the whiskers fall out.

“Everybody thought these structures are vestigial — so without any function,” said Guido Dehnhardt, a marine mammal zoologist at the University of Rostock in Germany.

"But Dr. Dehnhardt and his colleagues have discovered that the pits left by those hairs can perceive electricity with enough sensitivity that they may help the dolphins snag fish or navigate the ocean. The team reported its findings Thursday in The Journal of Experimental Biology.

"Dr. Dehnhardt first studied the whisker pits of a different species, the Guiana dolphin. He expected to find the typical structures of hair follicles, but those were missing. Yet the pits were loaded with nerve endings. He and his colleagues realized that the hairless follicles looked like the electricity-sensing structures on sharks and found that one Guiana dolphin responded to electrical signals. They wondered whether other toothed cetaceans, including bottlenose dolphins, could also sense electricity.

***

"Once trained, the dolphins also received electrical signals. “The dolphins responded correctly on the first trial,” Dr. Hüttner said. The animals were able to transfer what they had learned, revealing that they could also detect electric fields. Further study showed that the dolphins’ sensitivity to electricity was similar to that of the platypus, which is thought to use its electrical sense for foraging.

"Sharks are far more sensitive to electric fields, which they use up close after they have chased down prey by smell from a distance. But the electrosense might also aid dolphins for a close grab at fish while they’re hunting. The dolphins spot prey with their eyes and by sending clicking sounds that bounce off prey, known as echolocation. But fish bodies also produce electrical fields through the activity of their muscles and gills."

Comment: electric currents and fields are so ubiquitous in nature, this sense is not surprising.

Natures wonders: how redwoods survive fire

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 05, 2023, 17:07 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

Preserved energy supports new buds:

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-redwoods-recover-fire-sprouting-1000-ye...

When lightning ignited fires around California’s Big Basin Redwoods State Park north of Santa Cruz in August 2020, the blaze spread quickly. Redwoods naturally resist burning, but this time flames shot through the canopies of 100-meter-tall trees, incinerating the needles. “It was shocking,” says Drew Peltier, a tree ecophysiologist at Northern Arizona University. “It really seemed like most of the trees were going to die.”

Yet many of them lived. In a paper published yesterday in Nature Plants, Peltier and his colleagues help explain why: The charred survivors, despite being defoliated, mobilized long-held energy reserves—sugars that had been made from sunlight decades earlier—and poured them into buds that had been lying dormant under the bark for centuries.

***

Mild fires strike coastal redwood forests about every decade. The giant trees resist burning thanks to the bark, up to about 30 centimeters thick at the base, which contains tannic acids that retard flames. Their branches and needles are normally beyond the reach of flames that consume vegetation on the ground. But the fire in 2020 was so intense that even the uppermost branches of many trees burned and their ability to photosynthesize went up in smoke along with their pine needles.

***

After 6 months, the team brought the sprouts back to the lab. There, they radiocarbon dated the molecules within to calculate the average age of those sugars. At 21 years, they are the oldest energy reserves shown to be used by trees. (A previous study had clocked 17 years in maples.)

***

Based on the age and mass of the trees and their normal rate of photosynthesis, Peltier calculated that the redwoods were calling on carbohydrates photosynthesized nearly 6 decades ago—several hundred kilograms’ worth—to help the sprouts grow. “They allow these trees to be really fire-resilient because they have this big pool of old reserves to draw on,” Peltier says.

It's not just the energy reserves that are old. The sprouts were emerging from buds that began forming centuries ago. Redwoods and other tree species create budlike tissue that remains under the bark. Scientists can trace the paths of these buds, like a worm burrowing outward. In samples taken from a large redwood that had fallen after the fire, Peltier and colleagues found that many of the buds, some of which had sprouted, extended back as much as 1000 years. “That was really surprising for me,” Peltier says. “As far as I know, these are the oldest ones that have been documented.” (my bold)

Comment: As amazing as the age and size of redwoods is, this fire resistance is just as mind boggling. Other fir trees have similar survival techniques. Pines in the West are helped in their seed formation and dispersal by fires.

Natures wonders: how bat echolocation works

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 16:40 (741 days ago) @ David Turell

More discoveries of how the ability is used:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-amazing-adaptations-that-help-animal...

"Bats aren’t blind at all, in fact they can see as well or better than humans, particularly when light is low around dawn and dusk. But the flying mammals are justly known for the way they rely on their mouth, nose and ears to get around at night by the process of echolocation. Bats emit sound waves from their mouths or nostrils at ultrasound frequencies. These bounce off objects, even those as thin as a human hair, before returning to the bats’ ears. The feedback allows bats to map their surroundings and deftly navigate between trees or snare a mosquito in midflight. The system works so incredibly well that bats can use approach angles to identify and snare a small bug that’s sitting on a much larger leaf, without the leaf’s larger echo obscuring their smaller prey.

"But scientists have recently learned that echolocation also plays an important role in bat social life. The calls bats use contain information including sex, age or even individual identity.

"Using behavior experiments Jenna Kohles and colleagues recently demonstrated that some bats can even use this identity information while they’re flying and searching for prey.

“'They can tell their group members apart from one another using just the “individual signatures" contained in the echolocation calls they use to search for insects,” says Kohles, a behavioral ecologist at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior. “So the social lives of bats flying around at night are likely to be much more complex than previously thought.'”

From the actual study:

“'We played echolocation calls from two different bats that were both group members of the subject bat,” Kohles said. “By measuring the responses of the subject bats as we switched between calls from different individuals, we could learn about whether the bats perceived differences and similarities between the calls.”

"They found that the bats indeed distinguish between different group members, likely by using individual signatures encoded in the calls. Their results could mean that search-phase calls serve a double function. They not only help bats detect prey, but also convey individual identities to nearby foraging group members. This coincides with the fact that the majority of M. molossus’ auditory cortex is tuned in to these search-phase calls, indicating the importance of processing them.

"This finding offers insight into not only the social strategies these bats may use to meet their energetic needs, but also into the evolution of echolocation signals and social communication in bats.

“'This study suggests that we may be underestimating the crucial ways social information influences bat foraging success and ultimately survival,” Kohles said."

Comment: Bats present the same problems as whales. The required adaptations are so complex and so intertwined, only design is the answer.

Natures wonders: memory carried in metamorphosis

by David Turell @, Friday, July 30, 2021, 19:57 (962 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazing study:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7fAQS7WYAcF8Rb?format=jpg&name=medium

"The Astounding Resilience of Caterpillar Memory, Or, What is it Like to be a Metamorphosing Caterpillar?
Imagine you are a caterpillar, nestled inside your cocoon, on the brink of metamorphosis. First, you flood the cocoon with enzymes that dissolve all of your tissue, save for small bundles of cells known as "imaginal discs". At this point, the contents inside the cocoon - you - have melted from a wriggling caterpillar to protein soup, with a few floating discs.

“'If you were to cut open a cocoon or chrysalis at just the right time, caterpillar soup would ooze out", writes Ferris Jabr in the Scientific American.

"The discs then slurp up the soup they're floating in, using the proteins to form wings, antennae, and all the other bodily structures that make up a butterfly.

"Now, it turns out that butterfly's remember what they learned as caterpillars, despite dissolving their bodies. We learned this by torturing caterpillars. Electrical shocks were associatively paired with an odor, so that the caterpillar learned that it would receive a shock every time it encountered the odor. When these caterpillars became butterflies, they retained the learned aversion to the shock-inducing odor. Researchers believe the memory persists thanks to synaptic connections that remained intact through the metamorphosis.

"Here's a thing: Caterpillars flood their cocoons w/ enzymes that dissolve every tissue of their body, save for little "imaginal discs".

"The discs then use the protein soup as fuel to rebuild into a butterfly.

"BUT THE BUTTERFLY REMEMBERS WHAT IT LEARNED AS A CATERPILLAR.

"So here's the question: what does all that feel like, to a caterpillar? To the degree that caterpillars have subjectivity, to the degree that there is something-that-it-is-like to be a caterpillar, from the caterpillar's first-person (first-caterpillar?) perspective, what's it like?

"Because if enough synaptic connections survive the metamorphosis process to preserve memories from before the melting-and-rebuilding situation, then they might also carry memories from during the process."

Comment: Wow!!! Memories carried to the butterfly form in the discs of genome. That wasn't designed by chance. Chance could not have logically developed metamorphosis. Only a designer.

Natures wonders: Kalahari adaptations

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 01, 2021, 00:58 (961 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme heat, little water:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/rising-heat-puts-the-kalaharis-ecos...

"Massive bird nests made by sociable weavers in camel thorn trees may be decades old, sheltering generations through the Kalahari’s extremes. Hungry Cape cobras and boomslange often enter the chambered nests looking for chicks to eat.

"The Kalahari is the world’s largest expanse of unbroken sand, a rolling ocean of windblown dunes across Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and beyond that are topped with savanna, a mostly grassy landscape dotted with occasional trees. Here on the region’s southern edge, air currents have swept up a series of north-south–running dunes lapping against the flanks of bare, quartzite hills that rise like whalebacks from the deep.

"Decades of farming have thrown the region into disarray, and now it seems that the freight-train effects of planetary heating are bearing down too. What Panaino and Phakoago learn about the secretive lives of creatures out here on the dunes will give conservation managers emergency signals to help them better protect this vestige of the Kalahari.

***

"Homebuilders enable collective survival in the harsh Kalahari. Sociable weavers share their nests with African pygmy falcons, skinks, and foraging snakes. Aardvarks are prolific burrowers that excavate underground chambers also used by jackals, porcupines, wild cats, warthogs, ground squirrels, and swallows, among others."

Comment: If the website will let you see the pictures the woven nests are huge

Natures wonders: mud net feeding by dolphins

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 17:57 (954 days ago) @ David Turell

Newly found in Caribbean:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2286247-dolphins-spotted-trapping-fish-in-mud-ring...

"Bottlenose dolphins are clever hunters. Some work alongside human fishers, coaxing fish ashore. Others use shells to catch their food. In the Florida Keys, some use “mud rings” – and now the behaviour has been documented in the Caribbean too.

"The mud ring hunting strategy is a case of blindsiding prey. A “ring maker” dolphin circles near the ocean floor and traps fish behind a ring of mud as others lie in wait with mouths open, and lunge to catch any fish attempting to escape the mud by jumping out of the water."

Comment: just like the bubble net feeding performed by Alaskan humpbacks who blow a circle of bubbles from below and enjoy the feast inside the bubble net. Of course humpbacks and dolphins can do simple thinking analysis.

Natures wonders: animal hair stolen for bird's nests

by David Turell @, Friday, August 13, 2021, 18:42 (949 days ago) @ David Turell

A common event:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/birds-steal-animal-hair-fur-nest-new-word-video

"Some tiny birds take bold risks to gather a beakful of hair for their nests. Titmice have been spotted dive-bombing cats, alighting on dozing predators’ backs and plucking strands of hair from people’s heads. Now, there’s a term for the unusual behavior: kleptotrichy.

***

“'Citizen scientists, bird watchers and people with dogs knew this behavior much more than the scientists themselves,” says animal behaviorist Mark Hauber of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Popular observations precede science rather than the other way around, which is a valid way to do science.”

***

"In South America, palm swifts snatch feathers from flying pigeons and parrots — a behavior already known as kleptoptily. Searching through the scientific literature, Hauber, Pollock and colleagues found only 11 anecdotes of birds stealing hair from live mammals. While most published accounts involve titmice in North America, at least five other bird species get in on the action. Researchers have seen an American crow harvest hair from a cow and a red-winged starling in Africa peck a small antelope called a klipspringer. In Australia, three honeyeater bird species steal fur from koalas.

***

"Scientists generally assume that birds gather hair for their nests in low-risk ways, relying on carcasses or stray fluff shed into the wind. “Plucking hairs from raccoons, which are common avian nest predators, suggests that it’s obviously worth it to get that hair,” Pollock says.

"Hair-harvesting species tend to live in colder climates, so those birds probably prize hair’s insulating properties, the team says. Some birds might also spruce up their nests with mammal hair to confuse would-be predators and parasites."

Comment: The last thought is pure Darwinism, having birds conceptualize.

Natures wonders: fish fin biodynamics

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 15, 2021, 16:31 (947 days ago) @ David Turell

Both stiff and flexible:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210811162858.htm

"Francois Barthelat, senior author of the study, noted that fins are remarkable because they can achieve feats of dexterity even though they don't contain a single muscle. (Fish move these structures by twitching sets of muscles located at the base of the fins).

"'If you look at a fin, you'll see that it's made of many stiff 'rays,'" said Barthelat, professor in the Paul M. Rady Department of Mechanical Engineering. "Each of those rays can be manipulated individually just like your fingers, but there are 20 or 30 of them in each fin."

***

"To understand how ordinary run-of-the-mill goldfish achieve similar feats every day, take a close look at these structures under the microscope. Each of the rays in a fin has a layered structure, a bit like a bakery éclair: The spikes include two layers of stiff and mineralized materials called hemitrichs that surround an inner layer of spongy collagen.

"But, Barthelat said, those layers of hemitrichs aren't solid. They're divided into segments, as if someone had cut up the éclair into bite-sized pieces.

"'Until recently, the function of those segments hadn't been clear," he said.

***

"'All of the segments, essentially, create these tiny hinges along the ray," Barthelat said. "When you try to compress or pull on those bony layers, they have a very high stiffness. This is critical for the ray to resist and produce hydrodynamic forces that push on water. But if you try to bend individual bony layers, they're very compliant, and that part is critical for the rays to deform easily from the base muscles."

***

"Barthelat added that he and his colleagues have only scratched the surface of the wide diversity of fins in the fish world. Flying fish, for example, deploy their fins to glide above the water, while mudskippers use their fins like legs to walk on land."

Comment: this can be understood as a precisely perfect design to fit a specific purpose, marked agility while swimming in water. Cannot be developed in chancy stages per Darwin theory.

Natures wonders: Hydra regenerates

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 21, 2021, 15:06 (941 days ago) @ David Turell

Dissemble it and it regenerates:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6557/867.1

"The humble Hydra holds an unusual superpower. If it is disassembled experimentally, its cells will reassemble correctly to form a complete organism. Three days after disaggregation, the reassembled Hydra recovers synchronized neuronal activity and rebuilds normal neuronal networks. Lovas and Yuste show how the neural net reforms from its individual pieces. The disaggregated neurons first resume firing and then grow neurites as they build small, local connections. These neuronal ensembles then connect into midsized modules as the initially hierarchical network transitions into more distributed structure. Network synchronization emerges as the connections consolidate. Although at first, highly connected nodes carry most of the network traffic, further refinement adds smaller nodes. As the circuits mature, the input of individual neurons shifts and a resilient distributed network reemerges."

Comment: Each cell has to carry all the information needed.

Natures wonders: heavy land bird migration techniques

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 16:19 (923 days ago) @ David Turell

They use tail wind and thermals to cross large water areas:

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-migrating-birds-routes-uplift-conditions.html

"...recent advances in GPS tracking technology have overturned that assumption. Data obtained by attaching small tracking devices on wild birds has shown that many land birds fly for hundreds or even thousands of kilometers over the open seas and oceans as a regular part of their migration.

***

"The findings not only confirm the role of tailwind in facilitating sea-crossing behavior, but also reveal the widespread use of uplift for saving energy during these nonstop flights. Suitable uplift means less drag, making sea crossing less energetically demanding.

"'Until recently, uplift was assumed to be weak or absent over the sea surface. We show that is not the case," says first author Elham Nourani, a DAAD PRIME postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Biology at the University of Konstanz, who did the work when she was at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior.

"'Instead, we find that migratory birds adjust their flight routes to benefit from the best wind and uplift conditions when they fly over the sea. This helps them sustain flight for hundreds of kilometers," says Nourani.

"The oriental honey buzzard, for example, flies 700 kilometers over the East China Sea during its annual migration from Japan to southeast Asia. The roughly 18-hour nonstop sea crossing is conducted in autumn when the air movement conditions are optimal. "By making use of uplift, these birds can soar up to one kilometer above the sea surface," says Nourani."

Comment: Of course the birds would choose to do these methods as they must recognize the convenience. The real question is how did they develop the instinct of specific migration when long flights over open water is inherently so dangerous.

Natures wonders: moth bat defenses

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 11, 2021, 19:07 (920 days ago) @ David Turell

It's all in the wingtip shapes:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210909124217.htm

"Researchers at the University of Bristol have discovered that the tips of some saturniid moth forewings are curiously rippled and folded. They found that these unique structures strongly reflect sound, meaning that a bat hunting using echolocation is more likely to attack the wingtip region of the moth over the body, potentially saving the moth's life.

"They also discovered that the ripples and folds of the forewing tips have evolved to act as hemispheric and corner retroreflectors respectively, meaning that they reflect sound strongly back to its point of origin. Coupled together, the folds and ripples of these wingtips cover a huge range of incident sounds angles, meaning that over the entire wingbeat cycle of a flying moth and most possible positions of an attacking bat, the wingtip would consistently produce the strongest echoes. The acoustic protection of wingtips is even stronger than that of common hindwing decoys.

"Prof Marc Holderied of Bristol's School of Biological Sciences explained: "We have demonstrated that the folded and rippled wingtips on the forewings of some silkmoths act as acoustic decoys.

"'Structurally, the wingtips act as acoustic retroreflectors, reflecting sound back to its source from numerous angles, meaning a bat would be more likely to strike the wingtip over the more vulnerable body of the moth."

"The findings, published today in Current Biology, are the latest revelation in the bat-moth acoustic arms race -- the battle between bats which hunt moths using echolocation, and the subsequent evolution of different defensive strategies amongst moths to increase their chances of survival.

"Towed acoustic decoys are a well-established defense amongst some silkmoths. These species have evolved elongated hindwings which terminate in a coiled and twisted end. The morphology of these elongated hindwings means that they generate very strong echoes, so much so that they will often divert a bat's acoustic gaze towards them, away from the exposed body of the moth, causing the bat to strike the expendable tail of the moth or miss the moth all together."

Comment: Every time teleology rears its ugly head as in this study, the wing tip adaptations must require thoughtful planning and design, and the realization, as proposed by the authors, that a flimsy wing tip is more difficult to hit in arial combat than a hardened body..

Natures wonders: dragon fly design; face book video

by David Turell @, Monday, September 13, 2021, 15:55 (918 days ago) @ David Turell

The most efficient flying predator known:

https://youtu.be/iJi61NAIsjs

Different wing muscle controls allows flying backward 360 degree compound eyes and man y other wonderful engineering.

Comment: about 15 minutes is worth it.

Natures wonders: feigning death to save oneself

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 21:00 (916 days ago) @ David Turell

It called Thanatosis, and the prime example is the possum:

https://aeon.co/essays/animals-wrestle-with-the-concept-of-death-and-mortality?utm_sour...

"The opossum’s death display, also known as thanatosis, is an excellent demonstration of this, not because of what it tells us about the opossum’s mind, but because of what it shows us about the minds of her predators: animals such as coyotes, racoons, dogs, foxes, raptors, bobcats and large snakes. In the same way that the appearance of the stick insect tells us something about how her predators see the world, and which sorts of objects they avoid eating, the opossum’s thanatosis reveals how common the concept of death is likely to be among the animals that feed on her.

***

"Many animals, when they feel threatened, go into a kind of paralysis that reduces the probability of being preyed upon. This is known as tonic immobility and can be found in a wide range of species, from insects to humans. While tonic immobility is a simple behaviour that operates at a superficial level – in some species it can even be accompanied by an increase in heart rate – in thanatosis, the animal not only stays still but actively imitates the characteristics of a corpse. Although thanatosis might have evolved from tonic immobility, it’s much more than a mere paralysis: the animal is feigning death.

***

"Thanatosis as an anti-recognition mechanism works by making the prey appear unpalatable to the predator. In principle, this could ride on a simple disgust mechanism, since thanatosis is often accompanied by urination and defecation, or by other chemical defences, such as the frogs’ ammonia-like breath, which the predator might find yucky. According to this interpretation, the success of thanatosis would not involve the predator conceptualising anything about the prey’s corpse-like appearance. Instead, the animal in thanatosis would just appear disgusting.

***

"This does not mean that opossums themselves necessarily have a concept of death, or that they behave this way with the intention of being mistaken for a corpse. On the contrary, it appears to be a genetically inherited behaviour that does not require any learning and that is triggered automatically upon the detection of certain stimuli. What this does mean, however, is that the predators’ concept of death was the likely selection pressure that shaped these displays. Maybe opossums lack a concept of death, but we can be pretty sure that the animals who intended to feed on them throughout their evolutionary history did tend to have one. (my bold)

***

"The distribution of thanatosis in the animal kingdom points to how extended the concept of death is likely to be in nature. We find elaborate forms of thanatosis in some species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Its widely extended yet patchy presence in the phylogenetic tree suggests that thanatosis appeared in these different species through convergent evolution. These are species that are not closely related, so they would not have inherited their thanatosis from a common ancestor, but, rather, the presence of similar selection pressures in their different habitats would have made this behaviour appear independently in these different taxa. The concept of death, far from being a uniquely human feat, is a fairly common trait in the animal kingdom.

"We humans like to think of ourselves as a unique species. However, little by little, all those traits that we have been relying on to ground this uniqueness have been falling, as the science advances and reveals the staggering diversity and complexity of animal minds and behaviour. We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication. The concept of death should also be counted among those characteristics to which we can no longer resort to convince us of how very special we are. It is time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it."

Comment: The Darwin-laced article assumes these mechanisms appeared under selection pressure because it works!!! No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it. The article is filled with descriptions of semi-possum behaviors, all instinctual (note my bold). It tries to assume predators recognize death, but that is not the same as understanding the concept of dying or being dead by the acting possum. The final paragraph is the standard Darwinian attack on our exceptionalism. The article strains to make a comparison with humans who 'freeze' when frightened or startled. What the possum does is amazing and I've observed it on our ranch. Our dog scared her, she flushed her uterus of unfinished babies and went 'dead'.

Natures wonders: termite queens

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 18:02 (868 days ago) @ David Turell

Strange:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/10/30/six_ridiculous_facts_about_termite_que...

"1. Termite queens are absolutely ginormous owing to their grotesquely distended abdomens, which hold enlarged ovaries to pump out lots of eggs. While a worker termite might only be several millimeters in length, a queen can measure as long as four inches. She is essentially an immobile, pulsating egg sac with a head.

2. The queen's physical form makes her extremely adept as an egg factory. A termite queen might lay 30,000 eggs a day, and easily over a hundred million in her lifetime. Each one is dutifully scooped up and carried off to nurseries and groomed by worker termites.

3. Termite queens have the longest known lifespan of any insect. They are known to live thirty to fifty years, longer than most chimpanzees.

4. The queen has a lifelong consort – a "king". Together, they start out as winged "alates" – termites that can reproduce – and fly off to start a colony. When they find a suitable location, they shed their wings and start to mate. They continue to do so exclusively until the queen dies. Unlike the queen, which quickly enlarges, the king remains about the size of a worker termite for his entire existence.

5. When a queen nears the end of her life, her attendants will gather around and lick her, imbibing the nutritious fluids and fats from her body. It's possible that this process is actually what finally kills a termite queen.

6. A termite queen's subjects aren't the only creatures that partake of her flesh, humans do, too. Queens are considered delicacies in many parts of the world, owing to their rarity and rich, fatty flavor. Danish documentarian Andreas Johnsen sampled one and said it tasted like foie gras."

Comment: All part of necessary ecosystems.

Natures wonders: fungus controls male flies

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 03, 2021, 15:05 (867 days ago) @ David Turell

The fungus kills a female fly and induces a male fly to try to mate the dead female to spread its spores:

https://www.science.org/content/article/fungus-lures-male-flies-having-sex-dead-females...

"If you see a dead housefly on a windowsill surrounded by a ghostly halo of tiny white spores, it’s a death trap. The insect was invaded by a fungus that took over its brain, manipulating the fly to find the highest perch it could. From there, the fungus launched its spores into the air to infect as many healthy flies as possible. Even weirder: Males try to mate with dead, fungus-swollen females. Now, a study has revealed the fungus creates a love potion by releasing chemicals that lure flies to increase their chances of infection.

***

"Working with chemical ecologists at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the team found flies infected with the fungus contained many more chemicals than did healthy flies, and the presence and abundance of several of these varied with how long the fly had been infected.

"Some of the chemicals, called methyl-branched alkanes, have previously been found to stimulate male houseflies to mate. The researchers couldn’t identify the fungus’ specific chemical attractant, but they say if it could be isolated and manufactured, it might be useful as a lure to trap houseflies. But meanwhile, the researchers say they are astonished by the fungus’ ability to manipulate its host. “I’m really impressed and amazed by the extent of the adaptation it shows,” de Fine Licht says."

Comment: It is in the same class as fungus control of ants, described here before. Same old question: how chance evolution achieves this complex system?

Natures wonders: another book on instincts

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 04:02 (866 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like Nature's IQ. a book I've mentioned previously:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/new-book-animal-algorithms-spells-fresh-trouble-for-d...

"How do blind mound-building termites know passive heating and cooling strategies that dazzle skilled human architects? What taught the honeybee its dance, or its hive mates how to read the complex message of the dance? How do monarch butterflies known to fly thousands of miles to a single mountainside in Mexico, to a place they’ve never been before?

"The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.

"But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists. “Specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and the Cambrian explosion are inexplicable from a Darwinian viewpoint,” comments Baylor University computer engineer and intelligent design theorist Robert J. Marks. “In this book, Cassell masterfully adds animal algorithms to the list.”

***

“'I happened to read some articles about bird migration and was surprised about how they could navigate so accurately,” Cassel said in explaining what drew him into the study of animal navigation. “Having worked on aircraft navigation systems, I was intrigued to know what method the birds use.”

"There was also a bee experiment from his undergraduate days. “We followed bees as they foraged in a field of flowers,” he says. “One conclusion from the experiment indicated that the bees, rather than searching for food in a random manner, were following a specific efficient strategy. That urged the question as to how an animal with such a small brain is able to do that.'”

Comment: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

Natures wonders: bacteria cause milky seas

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 12:47 (866 days ago) @ David Turell

Still not fully understood:

https://nautil.us/issue/108/change/trillions-of-bacteria-are-screaming-with-light

"tales of seas that glow have popped up alongside mermaids and dragons in nautical lore throughout the ages. While these creatures of fiction appear in many different guises, the appearance of glowing seas is remarkably consistent.

***

"Gathering over 200 accounts of milky seas, they discovered that these massive glowing patches, which would often last for days, were most common in the northwest Indian Ocean and Indonesian waters and occurred most frequently between January and March. Knowing roughly when and where milky seas were most likely to occur, the team next looked for them with satellites equipped with an instrument called the Day/Night Band—a new generation spaceborne low-light imager capable of sensing light roughly 10,000 times fainter than reflected moonlight.

"The “aha” moment came to Miller while flipping through these new images. “I was looking for clouds masquerading as milky seas when I stumbled upon an astounding event south of the island of Java,” he says. Searching additional images from 2012 to 2021, the team discovered 12 events that matched their strict criteria for milky seas—a lot of things can resemble a milky sea from space, says Miller—that occurred approximately one every eight months. The smallest of them was one hundred times the size of Manhattan.

"But what caused the sea to glow in the first place?

***

"Vibrio harveyi bacteria “scream” to be eaten. They can live adrift in seawater but also feel right at home in the guts of fish. Normally these bacteria light up only when they’re living on clumps of dying and decaying algae—biological debris that scientists informally call marine snow—and only when they’re clustered in large numbers. When they’re packed together tightly enough on these clumps, they begin to glow in a kind of community effort to be collectively consumed, like a living fishing lure. In fact, this is why dead fish sometimes glow, as bacteria illuminate their once-living hosts.

"When a single bacterium floats alone in the ocean, lighting up would be a waste of energy. Its light would be so small it would essentially be invisible. But instead imagine that it’s not one bacterium but a million, all crowded together as if on a piece of marine snow. Like concertgoers cracking thousands of glowsticks in unison, suddenly a whole field alights with myriad luminous wands.

"Bacteria have a way of synchronizing their illumination via a process called quorum sensing. Each bacterium releases a small amount of a chemical signal into the surrounding water. As long as the signal is dilute, a bacterium will assume it’s alone. But as the population of bacteria increases, the signal grows stronger, until eventually it gets so strong that all surrounding bacteria sense it. The beat drops, the concert starts, and glowing bacteria light up the night ocean. (My bold)

"Why Vibrio harveyi collectively glow in such large numbers is still a mystery, but team member Steve Haddock, a marine biologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, has some ideas. Haddock thinks their screams may be a kind of accidental cross-wiring. Normally all this would be happening atop marine snow, but if the Vibreo harveyi population grows too dense, it may set off this chain reaction at the surface, rather than on marine snow. Essentially, the bacterial populations get so thick at the surface that each bacterium think it’s a part of a dense colony ready to be eaten.

"Milky seas are most likely to occur in areas that are warm, sundrenched, and—unlike many tropical waters, which are comparatively clear and nutrient poor—full of nutrients. In these areas deep water wells up from the abyss to the surface. This deep water brings essential nutrients and creates the perfect combination of light and fertilizer for a massive algae bloom. Algae are a big component of marine snow, and Vibrio dutifully colonize the algae at the surface, waiting for them to sink. But the algae and bacteria bloom so quickly, Haddock thinks, they reach a density that triggers glowing before they begin to sink.

"Without a fish to swallow them up, this light may signal the end for these bacteria. Even worse for bacteria hoping to glom onto marine snow and sink, thus making them more attractive to nearby fish, milky seas appear shockingly superficial. The wake of ships parting milky seas are often deep black, suggesting this whole glow occupies only a thin layer right at the top of the water. But if this is the case, could there be a luminous storm of marine snow slowly sinking beneath the surface? Haddock isn’t sure—he suspects the bacteria may die before they sink too deeply—but until scientists can find and travel to a milky sea, no one can be sure."

Comment: Is it part of a Vibrio harveyi lifecycle or just a weird feeding on algae accident? Quarum sensing is beautifully described in the bold. I interpret it as every bacterium releases the signal chemical and if enough individuals are present they sense each other from the concentration level. Our cells sense concentration levels all the time in maintaining our bodies in equilibrium.

Natures wonders: whale poop ecosystem

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 13:00 (866 days ago) @ David Turell

Another important ecosystem is now understood:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/baleen-whales-eat-poop-more-food-ecosystem?utm_sour...

"A new study finds that baleen whales, including blue and humpback whales, eat on average three times as much krill and other food as previously thought, and more food in means more poop out. Paradoxically, the collapse of the krill may stem from fewer whales excreting iron-rich, digested krill, denying these ecosystems some crucial nutrients they need to thrive. Phytoplankton blooms, which sustain krill and many other parts of the food web, rely on that iron. Restoring whale populations to prewhaling levels could help bolster these ecosystems and even store more carbon in the ocean, researchers report in the Nov. 4 Nature.

***

"It turns out that, on average, baleen whales eat about three times as much food as earlier estimates suggested. For example, a blue whale can put down 16 metric tons of krill in a day, the researchers found. Energetically, that’s equivalent to around 10 million to 20 million calories, or about 30,000 Big Macs, Savoca says.

"Whales aren’t eating that much every day. The animals go for months without a bite when migrating vast distances. But the sheer volume of food that they consume, and then excrete, suggests that whales shape ocean ecosystems to a larger degree than previously thought, Savoca says, making their loss that much more impactful.

"That’s because one role whales play is that of nutrient cycler. By feeding on iron-rich krill in the deep and returning some of that iron to the surface in the form of poop, whales help keep this crucial element in the food web. Excessive whaling might have broken this iron cycle. With less iron at the surface, phytoplankton blooms shrink, krill numbers crash and the ecosystem becomes less productive, Savoca says.

"Before industrial whaling killed millions of whales in the 20th century, the researchers estimate that baleen whales in just the Southern Ocean alone, a key feeding area, consumed 430 million metric tons of krill each year, more than twice the biomass of all krill that’s found in those waters today (SN: 3/4/21). Even with today’s diminished populations, researchers estimate that whales prevent approximately 1,200 metric tons of iron from being lost each year, left to drift down to the dark deep of the Southern Ocean.

"Whales are likely not the only factor behind the staggering loss of krill, Savoca says, but the evidence suggests that “whales play a role here, and when you wholesale remove them, the system becomes, on average, less productive.”

"Some whale populations are rebounding (SN: 11/18/19). If whales and krill could be brought back to their early 1900s numbers, the productivity of the Southern Ocean could be boosted by 11 percent, the researchers calculate. That increased productivity would translate into more carbon-rich bodies, from krill to blue whales, which together would store 215 million metric tons of carbon annually, the equivalent of taking more than 170 million cars off the road for a year, the team suggests."

Comment: another example of the importance of top predators, and human damage to an ecosystem which is part of the huge necessary bush of life supplying food for all.

Natures wonders: microorganisms produce elemental carbon

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 14:54 (856 days ago) @ David Turell

Limited to a few types of methanogens and anaerobic methanotrophs:

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/934753

"New research at Virginia Tech, the University of Bremen, and the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology has revealed that two kinds of microorganisms - methanogens and anaerobic methanotrophs – are able to produce a form of elemental carbon known as amorphous carbon.

***

“'We never thought that amorphous carbon could be produced by living organisms because of the normally extreme chemical reactions that are needed to form it,” said Robert White, an emeritus professor of biochemistry in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “This is the first report of amorphous carbon being produced by any organism on Earth, and we are very interested in the possible implications it may have for the carbon cycle.”

***

"Amorphous carbon is a form of elemental carbon that lacks the hard, crystalline structure of graphite or diamond. The substance is usually formed under extreme temperatures and pressures, or during the burning of organic matter.

***

"The microorganisms thrive in areas with high amounts of decayed organic matter and low-oxygen, such as wetlands, landfills, and cow stomachs. As these microorganisms eat the breakdown products of organic matter, they produce methane.

"The methane produced by these methanogens accounts for 90 percent of biologically produced methane, with 31 percent of this coming from cows alone.

***

"In other experiments with anaerobic methanotrophs, researchers found even more black material. Anaerobic methanotrophs are microorganisms that also thrive in the low-oxygen areas, but instead prefer the ocean floor. As they consume the methane that is seeping from the ocean floor, they convert it into carbon dioxide."

Comment: The metabolic mechanisms in these organisms is not yet known, but this is an important bit of new information about Earth's carbon cycle, further showing how all processes on Earth are intertwined.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 14:15 (852 days ago) @ David Turell

Tiny brains are programmed for distant travel:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/navigational-genius-not-just-for-the-birds/

"Approximately 3.5 trillion insects migrate annually just within the United Kingdom. The magnitude and scope of insect migration is impressive. So too is their steadiness of purpose in these long treks. It used to be thought that insect migration basically consisted of moving with the wind, in whatever direction it happened to be blowing, but research has shown otherwise. Studies of insect migration in the UK found that the direction of migration is consistently north in the spring and south in the fall, and the insects frequently fly in a direction different from the prevailing winds. Clearly these insect navigators have a purpose they are pursuing, wind direction be hanged.

"Purpose and tenacity are common hallmarks of insect navigators. Take honey bees. They face many navigational difficulties related to foraging and establishing new colonies. In covering as much as 150 square miles around a nest, they use several methods of navigating, including visual landmarks, sun compass, and polarized light compass. Each is employed depending upon the circumstances. Under good visual conditions with sufficient references the bees navigate primarily by visual landmarks, while also maintaining the sun-compass information. On cloudy days when the sun is not directly visible they can use the polarized sunlight compass.

"When a scout bee locates a good feeding source, it navigates back to the hive and communicates the location of the feeding source through what is known as a waggle dance. The Goulds call this curious dance “the second most information-rich exchange in the animal world,”5 second only to human language. That is quite a statement considering the communication is by insects with only 950,000 neurons, compared to humans with about eighty-five billion. Honey bee brains are less than one cubic millimeter in size. That is, a thousand of their brains together wouldn’t amount to even a single cubic centimeter. A curiosity is that honey bees have brains only about half the volume of bumble bee brains, yet exhibit a larger repertoire and more complex behaviors than bumble bees.

"While the details of the waggle dance are still not completely understood, a significant amount of research, starting with Karl von Frisch, has revealed the basic methodology. The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week. The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees. Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning. (my bold)

***

"...the waggle dance communicates the full vector information (direction and distance) necessary for other bees to locate the food source. Another impressive aspect of the waggle-dance communication: it compensates for the movement of the sun over time. Thus, when the bees perform the dance and convey the vector angle leading to the food source, they adjust the angle based on the time of day.

"Everything about this behavior is complex. It starts with bee foragers being able to determine the distance and compass heading relative to the food source. The bees must then translate this information into a message they convey to other bees via the dance. Other bees in the nest then must be able to interpret this information and use it to navigate to the food source. How can their tiny bee brains manage all this? Australian biologists Andrew Barron and Jenny Plath note that despite bee researchers investigating the subject at great length, “We still know very little about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting how dances are produced and interpreted.

***

"While these theories may appear reasonable at first blush, given the complexity of the behavior it is unclear how a Darwinian process can be a plausible explanation. There is a suite of individual capabilities and behaviors involved (including navigation, data processing, mathematics, and communication), requiring an engineering process as well as the development of computational algorithms, which are encoded in the brains of honey bees. Such information-rich programs are not known to spring up through a series of small, purposeless evolutionary steps, with or without the benefit of something like natural selection. And there is nothing approaching a detailed proposal, credible or otherwise, for how these complexities might have developed in the case of honey bee communication and navigation."

Comment: this is implanted automaticity in tiny brains. Note my bold. It must be designed as stepwise development is impossible.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Friday, November 19, 2021, 08:30 (851 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Everything about this behavior is complex. It starts with bee foragers being able to determine the distance and compass heading relative to the food source. The bees must then translate this information into a message they convey to other bees via the dance. Other bees in the nest then must be able to interpret this information and use it to navigate to the food source. How can their tiny bee brains manage all this? Australian biologists Andrew Barron and Jenny Plath note that despite bee researchers investigating the subject at great length, “We still know very little about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting how dances are produced and interpreted.

And we still know very little about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting how our human thoughts are produced and interpreted. But we see ourselves as intelligent.

QUOTE: The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week. The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees. Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning. (DAVID’s bold)

Clearly the innate capabilities include learning a language and being able to process information, make calculations, and communicate the information to other members of the species – just like us humans. I don’t understand the expression “pre-programmed learning” unless it means that the baby honey bee learns what other honey bees have learnt before them – just as human babies do. Learning itself is a sign of intelligence.

QUOTE: There is a suite of individual capabilities and behaviors involved (including navigation, data processing, mathematics, and communication), requiring an engineering process as well as the development of computational algorithms, which are encoded in the brains of honey bees.

DAVID: this is implanted automaticity in tiny brains. Note my bold. It must be designed as stepwise development is impossible.

Nobody knows how any of these wonders originated. We can only speculate. Once a system is in place, the organism will use it. What we have here, it seems to me, is an exact equivalent, on a far, far smaller scale, of the way we humans behave. The child is born with an innate intelligence. It learns the language and it gets to know its environment and whatever tasks are demanded of it. Apparently it takes the bee a week to learn the language, and it spends the rest of its life navigating, data processing, calculating, communicating, just like every other insect and animal, including humans. I suggest we use our intelligence to make all the decisions involved in our vast range of behaviours, while the bee uses its intelligence to make all the decisions involved in its infinitely smaller range of behaviour.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Friday, November 19, 2021, 15:53 (851 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Everything about this behavior is complex. It starts with bee foragers being able to determine the distance and compass heading relative to the food source. The bees must then translate this information into a message they convey to other bees via the dance. Other bees in the nest then must be able to interpret this information and use it to navigate to the food source. How can their tiny bee brains manage all this? Australian biologists Andrew Barron and Jenny Plath note that despite bee researchers investigating the subject at great length, “We still know very little about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting how dances are produced and interpreted.

dhw: And we still know very little about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting how our human thoughts are produced and interpreted. But we see ourselves as intelligent.

QUOTE: The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week. The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees. Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Clearly the innate capabilities include learning a language and being able to process information, make calculations, and communicate the information to other members of the species – just like us humans. I don’t understand the expression “pre-programmed learning” unless it means that the baby honey bee learns what other honey bees have learnt before them – just as human babies do. Learning itself is a sign of intelligence.

To me pre-preprogrammed learning means their brains come with a preset program which activates over one week, in which much of what is needed for interpretation is given and some rapid learning is allowed. Much like babies preset for language learning.


QUOTE: There is a suite of individual capabilities and behaviors involved (including navigation, data processing, mathematics, and communication), requiring an engineering process as well as the development of computational algorithms, which are encoded in the brains of honey bees.

DAVID: this is implanted automaticity in tiny brains. Note my bold. It must be designed as stepwise development is impossible.

dhw: Nobody knows how any of these wonders originated. We can only speculate. Once a system is in place, the organism will use it. What we have here, it seems to me, is an exact equivalent, on a far, far smaller scale, of the way we humans behave. The child is born with an innate intelligence. It learns the language and it gets to know its environment and whatever tasks are demanded of it. Apparently it takes the bee a week to learn the language, and it spends the rest of its life navigating, data processing, calculating, communicating, just like every other insect and animal, including humans. I suggest we use our intelligence to make all the decisions involved in our vast range of behaviours, while the bee uses its intelligence to make all the decisions involved in its infinitely smaller range of behaviour.

The waggle dances are complex, give much information to be automatically interpreted, so learning in one week is automaticity of implanted 'intelligence'.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 12:16 (850 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Clearly the innate capabilities include learning a language and being able to process information, make calculations, and communicate the information to other members of the species – just like us humans. I don’t understand the expression “pre-programmed learning” unless it means that the baby honey bee learns what other honey bees have learnt before them – just as human babies do. Learning itself is a sign of intelligence.

DAVID: To me pre-preprogrammed learning means their brains come with a preset program which activates over one week, in which much of what is needed for interpretation is given and some rapid learning is allowed. Much like babies preset for language learning.

Thank you for accepting the comparison with human babies. Just as human babies eventually use their intelligence to go on learning and applying what they learn, I suggest that bees do the same, though on a much smaller scale and in a much shorter time.

DAVID: The waggle dances are complex, give much information to be automatically interpreted, so learning in one week is automaticity of implanted 'intelligence'.

The complexity is all the more indicative of intelligence, as the bee has a wide variety of information and movements to choose from. I have no idea why you have inserted “automatically” in front of “interpreted”. What is the difference between human interpretation of information and bee interpretation of information? “Implanted” intelligence means the intelligence is already present (source unknown), as it is in human babies, and I suggest that both bees and humans learn to use their own forms of perception, information-processing, communication and decision-making (= intelligence) as they mature. The only difference is the scale and the time span.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 19:40 (849 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Clearly the innate capabilities include learning a language and being able to process information, make calculations, and communicate the information to other members of the species – just like us humans. I don’t understand the expression “pre-programmed learning” unless it means that the baby honey bee learns what other honey bees have learnt before them – just as human babies do. Learning itself is a sign of intelligence.

DAVID: To me pre-preprogrammed learning means their brains come with a preset program which activates over one week, in which much of what is needed for interpretation is given and some rapid learning is allowed. Much like babies preset for language learning.

dhw: Thank you for accepting the comparison with human babies. Just as human babies eventually use their intelligence to go on learning and applying what they learn, I suggest that bees do the same, though on a much smaller scale and in a much shorter time.

DAVID: The waggle dances are complex, give much information to be automatically interpreted, so learning in one week is automaticity of implanted 'intelligence'.

dhw: The complexity is all the more indicative of intelligence, as the bee has a wide variety of information and movements to choose from. I have no idea why you have inserted “automatically” in front of “interpreted”. What is the difference between human interpretation of information and bee interpretation of information? “Implanted” intelligence means the intelligence is already present (source unknown), as it is in human babies, and I suggest that both bees and humans learn to use their own forms of perception, information-processing, communication and decision-making (= intelligence) as they mature. The only difference is the scale and the time span.

The waggle dance is complex giving direction and distance to be interpreted. How to interpret the dance must be quite a brief but concise program implanted in the larval bee brain which automatically becomes active at one week, as the article tells us. The baby bee can't use it until it understands it by watching dances repeatedly. In that time frame it must be automatic, just as a baby suckles automatically when discovering the breast nipple when offered to it. Any insertion will start suckling ( a finger tip).

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 10:49 (849 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The waggle dance is complex giving direction and distance to be interpreted. How to interpret the dance must be quite a brief but concise program implanted in the larval bee brain which automatically becomes active at one week, as the article tells us.

It is not the larva brain. “The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.”
There is no way the dance could be interpreted without knowledge of directions and distances! And we are told that the bee’s brain changes as it learns – precisely as the human brain does (remember the illiterate women and the taxi drivers): “The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees." Why would the brain change if the programme was already in there?

DAVID: The baby bee can't use it until it understands it by watching dances repeatedly. In that time frame it must be automatic, just as a baby suckles automatically when discovering the breast nipple when offered to it. Any insertion will start suckling ( a finger tip).

The adult worker bee is not an automatically suckling baby! It learns to work out directions and distances, and about the individual movements that convey these, and it even learns to perform the movements! The fact that it can do so within a week is testimony to its intelligence, but since it will only live for six to eight weeks, I don’t think there would be much honey around if it took any longer. As I said earlier, the difference between them and us is scale and time span. So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity. And while you're at it, since you believe bees have no intelligence of their own, please tell us whether you think that 3.8 thousand million years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for bees and their dance (along with every other life form and natural wonder), or popped in at some time to give the original bee-dancers courses in direction-finding and body-wiggles.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 16:32 (849 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The waggle dance is complex giving direction and distance to be interpreted. How to interpret the dance must be quite a brief but concise program implanted in the larval bee brain which automatically becomes active at one week, as the article tells us.

dhw: It is not the larva brain. “The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.”
There is no way the dance could be interpreted without knowledge of directions and distances! And we are told that the bee’s brain changes as it learns – precisely as the human brain does (remember the illiterate women and the taxi drivers): “The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees." Why would the brain change if the programme was already in there?

What you do no appreciate is the imbedded program causes the brain cells to change on command.


DAVID: The baby bee can't use it until it understands it by watching dances repeatedly. In that time frame it must be automatic, just as a baby suckles automatically when discovering the breast nipple when offered to it. Any insertion will start suckling ( a finger tip).

dhw: The adult worker bee is not an automatically suckling baby! It learns to work out directions and distances, and about the individual movements that convey these, and it even learns to perform the movements! The fact that it can do so within a week is testimony to its intelligence, but since it will only live for six to eight weeks, I don’t think there would be much honey around if it took any longer. As I said earlier, the difference between them and us is scale and time span. So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity.

The tiny algorithm, the term used by the author, automatically controls the changes in brain neurons.

dhw: And while you're at it, since you believe bees have no intelligence of their own, please tell us whether you think that 3.8 thousand million years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for bees and their dance (along with every other life form and natural wonder), or popped in at some time to give the original bee-dancers courses in direction-finding and body-wiggles.

Same old question: Programmed or dabbled, it has to be one or the other. I am not a deist.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Monday, November 22, 2021, 13:31 (848 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The waggle dance is complex giving direction and distance to be interpreted. How to interpret the dance must be quite a brief but concise program implanted in the larval bee brain which automatically becomes active at one week, as the article tells us.

dhw: It is not the larva brain. “The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.”
There is no way the dance could be interpreted without knowledge of directions and distances! And we are told that the bee’s brain changes as it learns – precisely as the human brain does (remember the illiterate women and the taxi drivers): “The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees." Why would the brain change if the programme was already in there?

DAVID: What you do no appreciate is the imbedded program causes the brain cells to change on command.

Are you saying that the new adults don’t learn anything? Perhaps you could tell us precisely what this “imbedded program” consists of, and how it puts all the individual distances and directions and movements into the bee’s brain so that the bee doesn’t have to do any learning or thinking of its own.

DAVID: The baby bee can't use it until it understands it by watching dances repeatedly. In that time frame it must be automatic, just as a baby suckles automatically when discovering the breast nipple when offered to it. Any insertion will start suckling ( a finger tip).

dhw: The adult worker bee is not an automatically suckling baby! It learns to work out directions and distances, and about the individual movements that convey these, and it even learns to perform the movements! The fact that it can do so within a week is testimony to its intelligence, but since it will only live for six to eight weeks, I don’t think there would be much honey around if it took any longer. As I said earlier, the difference between them and us is scale and time span. So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity.

DAVID: The tiny algorithm, the term used by the author, automatically controls the changes in brain neurons.

That simply means that when the bee or the human learns something new, the brain changes. It does not mean that humans have an autonomous intelligence that enables them to learn, whereas bees can only follow God’s instructions. Once more, what does your God’s programme consist of?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Monday, November 22, 2021, 15:18 (848 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The waggle dance is complex giving direction and distance to be interpreted. How to interpret the dance must be quite a brief but concise program implanted in the larval bee brain which automatically becomes active at one week, as the article tells us.

dhw: It is not the larva brain. “The behavior develops in adult honey bees who have emerged from the pupa stage and chewed through the protective cell to join the colony. Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.”
There is no way the dance could be interpreted without knowledge of directions and distances! And we are told that the bee’s brain changes as it learns – precisely as the human brain does (remember the illiterate women and the taxi drivers): “The development includes electrophysiological changes in brain neurons, evident when comparing mature foragers with newly emerged bees." Why would the brain change if the programme was already in there?

DAVID: What you do no appreciate is the imbedded program causes the brain cells to change on command.

dhw: Are you saying that the new adults don’t learn anything? Perhaps you could tell us precisely what this “imbedded program” consists of, and how it puts all the individual distances and directions and movements into the bee’s brain so that the bee doesn’t have to do any learning or thinking of its own.

The DNA of the bee's neurons contains the program's algorithm, as the author of the article proposes. Specifically, this is not equivalent of adults learning new functions or facts. It does resemble the way children pick up language quickly, although not exactly the same time frame. as you noted.


DAVID: The baby bee can't use it until it understands it by watching dances repeatedly. In that time frame it must be automatic, just as a baby suckles automatically when discovering the breast nipple when offered to it. Any insertion will start suckling ( a finger tip).

dhw: The adult worker bee is not an automatically suckling baby! It learns to work out directions and distances, and about the individual movements that convey these, and it even learns to perform the movements! The fact that it can do so within a week is testimony to its intelligence, but since it will only live for six to eight weeks, I don’t think there would be much honey around if it took any longer. As I said earlier, the difference between them and us is scale and time span. So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity.

DAVID: The tiny algorithm, the term used by the author, automatically controls the changes in brain neurons.

dhw: That simply means that when the bee or the human learns something new, the brain changes. It does not mean that humans have an autonomous intelligence that enables them to learn, whereas bees can only follow God’s instructions. Once more, what does your God’s programme consist of?

See above.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 13:09 (847 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you do no appreciate is the imbedded program causes the brain cells to change on command.

dhw: Are you saying that the new adults don’t learn anything? Perhaps you could tell us precisely what this “imbedded program” consists of, and how it puts all the individual distances and directions and movements into the bee’s brain so that the bee doesn’t have to do any learning or thinking of its own.

DAVID: The DNA of the bee's neurons contains the program's algorithm, as the author of the article proposes. Specifically, this is not equivalent of adults learning new functions or facts. It does resemble the way children pick up language quickly, although not exactly the same time frame. as you noted.

That doesn’t tell me what your “imbedded program” programmes. Children cannot possibly learn language without using their intelligence to understand new functions and facts! And calculating directions and distances and communicating information about them to others would hardly be possible without learning about facts and functions! You have highlighted a similar learning procedure in the article on children and humour (progressively acting like animals, playing with concepts, making fun of others, playing with social rules). The bees follow the same course of learning, but with a vastly more limited repertoire of facts and functions and over a vastly shorter period of time.

dhw: So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity.

DAVID: The tiny algorithm, the term used by the author, automatically controls the changes in brain neurons.

dhw: That simply means that when the bee or the human learns something new, the brain changes. It does not mean that humans have an autonomous intelligence that enables them to learn, whereas bees can only follow God’s instructions. Once more, what does your God’s programme consist of?

DAVID: See above.

You have not told us what this so-called programme consists of. Let me make a suggestion: bees, like human children and adults, are born with a mechanism that enables them to learn facts and functions. This mechanism (possibly designed by your God) is such that when something new is learned, the brain undergoes changes. The nature of the mechanism is unknown, but it is the same for all: a form of intelligence which enables the cells of the organism to make perceptions (i.e. learn facts), process information, communicate it to others, and make decisions (i.e. perform functions). What you call the “imbedded program” is the ABILITY to learn etc. If you disagree, then once more please tell us what your 3.8-billion-year-old (or more recently dabbled) “imbedded program” consists of.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 15:42 (847 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The DNA of the bee's neurons contains the program's algorithm, as the author of the article proposes. Specifically, this is not equivalent of adults learning new functions or facts. It does resemble the way children pick up language quickly, although not exactly the same time frame. as you noted.

dhw: That doesn’t tell me what your “imbedded program” programmes. Children cannot possibly learn language without using their intelligence to understand new functions and facts! And calculating directions and distances and communicating information about them to others would hardly be possible without learning about facts and functions! You have highlighted a similar learning procedure in the article on children and humour (progressively acting like animals, playing with concepts, making fun of others, playing with social rules). The bees follow the same course of learning, but with a vastly more limited repertoire of facts and functions and over a vastly shorter period of time.

The author calls it an algorithm. Definition:

"A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a certain goal and that has a recognizable set of end conditions. [or]
a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem; a set of procedures guaranteed to find the solution to a problem."

What more do you want?


dhw: So please explain why you think human learning denotes autonomous intelligence but bee learning denotes automaticity.

DAVID: The tiny algorithm, the term used by the author, automatically controls the changes in brain neurons.

dhw: That simply means that when the bee or the human learns something new, the brain changes. It does not mean that humans have an autonomous intelligence that enables them to learn, whereas bees can only follow God’s instructions. Once more, what does your God’s programme consist of?

DAVID: See above.

dhw: You have not told us what this so-called programme consists of. Let me make a suggestion: bees, like human children and adults, are born with a mechanism that enables them to learn facts and functions. This mechanism (possibly designed by your God) is such that when something new is learned, the brain undergoes changes. The nature of the mechanism is unknown, but it is the same for all: a form of intelligence which enables the cells of the organism to make perceptions (i.e. learn facts), process information, communicate it to others, and make decisions (i.e. perform functions). What you call the “imbedded program” is the ABILITY to learn etc. If you disagree, then once more please tell us what your 3.8-billion-year-old (or more recently dabbled) “imbedded program” consists of.

The algorithm is an imbedded set of instructions activated in one week in bees, as defined above, using the author's computer analogies..

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 08:40 (846 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The DNA of the bee's neurons contains the program's algorithm, as the author of the article proposes. Specifically, this is not equivalent of adults learning new functions or facts. It does resemble the way children pick up language quickly, although not exactly the same time frame. as you noted.

dhw: That doesn’t tell me what your “imbedded program” programmes. Children cannot possibly learn language without using their intelligence to understand new functions and facts! And calculating directions and distances and communicating information about them to others would hardly be possible without learning about facts and functions! You have highlighted a similar learning procedure in the article on children and humour (progressively acting like animals, playing with concepts, making fun of others, playing with social rules). The bees follow the same course of learning, but with a vastly more limited repertoire of facts and functions and over a vastly shorter period of time.

DAVID: The author calls it an algorithm. Definition:
"A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a certain goal and that has a recognizable set of end conditions. [or]
a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem; a set of procedures guaranteed to find the solution to a problem."
What more do you want?

According to you, all the natural wonders and all the solutions to problems other than human ones are preprogrammed by God’s instructions, and all you have done now is to give those instructions a posh-sounding scientific name: algorithms. Bacteria have solved countless problems throughout their history, and continue to do so. How many “algorithms” did your God plant in them 3.8 billion years ago? Or does he pop in and insert a new one every time there’s a new problem? You have compared bees’ learning to that of children learning a language. Children perceive facts, learn the sounds that are associated with those facts, use those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually take decisions if the facts require a decision. Bees perceive facts, learn the movements that are associated with those facts, use the movements to communicate with others and eventually take decisions. Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 15:15 (846 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The DNA of the bee's neurons contains the program's algorithm, as the author of the article proposes. Specifically, this is not equivalent of adults learning new functions or facts. It does resemble the way children pick up language quickly, although not exactly the same time frame. as you noted.

dhw: That doesn’t tell me what your “imbedded program” programmes. Children cannot possibly learn language without using their intelligence to understand new functions and facts! And calculating directions and distances and communicating information about them to others would hardly be possible without learning about facts and functions! You have highlighted a similar learning procedure in the article on children and humour (progressively acting like animals, playing with concepts, making fun of others, playing with social rules). The bees follow the same course of learning, but with a vastly more limited repertoire of facts and functions and over a vastly shorter period of time.

DAVID: The author calls it an algorithm. Definition:
"A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a certain goal and that has a recognizable set of end conditions. [or]
a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem; a set of procedures guaranteed to find the solution to a problem."
What more do you want?

dhw: According to you, all the natural wonders and all the solutions to problems other than human ones are preprogrammed by God’s instructions, and all you have done now is to give those instructions a posh-sounding scientific name: algorithms. Bacteria have solved countless problems throughout their history, and continue to do so. How many “algorithms” did your God plant in them 3.8 billion years ago? Or does he pop in and insert a new one every time there’s a new problem? You have compared bees’ learning to that of children learning a language. Children perceive facts, learn the sounds that are associated with those facts, use those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually take decisions if the facts require a decision. Bees perceive facts, learn the movements that are associated with those facts, use the movements to communicate with others and eventually take decisions. Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Thursday, November 25, 2021, 09:06 (845 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Children perceive facts, learn the sounds that are associated with those facts, use those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually take decisions if the facts require a decision. Bees perceive facts, learn the movements that are associated with those facts, use the movements to communicate with others and eventually take decisions. Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

DAVID: We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

We are not back to that debate. You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 25, 2021, 15:36 (845 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Children perceive facts, learn the sounds that are associated with those facts, use those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually take decisions if the facts require a decision. Bees perceive facts, learn the movements that are associated with those facts, use the movements to communicate with others and eventually take decisions. Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

DAVID: We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

dhw: We are not back to that debate. You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

I'm still with the author: all algorithm from an intelligent designer

Natures wonders: Monarchs use toxic Milkweed

by David Turell @, Friday, November 26, 2021, 15:10 (844 days ago) @ David Turell

From special mutations, which are also in Monarch-eating annimals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211122135324.htm

"In high enough concentrations, milkweed can kill a horse, or a human. To be able to eat this plant, monarchs evolved a set of unusual cellular mutations. New research shows the animals that prey on monarchs also evolved these same mutations.

"Scientists now understand how certain animals can feed on picturesque, orange monarch butterflies, which are filled from head to abdomen with milkweed plant toxins.

***

"A Current Biology journal article, published today, describes the research that revealed these mutations in four types of monarch predators -- a bird, a mouse, a parasitic wasp, and a worm.

"'It's remarkable that concurrent evolution occurred at the molecular level in all these animals," said UCR evolutionary biologist and study lead Simon "Niels" Groen. "Plant toxins caused evolutionary changes across at least three levels of the food chain!" (my bold)

"Milkweed toxins target a part of animal cells called the sodium-potassium pump, which helps enable heartbeats and nerve firing. It's so important in humans that our bodies use a third of all the energy we generate from food to power this pump. When most animals eat milkweed, the pump stops working.

"Two years ago, Groen and his colleagues wrote about amino acid changes in three places on the pump that not only allow monarch butterflies to consume milkweed, but also to accumulate the milkweed toxins in their bodies as a defense against attacks.

***

"The researchers took DNA sequence information from databases for a variety of birds, wasps, and nematode worms to see if any of them evolved the amino acid changes in their sodium pumps. One of the four animals in which the team found the pump mutations includes the black-headed grosbeak, which eats up to 60% of the monarch butterflies in many colonies each year."

Comment: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations (my bold)? Either the germ cells in each of the various animals 'knew' what to do in three places on the sodium-potassium pump, or the designer helped them.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Sunday, November 28, 2021, 12:25 (842 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

DAVID: We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

dhw: We are not back to that debate. You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

DAVID: I'm still with the author: all algorithm from an intelligent designer
So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

dhw: Are you now saying that your God placed an algorithm in the human brain for children to learn a language, or do you think he gave them the intelligence to learn it? I see no difference between these processes other than scale and time span. Or have you now decided that humans are also automatons?

DAVID: We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

dhw: We are not back to that debate. You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

DAVID: I'm still with the author: all algorithm from an intelligent designer

So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 28, 2021, 15:56 (842 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We are back to the debate of how kids learn to handle language. They appear to have a built-in ability to sop it up very easily until age ten after which they learn a new language with an accent but otherwise handle the new one very competently. The theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. As for the use of 'poshness' words, blame the author of the article.

dhw: We are not back to that debate. You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

DAVID: I'm still with the author: all algorithm from an intelligent designer

dhw: So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

Wait: how do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left? The goal has direction and distance and when arriving there it must be recognized as the endpoint, unless direction and distance are precisely coded in advance. That is the author's point.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 07:03 (840 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You had compared bees learning the dance to children learning their language. I am more than happy with your statement that the theories involve an inborn ability which could be from God. No algorithm, no set of precise instructions on which movements or words will convey which distances and directions, or which sounds correspond to which facts. The inborn ability can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

DAVID: I'm still with the author: all algorithm from an intelligent designer

dhw: So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

DAVID: Wait: how do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left? The goal has direction and distance and when arriving there it must be recognized as the endpoint, unless direction and distance are precisely coded in advance. That is the author's point.

Why must I wait for you to respond to the point that I have raised above? Please explain the difference between the two processes of learning.
Where does the article say the new adults don’t leave the hive? It just says they learn the dance within a week. Of course the goal has direction and distance and an endpoint – that is the whole purpose of the dance! And of course the movements are precisely “coded” – all the younger bees have gone through the process of learning from the older bees which movements denote which directions and distances will lead to which endpoints! Just as we humans learn which sounds denote which objects and which actions lead to which endpoints.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 14:53 (840 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

DAVID: Wait: how do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left? The goal has direction and distance and when arriving there it must be recognized as the endpoint, unless direction and distance are precisely coded in advance. That is the author's point.

dhw: Why must I wait for you to respond to the point that I have raised above? Please explain the difference between the two processes of learning.
Where does the article say the new adults don’t leave the hive? It just says they learn the dance within a week. Of course the goal has direction and distance and an endpoint – that is the whole purpose of the dance! And of course the movements are precisely “coded” – all the younger bees have gone through the process of learning from the older bees which movements denote which directions and distances will lead to which endpoints! Just as we humans learn which sounds denote which objects and which actions lead to which endpoints.

You have come up with a theory not in the article: as the larvae develop into full adults BEFORE leaving the hive, they recognize the information in the dance from an automatic algorithm which fully develops automatically in their brain. Not learned from adults in a classroom.

Natures wonders: review of ant bridge algorithm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 01, 2021, 14:44 (839 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, December 01, 2021, 14:59

Individual ant simple response is the key:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-simple-algorithm-that-ants-use-to-build-bridges-2018...

"...army ants manage this coordination with no leader and with minimal cognitive resources. An individual army ant is practically blind and has a minuscule brain that couldn’t begin to fathom their elaborate collective movement. “There is no leader, no architect ant saying ‘we need to build here,’” said Simon Garnier, director of the Swarm Lab at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and co-author of a new study that predicts when an army ant colony will decide to build a bridge.

***

"To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back. At this point, two simple rules kick in.

"The first tells the ant that when it feels other ants walking on its back, it should freeze. “As long as someone walks over you, you stay put,” Garnier said.

"This same process repeats in the other ants: They step over the first ant, but — uh-oh — the gap is still there, so the next ant in line slows, gets trampled and freezes in place. In this way, the ants build a bridge long enough to span whatever gap is in front of them. The trailing ants in the colony then walk over it.

***

"Except, of course, individual ants have no idea how many of their colony-mates are holding fast over a gap. And this is where the second rule kicks in. As individual ants run the “bridging” algorithm, they have a sensitivity to being stampeded. When traffic over their backs is above a certain level, they hold in place, but when it dips below some threshold — perhaps because too many other ants are now occupied in bridge-building themselves — the ant unfreezes and rejoins the march."

Comment: Support of simple insect algorithms. Note I presented ant bridges previously:

Wednesday, November 25, 2015, 02:23

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Thursday, December 02, 2021, 07:42 (838 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

DAVID: Wait: how do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left? The goal has direction and distance and when arriving there it must be recognized as the endpoint, unless direction and distance are precisely coded in advance. That is the author's point.

dhw: Why must I wait for you to respond to the point that I have raised above? Please explain the difference between the two processes of learning.
Where does the article say the new adults don’t leave the hive? It just says they learn the dance within a week. Of course the goal has direction and distance and an endpoint – that is the whole purpose of the dance! And of course the movements are precisely “coded” – all the younger bees have gone through the process of learning from the older bees which movements denote which directions and distances will lead to which endpoints! Just as we humans learn which sounds denote which objects and which actions lead to which endpoints.

DAVID: You have come up with a theory not in the article: as the larvae develop into full adults BEFORE leaving the hive, they recognize the information in the dance from an automatic algorithm which fully develops automatically in their brain. Not learned from adults in a classroom.

It is when they are adults that they learn the dance! And it takes them a week. What do you think they do during that week? Of course the dance won’t be learned from more mature adults standing in the hive pointing to a blackboard! Nor will it be learned by sitting in the hive waiting for your God’s instruction manual to print itself in their brains! They wouldn’t even know what a flower was until they’d seen it, let alone what they should do until they’d practised doing it!

Ant bridge algorithm
QUOTE: "...army ants manage this coordination with no leader and with minimal cognitive resources. An individual army ant is practically blind and has a minuscule brain that couldn’t begin to fathom their elaborate collective movement.”

We’d better start with the attributes of intelligence listed by Shapiro: cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. And we’d better keep in mind that NOBODY knows the source of intelligence, whether human or non-human.

This quote sums up exactly the same pre-judgement as your own. Ants not only build bridges, they build homes of great complexity to house all the different functions of their community, they farm, they devise military strategies of defence and attack, they have a social system that functions a great deal more smoothly than our own...Which of the above attributes do you believe ants do NOT possess? Now consider the human brain. It is a mass of individual cells that form communities. An individual cell seems to me unlikely to be able to compose a symphony or design a rocket to the moon, and yet the collective communities of cells do just that. How? If you think your God created a mechanism whereby human cell communities were able to do their own designing, how can you be so sure that he did not do the same for our fellow creatures, ranging from tiny to colossal? “Large organisms chauvinism” is what Shapiro calls it. You have already dodged my question concerning how bee learning differs from human learning other than through time and scale. Please explain how ant learning, designing, communication and decision-making capabilities etc. differ from our own, other than through time and scale.

QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. I see no point in analysing the rest of this theory.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 02, 2021, 16:06 (838 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So you think children learning to handle language are automatons. No? Then aside from scale and time span, please explain the difference between: 1) children perceiving facts, learning the sounds that are associated with those facts, using those sounds to communicate with others, and eventually taking decisions, and 2) bees perceiving facts, learning the movements that are associated with those facts, using the movements to communicate with others and eventually taking decisions.

DAVID: Wait: how do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left? The goal has direction and distance and when arriving there it must be recognized as the endpoint, unless direction and distance are precisely coded in advance. That is the author's point.

dhw: Why must I wait for you to respond to the point that I have raised above? Please explain the difference between the two processes of learning.
Where does the article say the new adults don’t leave the hive? It just says they learn the dance within a week. Of course the goal has direction and distance and an endpoint – that is the whole purpose of the dance! And of course the movements are precisely “coded” – all the younger bees have gone through the process of learning from the older bees which movements denote which directions and distances will lead to which endpoints! Just as we humans learn which sounds denote which objects and which actions lead to which endpoints.

DAVID: You have come up with a theory not in the article: as the larvae develop into full adults BEFORE leaving the hive, they recognize the information in the dance from an automatic algorithm which fully develops automatically in their brain. Not learned from adults in a classroom.

dhw: It is when they are adults that they learn the dance! And it takes them a week. What do you think they do during that week? Of course the dance won’t be learned from more mature adults standing in the hive pointing to a blackboard! Nor will it be learned by sitting in the hive waiting for your God’s instruction manual to print itself in their brains! They wouldn’t even know what a flower was until they’d seen it, let alone what they should do until they’d practised doing it!

The author states: "Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning." Sure they are taught by watching the dance and have to go out from the hive and experience what they are told to look for. The innate capabilities involve having memorized what they have seen in the dance, which includes how far to fly, the direction, some concept of 'flower', and the author adds the obvious need for 'preprogrammed learning' to integrate it all in seven days. He doesn't say they fly with a co-pilot.


Ant bridge algorithm
QUOTE: "...army ants manage this coordination with no leader and with minimal cognitive resources. An individual army ant is practically blind and has a minuscule brain that couldn’t begin to fathom their elaborate collective movement.”

dhw: We’d better start with the attributes of intelligence listed by Shapiro: cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. And we’d better keep in mind that NOBODY knows the source of intelligence, whether human or non-human.

We know it is a result of evolution providing consciousness wit thought in humans.


dhw: This quote sums up exactly the same pre-judgement as your own. Ants not only build bridges, they build homes of great complexity to house all the different functions of their community, they farm, they devise military strategies of defence and attack, they have a social system that functions a great deal more smoothly than our own...Which of the above attributes do you believe ants do NOT possess? Now consider the human brain. It is a mass of individual cells that form communities. An individual cell seems to me unlikely to be able to compose a symphony or design a rocket to the moon, and yet the collective communities of cells do just that. How? If you think your God created a mechanism whereby human cell communities were able to do their own designing, how can you be so sure that he did not do the same for our fellow creatures, ranging from tiny to colossal? “Large organisms chauvinism” is what Shapiro calls it. You have already dodged my question concerning how bee learning differs from human learning other than through time and scale. Please explain how ant learning, designing, communication and decision-making capabilities etc. differ from our own, other than through time and scale.

As the author suggests it results from individual ants being programmed to do the same response each time. And God could have given the ants brains the design plans


QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. I see no point in analysing the rest of this theory.

You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Friday, December 03, 2021, 08:31 (837 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have come up with a theory not in the article: as the larvae develop into full adults BEFORE leaving the hive, they recognize the information in the dance from an automatic algorithm which fully develops automatically in their brain. Not learned from adults in a classroom.

dhw: It is when they are adults that they learn the dance! And it takes them a week. What do you think they do during that week? Of course the dance won’t be learned from more mature adults standing in the hive pointing to a blackboard! Nor will it be learned by sitting in the hive waiting for your God’s instruction manual to print itself in their brains! […]

DAVID: The author states: "Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning." Sure they are taught by watching the dance and have to go out from the hive and experience what they are told to look for. The innate capabilities involve having memorized what they have seen in the dance, which includes how far to fly, the direction, some concept of 'flower', and the author adds the obvious need for 'preprogrammed learning' to integrate it all in seven days. He doesn't say they fly with a co-pilot.

You asked: “How do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left?” The answer is that they leave the hive! That has to be part of the learning process! So what is “pre-programmed” if they watch the dance, experience what they are told to look for, and memorize all the information you have listed? The capability to learn is innate in them as in us, and what is learned is through instructions from those who have the knowledge, and from experience of the reality to which that knowledge has to be applied. I don’t know about “co-pilots”, but nor does the author say God provided each new adult bee with an instruction manual.

Ant bridge algorithm
QUOTE: "...army ants manage this coordination with no leader and with minimal cognitive resources. An individual army ant is practically blind and has a minuscule brain that couldn’t begin to fathom their elaborate collective movement.”

dhw: We’d better start with the attributes of intelligence listed by Shapiro: cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. And we’d better keep in mind that NOBODY knows the source of intelligence, whether human or non-human.

DAVID: We know it is a result of evolution providing consciousness wit thought in humans.

How does that mean that no form of consciousness or thought evolved in other life forms?

dhw: This quote sums up exactly the same pre-judgement as your own. Ants not only build bridges, they build homes of great complexity to house all the different functions of their community, they farm, they devise military strategies of defence and attack, they have a social system that functions a great deal more smoothly than our own...Which of the above attributes do you believe ants do NOT possess? Now consider the human brain. It is a mass of individual cells that form communities. An individual cell seems to me unlikely to be able to compose a symphony or design a rocket to the moon, and yet the collective communities of cells do just that. How? If you think your God created a mechanism whereby human cell communities were able to do their own designing, how can you be so sure that he did not do the same for our fellow creatures, ranging from tiny to colossal? “Large organisms chauvinism” is what Shapiro calls it. You have already dodged my question concerning how bee learning differs from human learning other than through time and scale. Please explain how ant learning, designing, communication and decision-making capabilities etc. differ from our own, other than through time and scale.

DAVID: As the author suggests it results from individual ants being programmed to do the same response each time. And God could have given the ants brains the design plans

And ants could have designed the “plans” in the first place, and these designs are then handed down to subsequent generations. Your answer to my bolded request is simply a repetition of your fixed belief that bees and ants are automatons!

QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. […]

DAVID: You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

You missed the point that the author has missed the point that ants are not stupid. The first ant stops when it sees a gap (sentience and cognition), and other ants don’t go trampling over its back. They build on each other. The origin of the process of bridge-building – like all their other complex activities – requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. Once the technique has been perfected, it will be handed down – no doubt with adjustments to individual conditions. Once more: how does this differ from human activity, other than through time and scale?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Friday, December 03, 2021, 15:34 (837 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The author states: "Therefore, the behavior appears to be a combination of innate capabilities and pre-programmed learning." Sure they are taught by watching the dance and have to go out from the hive and experience what they are told to look for. The innate capabilities involve having memorized what they have seen in the dance, which includes how far to fly, the direction, some concept of 'flower', and the author adds the obvious need for 'preprogrammed learning' to integrate it all in seven days. He doesn't say they fly with a co-pilot.

dhw: You asked: “How do bees know where to fly for nectar from a hive they have never left?” The answer is that they leave the hive! That has to be part of the learning process! So what is “pre-programmed” if they watch the dance, experience what they are told to look for, and memorize all the information you have listed? The capability to learn is innate in them as in us, and what is learned is through instructions from those who have the knowledge, and from experience of the reality to which that knowledge has to be applied. I don’t know about “co-pilots”, but nor does the author say God provided each new adult bee with an instruction manual.

The author is exactly saying the new bee has an instruction manual to learn the dance meanings. He does not mention God but the source is an ID site.


Ant bridge algorithm

DAVID: We know it is a result of evolution providing consciousness with thought in humans.

dhw: How does that mean that no form of consciousness or thought evolved in other life forms?

Not our degree, and how much automaticity of resposnse?


DAVID: As the author suggests it results from individual ants being programmed to do the same response each time. And God could have given the ants brains the design plans

dhw: And ants could have designed the “plans” in the first place, and these designs are then handed down to subsequent generations. Your answer to my bolded request is simply a repetition of your fixed belief that bees and ants are automatons!

Yes.


QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. […]

DAVID: You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

dhw: You missed the point that the author has missed the point that ants are not stupid. The first ant stops when it sees a gap (sentience and cognition), and other ants don’t go trampling over its back. They build on each other. The origin of the process of bridge-building – like all their other complex activities – requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. Once the technique has been perfected, it will be handed down – no doubt with adjustments to individual conditions. Once more: how does this differ from human activity, other than through time and scale?

Automaticity can explain all of it. We are still on the outside looking at a 50/50 probability, just as in cells.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Sunday, December 05, 2021, 08:21 (835 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The author is exactly saying the new bee has an instruction manual to learn the dance meanings. He does not mention God but the source is an ID site.

But you agree that they watch the dance, learn the movements, experience what they are told to look for, and memorize all the information. If they perform all these actions, what could be in the “manual” other than your God (if he exists) telling them to use the autonomous ability he has given them to watch, learn, experience and memorize?

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: We know it is a result of evolution providing consciousness with thought in humans.

dhw: How does that mean that no form of consciousness or thought evolved in other life forms?

DAVID: Not our degree, and how much automaticity of response?

I have repeatedly said: apart from time and scale. Scale = degree. See below for “automaticity”.

QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. […]

DAVID: You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

dhw: You missed the point that the author has missed the point that ants are not stupid. The first ant stops when it sees a gap (sentience and cognition), and other ants don’t go trampling over its back. They build on each other. The origin of the process of bridge-building – like all their other complex activities – requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. Once the technique has been perfected, it will be handed down – no doubt with adjustments to individual conditions. Once more: how does this differ from human activity, other than through time and scale?


DAVID: Automaticity can explain all of it. We are still on the outside looking at a 50/50 probability, just as in cells.

50/50, but you go on opting for 100% automaticity and refuse to answer my question. Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 05, 2021, 15:59 (835 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The author is exactly saying the new bee has an instruction manual to learn the dance meanings. He does not mention God but the source is an ID site.

dhw: But you agree that they watch the dance, learn the movements, experience what they are told to look for, and memorize all the information. If they perform all these actions, what could be in the “manual” other than your God (if he exists) telling them to use the autonomous ability he has given them to watch, learn, experience and memorize?

The issue is the proposed algorithm's contents. The author implies as they watch the dance they automatically know what it means


Ant bridge algorithm

QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. […]

DAVID: You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

dhw: You missed the point that the author has missed the point that ants are not stupid. The first ant stops when it sees a gap (sentience and cognition), and other ants don’t go trampling over its back. They build on each other. The origin of the process of bridge-building – like all their other complex activities – requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. Once the technique has been perfected, it will be handed down – no doubt with adjustments to individual conditions. Once more: how does this differ from human activity, other than through time and scale?

All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop asv he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

DAVID: Automaticity can explain all of it. We are still on the outside looking at a 50/50 probability, just as in cells.

dhw: 50/50, but you go on opting for 100% automaticity and refuse to answer my question. Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Monday, December 06, 2021, 13:48 (834 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The author is exactly saying the new bee has an instruction manual to learn the dance meanings. He does not mention God but the source is an ID site.

dhw: But you agree that they watch the dance, learn the movements, experience what they are told to look for, and memorize all the information. If they perform all these actions, what could be in the “manual” other than your God (if he exists) telling them to use the autonomous ability he has given them to watch, learn, experience and memorize?

DAVID: The issue is the proposed algorithm's contents. The author implies as they watch the dance they automatically know what it means.

They don’t. According to the author, “Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.” A worker bee born in the summer will live for 6-7 weeks, so the period of learning would be our equivalent of about 10 years. Please stop hiding behind the author’s vague terms. How can the bee possibly know the meaning of the dance if it knows nothing about flowers, distances and directions? You have agreed that they watch and learn the movements, experience what they are told to look for, memorize information, and perform all the actions they have learned over this one-week period. Do you not agree that learning, memorizing, communicating, experiencing and putting theory into practice are characteristic features of intelligence?

Ant bridge algorithm
QUOTE: To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back.

dhw: My guess is that the other 149,999 ants would then fall straight into the water. […]

DAVID: You missed the point they automatically hold on to each other when stepped upon.

dhw: You missed the point that the author has missed the point that ants are not stupid. The first ant stops when it sees a gap (sentience and cognition), and other ants don’t go trampling over its back. They build on each other. The origin of the process of bridge-building – like all their other complex activities – requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. Once the technique has been perfected, it will be handed down – no doubt with adjustments to individual conditions. Once more: how does this differ from human activity, other than through time and scale?

DAVID: All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop as he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

All ants forage for food, so why don’t all species of ant automatically stop and build bridges when they come to gaps? Are you saying that your God specially chose eciton hamatum for his algorithm, because without one species of ant building bridges he could never have designed humans and their food (his one and only purpose)?

DAVID: Automaticity can explain all of it. We are still on the outside looking at a 50/50 probability, just as in cells.

dhw: 50/50, but you go on opting for 100% automaticity and refuse to answer my question. Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to explain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Monday, December 06, 2021, 16:13 (834 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is the proposed algorithm's contents. The author implies as they watch the dance they automatically know what it means.

dhw: They don’t. According to the author, “Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.” A worker bee born in the summer will live for 6-7 weeks, so the period of learning would be our equivalent of about 10 years. Please stop hiding behind the author’s vague terms. How can the bee possibly know the meaning of the dance if it knows nothing about flowers, distances and directions?

Yes how? If you sat in a classroom and were given these vague dances about things you know nothing about, how would you know what to do? But the new bee does, because his brain has an automatic program of interpretation, the author's not so vague point.

dhw: You have agreed that they watch and learn the movements, experience what they are told to look for, memorize information, and perform all the actions they have learned over this one-week period. Do you not agree that learning, memorizing, communicating, experiencing and putting theory into practice are characteristic features of intelligence?

Explained: all done by an implanted algorithm, deep brain interpretation not needed.


Ant bridge algorithm

DAVID: All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop as he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

dhw: All ants forage for food, so why don’t all species of ant automatically stop and build bridges when they come to gaps? Are you saying that your God specially chose eciton hamatum for his algorithm, because without one species of ant building bridges he could never have designed humans and their food (his one and only purpose)?

I would assume, as you should, the Army ants special travels in their special environment required the development of bridge-building skills.


DAVID: Automaticity can explain all of it. We are still on the outside looking at a 50/50 probability, just as in cells.

dhw: 50/50, but you go on opting for 100% automaticity and refuse to answer my question. Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

dhw: Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to explain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.

Fully explained as above by instinctual behaviour and algorithms. I have the right to interpret my 50%, while you doggedly stick to your ubiquitous brilliant consciousness everywhere partially in an attempt to reduce human specialness, diminishing God's special creation.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Tuesday, December 07, 2021, 07:15 (833 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is the proposed algorithm's contents. The author implies as they watch the dance they automatically know what it means.

dhw: They don’t. According to the author, “Honey bees are able to interpret the dance after about one week.” A worker bee born in the summer will live for 6-7 weeks, so the period of learning would be our equivalent of about 10 years. Please stop hiding behind the author’s vague terms. How can the bee possibly know the meaning of the dance if it knows nothing about flowers, distances and directions?

DAVID: Yes how? If you sat in a classroom and were given these vague dances about things you know nothing about, how would you know what to do? But the new bee does, because his brain has an automatic program of interpretation, the author's not so vague point.

You have asked the right question. The bee has to know about flowers, distances and directions before it can interpret the dance. So what is this vague “program of interpretation”? The bee comes with the ABILITY to interpret, and it uses that ability to collate, understand, and memorize all the information which is presented to it, and to translate the information into the appropriate action. How does this differ – other than in time and scale – from the process which drives our own actions?

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop as he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

dhw: All ants forage for food, so why don’t all species of ant automatically stop and build bridges when they come to gaps? Are you saying that your God specially chose eciton hamatum for his algorithm, because without one species of ant building bridges he could never have designed humans and their food (his one and only purpose)?

DAVID: I would assume, as you should, the Army ants special travels in their special environment required the development of bridge-building skills.

I’m happy with that explanation. Different life forms develop different skills to cope with different conditions. I find this much more convincing than your proposal that either the ants come equipped with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for bridge-building, or your God pops in to give these particular ants bridge-building courses. Furthermore, I suggest that the ability of one species of ant to build bridges has nothing to do with the design of H. sapiens and his foods, which you believe to have been your God’s only purpose.

dhw: Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

dhw: Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to explain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.

DAVID: Fully explained as above by instinctual behaviour and algorithms. I have the right to interpret my 50%, while you doggedly stick to your ubiquitous brilliant consciousness everywhere partially in an attempt to reduce human specialness, diminishing God's special creation.

You do not “interpret” your 50%. You merely insist that you are right, and you totally ignore my bolded and repeated request for your explanation of the difference between their manifestations of intelligence and ours, apart from time and scale. This has nothing whatsoever to do with human specialness (which I always acknowledge), and there is no diminishing of God in any way if we credit him with the astonishing invention of life and autonomous intelligence at different levels, ranging from bacteria to humans.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 07, 2021, 16:26 (833 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes how? If you sat in a classroom and were given these vague dances about things you know nothing about, how would you know what to do? But the new bee does, because his brain has an automatic program of interpretation, the author's not so vague point.

dhw: You have asked the right question. The bee has to know about flowers, distances and directions before it can interpret the dance. So what is this vague “program of interpretation”? The bee comes with the ABILITY to interpret, and it uses that ability to collate, understand, and memorize all the information which is presented to it, and to translate the information into the appropriate action. How does this differ – other than in time and scale – from the process which drives our own actions?

Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm


Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop as he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

dhw: All ants forage for food, so why don’t all species of ant automatically stop and build bridges when they come to gaps? Are you saying that your God specially chose eciton hamatum for his algorithm, because without one species of ant building bridges he could never have designed humans and their food (his one and only purpose)?

DAVID: I would assume, as you should, the Army ants special travels in their special environment required the development of bridge-building skills.

dhw: ’m happy with that explanation. Different life forms develop different skills to cope with different conditions. I find this much more convincing than your proposal that either the ants come equipped with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for bridge-building, or your God pops in to give these particular ants bridge-building courses. Furthermore, I suggest that the ability of one species of ant to build bridges has nothing to do with the design of H. sapiens and his foods, which you believe to have been your God’s only purpose.

And I remind you the ants are part of necessary ecosystems providing food for all of life.


dhw: Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

dhw: Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to explain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.

DAVID: Fully explained as above by instinctual behaviour and algorithms. I have the right to interpret my 50%, while you doggedly stick to your ubiquitous brilliant consciousness everywhere partially in an attempt to reduce human specialness, diminishing God's special creation.

dhw: You do not “interpret” your 50%. You merely insist that you are right, and you totally ignore my bolded and repeated request for your explanation of the difference between their manifestations of intelligence and ours, apart from time and scale. This has nothing whatsoever to do with human specialness (which I always acknowledge), and there is no diminishing of God in any way if we credit him with the astonishing invention of life and autonomous intelligence at different levels, ranging from bacteria to humans.

While you totter on your intellectual fence, I take a side based on my ability to reason and conclude which is most likely correct. Sorry you can't do that.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Wednesday, December 08, 2021, 09:16 (832 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes how? If you sat in a classroom and were given these vague dances about things you know nothing about, how would you know what to do? But the new bee does, because his brain has an automatic program of interpretation, the author's not so vague point.

dhw: You have asked the right question. The bee has to know about flowers, distances and directions before it can interpret the dance. So what is this vague “program of interpretation”? The bee comes with the ABILITY to interpret, and it uses that ability to collate, understand, and memorize all the information which is presented to it, and to translate the information into the appropriate action. How does this differ – other than in time and scale – from the process which drives our own actions?

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm

At last you agree that bees (and by extension, all other life forms) are provided with the ability to interpret, and not with a detailed programme telling them what they will perceive, how they will process the information (interpret it), what and how they will communicate with others, and what decisions they will take. No “algorithm” for any of that. Just the same autonomous processes as our own.Thank you.

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: All animals are built to note danger. The first ant at a stream will automatically stop as he spots the danger. The rest with the same reaction pile on to go over.

dhw: All ants forage for food, so why don’t all species of ant automatically stop and build bridges when they come to gaps? Are you saying that your God specially chose eciton hamatum for his algorithm, because without one species of ant building bridges he could never have designed humans and their food (his one and only purpose)?

DAVID: I would assume, as you should, the Army ants special travels in their special environment required the development of bridge-building skills.

dhw: I’m happy with that explanation. Different life forms develop different skills to cope with different conditions. I find this much more convincing than your proposal that either the ants come equipped with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for bridge-building, or your God pops in to give these particular ants bridge-building courses. Furthermore, I suggest that the ability of one species of ant to build bridges has nothing to do with the design of H. sapiens and his foods, which you believe to have been your God’s only purpose.

DAVID: And I remind you the ants are part of necessary ecosystems providing food for all of life.

I remind you that according to you, your God specially designed the bridge-building programme for this particular species of ant. So if this particular species of ant was not able to build bridges, there would not be food for all? How did life survive before this particular species learnt to build bridges? Would your God have been unable to design H. sapiens if he had not programmed/dabbled bridge-building by this particular species of ant? Will the human race go extinct if this particular species stops building bridges?

dhw: Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

dhw: Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to bbexplain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.[…]

DAVID: While you totter on your intellectual fence, I take a side based on my ability to reason and conclude which is most likely correct. Sorry you can't do that.

And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

Natures wonders: baby bats learn navigation

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 08, 2021, 14:49 (832 days ago) @ dhw

Moms move them early:

https://www.science.org/content/article/baby-bats-learn-navigate-hitching-ride-mom?utm_...

"You might think fruit bat mothers would leave their helpless babies back in the cave when they embark on nightly foraging trips. Instead, they drop the youngsters in a nearby tree, The New York Times reports. This process prepares the young bats to navigate solo, researchers report in Current Biology. Scientists attached GPS devices to mother and baby Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) in a cave outside Tel Aviv, Israel, to track the bats’ movements. They found that mothers left the cave carrying their infants before dropping the pups at “nursery” trees near the cave entrance and picking them up on the way back. When the pups reached about 10 weeks of age, the mothers would leave without them. The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

Comment: more research is needed to see how they learn.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 08, 2021, 15:16 (832 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm

dhw: At last you agree that bees (and by extension, all other life forms) are provided with the ability to interpret, and not with a detailed programme telling them what they will perceive, how they will process the information (interpret it), what and how they will communicate with others, and what decisions they will take. No “algorithm” for any of that. Just the same autonomous processes as our own. Thank you.

Give an inch and take a mile. I didn't drop the idea of innate algorithms.


Ant bridge algorithm

DAVID: And I remind you the ants are part of necessary ecosystems providing food for all of life.

dhw: I remind you that according to you, your God specially designed the bridge-building programme for this particular species of ant. So if this particular species of ant was not able to build bridges, there would not be food for all? How did life survive before this particular species learnt to build bridges? Would your God have been unable to design H. sapiens if he had not programmed/dabbled bridge-building by this particular species of ant? Will the human race go extinct if this particular species stops building bridges?

For current food supply each small ecosystem melds into bigger ones so all can eat. Prior systems in the past were present to satisfy your usual compartmentalized-time complaints.


dhw: Once again: Intelligence requires cognition, sentience, purposefulness with sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. All these attributes of intelligence are required for ant bridges, farms, nurseries, cities, strategies for defence and attack. Leaving aside your fixed belief, please explain why – apart from time required and scale of building etc – these obvious attributes are different from those we observe in humans.

DAVID: Outward appearance still gives a 50/50 probability.

dhw: Once more: 50/50, but you go for 100% no, and still you refuse to bbexplain why all the manifested features of intelligence exhibited by insects and bacteria and cells in general are different from those exhibited by humans, apart from time and scale.[…]

DAVID: While you totter on your intellectual fence, I take a side based on my ability to reason and conclude which is most likely correct. Sorry you can't do that.

dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

You are again mincing around about the word algorithm. Language theory suggests we have a syntax algorithm as a counter example.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 08:55 (831 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm

dhw: At last you agree that bees (and by extension, all other life forms) are provided with the ability to interpret, and not with a detailed programme telling them what they will perceive, how they will process the information (interpret it), what and how they will communicate with others, and what decisions they will take. No “algorithm” for any of that. Just the same autonomous processes as our own. Thank you.

DAVID: Give an inch and take a mile. I didn't drop the idea of innate algorithms.

But the author’s algorithm referred only to the ability to interpret, and it takes the bees a week to interpret the dance. What on earth is the point of having an ability to interpret if the perception, information, processing and communication of that information, and the decision-making have already been done for you, and you are merely an automaton that thinks and learns and decides absolutely nothing?

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: And I remind you the ants are part of necessary ecosystems providing food for all of life.

dhw: I remind you that according to you, your God specially designed the bridge-building programme for this particular species of ant. So if this particular species of ant was not able to build bridges, there would not be food for all? How did life survive before this particular species learnt to build bridges? Would your God have been unable to design H. sapiens if he had not programmed/dabbled bridge-building by this particular species of ant? Will the human race go extinct if this particular species stops building bridges?

DAVID: For current food supply each small ecosystem melds into bigger ones so all can eat. Prior systems in the past were present to satisfy your usual compartmentalized-time complaints.

And those that can’t/couldn’t eat go/went extinct and new ecosystems form/formed and so on for billions of years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You keep admitting that you have no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, and yet still you go on editing your theory in order to leave out the factors that make it illogical! […]

dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

DAVID: You are again mincing around about the word algorithm. Language theory suggests we have a syntax algorithm as a counter example.

Then forget the word “algorithm”. Bearing in mind that you believe your God gave bees the ability to interpret, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own.

Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 20:01 (830 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm

DAVID: Give an inch and take a mile. I didn't drop the idea of innate algorithms.

dhw: But the author’s algorithm referred only to the ability to interpret, and it takes the bees a week to interpret the dance. What on earth is the point of having an ability to interpret if the perception, information, processing and communication of that information, and the decision-making have already been done for you, and you are merely an automaton that thinks and learns and decides absolutely nothing?

The algorithm facilitates all the capacities you list. It takes a developmental week for the algorithm to be available.


Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: And I remind you the ants are part of necessary ecosystems providing food for all of life.

DAVID: For current food supply each small ecosystem melds into bigger ones so all can eat. Prior systems in the past were present to satisfy your usual compartmentalized-time complaints.

dhw: And those that can’t/couldn’t eat go/went extinct and new ecosystems form/formed and so on for billions of years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You keep admitting that you have no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, and yet still you go on editing your theory in order to leave out the factors that make it illogical! […]

Evolution is a continuum and all parts are necessary for the next stages to appear.


dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

DAVID: You are again mincing around about the word algorithm. Language theory suggests we have a syntax algorithm as a counter example.

dhw: Then forget the word “algorithm”. Bearing in mind that you believe your God gave bees the ability to interpret, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own.

They have built-in interpretation guidelines.


Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

Their mammalian brains have lots more interpretive ability than bees and ants, obviously.

Natures wonders: vampire bees

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 20:24 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

Eat rotting flesh as well as visiting flowers:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vulture-bees-gut-bacteria-eat-rotting-flesh-sick?ut...

"Mention foraging bees and most people will picture insects flitting from flower to flower in search of nectar. But in the jungles of Central and South America, “vulture bees” have developed a taste for decaying flesh.

"They are “the weirdos of the bee world,” says insect biologist Jessica Maccaro of the University of California, Riverside. Most bees are vegetarian.

***

"Vulture bees (Trigona spp.) have a lot more acid-producing gut bacteria than their vegetarian counterparts do, Maccaro and colleagues report November 23 in mBio. And those bacteria are the same types that protect carrion feeders such as vultures and hyenas from getting sick on rotting meat.

"Strictly meat-eating bees had between 30 percent and 35 percent more acid-producing gut bacteria than strictly vegetarian bees and the ones that sometimes eat meat, the team found. Some types of these microbes showed up only in the solely carnivorous bees.

"Similar acid-producing bacteria in the guts of vultures and hyenas keep toxin-producing microbes in rotting meat from making the animals sick. The microbes probably do the same for the meat-eating bees, the team says.

"The health benefit extends beyond individual bees, says David Roubik, an evolutionary ecologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Balboa, Panama, who was not involved in the work. Vulture bees regurgitate some of the meat they consume, storing it in their nests where it serves as food for young bees. Some of the acid-loving gut bacteria end up in this food reserve, Roubik says. “Otherwise, destructive bacteria would ruin the food and release enough toxins to kill the colony.”

"In the end, Maccaro says, it’s hard to know which evolved first — the gut bacteria or the bees’ ability to eat meat. But the bees probably first turned to meat because there was so much competition for nectar for food, she suspects."

Comment: The explanation is easy and dhw will love it. We know from all studies, gut bacteria are opportunistic invaders. The are everywhere and will change their composition if the organism changes its diet. Shown in human gut studies all the time. The bees tried carrion and the helpful gut bugs obliged. Compare to Monarchs who must pass through a larval state, munching on Milkweed as a requirement the moment the lifecycle was established, to reach adulthood. No helpful gut bacteria here. Design required

Natures wonders: spider web algorithms

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 20:34 (830 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 20:41

Have to be present:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/the-miracle-of-spiderwebs/

"Spiders are another of nature’s master engineers. About half of known spider species (order Araneae) construct webs made of silk. Spiders can make different types of silk, depending upon its function. For example, the golden orb-weaver spider has seven kinds of silk glands, with six spinnerets.1 Some is used for spinning webs, of course, but other types are used for wrapping prey and encasing eggs. Silk can be stronger than steel of the same thickness, can stretch more than rubber, and is stickier than most tape. The Goulds describe silk as “easily the most remarkable building material on the planet, and it has one source: arthropods.” Despite great effort, humans have yet to produce anything functionally equivalent to silk. Through genetic engineering, attempts have been made to duplicate it without success. The main challenge is replicating the sophisticated and information-rich protein molecules found in the silk produced by spiders and other silk-producing arthropods such as silkworms — proteins that are nearly double the size of average human proteins.Smaller proteins do not have the strength or flexibility of spider silk. Given the advanced genetic and manufacturing technologies available today, it is remarkable that spider silk still cannot be duplicated. This illustrates just how advanced the engineering design of spider silk is.

"Orb webs are the most common and familiar types of spiderwebs. A typical garden spiderweb is made of 65 to 195 feet of silk.5 The webs consist of sticky “catching threads”; radial “spokes” for holding the sticky threads; “bridge threads” that act as guy-lines for holding the web up; “signal threads” that inform the spider through vibrations sensed in the legs that prey is in the web; and “drag lines” for access into the web from her home. The silks employed in the different uses are each unique, being constructed of different combinations of proteins. The types include “slinky” for stretchiness, “zipper” for flexibility, and “lego” for toughness. Construction of the web is a purposeful, goal-driven activity. This becomes particularly obvious as one observes the process in videos available on the Internet.

"Various spiderwebs, even among spiders of the same species, are far from identical. The most obvious reason for the differences is that each is tailored to its specific location. As the Goulds explain, “Every set of initial anchor points is different; the number of radii is contingent on opportunity; the beginning of the sticky spiral depends on where the longest several radii turn out to be. In short, each web is a custom production.” The Goulds postulate that spiders have a form of mapping ability that enables them to implement general design principles in a wide variety of circumstances. This is demonstrated, for instance, by spiders successfully making repairs to damaged webs. (my bold)

***

"...there are various types, including ones that function as trapdoors into spider burrows, collars that extend out from burrows, and webs that function as tubes on tree bark that can also have hinged doors.

"I mentioned signal threads above. They tell a spider that prey is present on the web, but they convey a lot more than just that. Spiders are able to determine both the angle and distance of the prey from the center of the web. They are able to determine the prey location using the same basic technique we use to determine the location of the source of sound. Humans use the difference in intensity of sound received by our ears to estimate the relative location. Spiders do something similar based on the intensity of vibrations received, in their case sensed through eight legs.

***

"One complicating factor is that the webs of some spiders that are more distantly related are nearly identical. Shear writes, “It appears probable that several web types are the product of convergent evolution — that is, that the same web has evolved in unrelated species that have adapted to similar environmental circumstances.”

***

"suffice it to say that the behaviors and functions associated with both silk and web spinning exhibit many characteristics of human engineering, and engineering of a very high order."

Comment: these webs are of magical designs, not invented by tiny spider brains appearing through natural evolutionary processes. Only a design algorithm fits.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Friday, December 10, 2021, 11:15 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm.

dhw: […] Thank you.

DAVID: Give an inch and take a mile. I didn't drop the idea of innate algorithms.

dhw: But the author’s algorithm referred only to the ability to interpret, and it takes the bees a week to interpret the dance. What on earth is the point of having an ability to interpret if the perception, information, processing and communication of that information, and the decision-making have already been done for you, and you are merely an automaton that thinks and learns and decides absolutely nothing?

DAVID: The algorithm facilitates all the capacities you list. It takes a developmental week for the algorithm to be available.

Ah well, instead of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old “programme” for bees and their dance, we now have a much trendier 3.8-billion-year-old “algorithm” (or did he insert it later?), which makes it clear that the ability to interpret is nothing of the sort, because bees and ants have it and yet can do nothing but follow fixed instructions.

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: For current food supply each small ecosystem melds into bigger ones so all can eat. Prior systems in the past were present to satisfy your usual compartmentalized-time complaints.

dhw: And those that can’t/couldn’t eat go/went extinct and new ecosystems form/formed and so on for billions of years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You keep admitting that you have no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, and yet still you go on editing your theory in order to leave out the factors that make it illogical! […]

DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and all parts are necessary for the next stages to appear.

The next stages of what??? You have your God designing every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder that ever existed, and the majority of them had no connection with humans and their food! And yet you say that for 3.X thousand million years every stage of every species and its lifestyles etc. was necessary for that one purpose! Please stop hiding behind vague generalizations.

dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

DAVID: They have built-in interpretation guidelines.

Which makes total nonsense of your agreement that they have the ability to interpret!

Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: "The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

DAVID: Their mammalian brains have lots more interpretive ability than bees and ants, obviously.

Firstly, “more ability” concedes that bees and ants have the ability, and secondly finding the way home apparently demands more interpretive ability that finding particular flowers in different locations at different distances as well as finding the way home!

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Friday, December 10, 2021, 16:34 (830 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm.

DAVID: The algorithm facilitates all the capacities you list. It takes a developmental week for the algorithm to be available.

dhw: Ah well, instead of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old “programme” for bees and their dance, we now have a much trendier 3.8-billion-year-old “algorithm” (or did he insert it later?), which makes it clear that the ability to interpret is nothing of the sort, because bees and ants have it and yet can do nothing but follow fixed instructions.

I still have no concept of when God inserted necessary information during the course of evolution. Certainly, the start of life contained enormous amounts, but each new complexity added more..


Ant bridge algorithm

DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and all parts are necessary for the next stages to appear.

dhw: The next stages of what??? You have your God designing every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder that ever existed, and the majority of them had no connection with humans and their food! And yet you say that for 3.X thousand million years every stage of every species and its lifestyles etc. was necessary for that one purpose! Please stop hiding behind vague generalizations.

Not hiding. The concept that early stages of evolution are built upon by later stages as complexity increases is obvious.


dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

DAVID: They have built-in interpretation guidelines.

dhw: Which makes total nonsense of your agreement that they have the ability to interpret!

They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.


Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: "The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

DAVID: Their mammalian brains have lots more interpretive ability than bees and ants, obviously.

dhw: Firstly, “more ability” concedes that bees and ants have the ability, and secondly finding the way home apparently demands more interpretive ability that finding particular flowers in different locations at different distances as well as finding the way home!

Finding home needs some basic memory, nothing more. The bee has forward directions of direction, distance from the waggle. Memory of landmarks on the way brings them back. I'll grant basic memory supported by understanding initial information.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 13:01 (829 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'ability to interpret' is the author's algorithm.
And:
The algorithm facilitates all the capacities you list. It takes a developmental week for the algorithm to be available.

dhw: Ah well, instead of your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old “programme” for bees and their dance, we now have a much trendier 3.8-billion-year-old “algorithm” (or did he insert it later?), which makes it clear that the ability to interpret is nothing of the sort, because bees and ants have it and yet can do nothing but follow fixed instructions.

DAVID: I still have no concept of when God inserted necessary information during the course of evolution. Certainly, the start of life contained enormous amounts, but each new complexity added more.

If he didn’t preprogramme it all, he must have kept popping in whenever a new organ, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was required, i.e. the first bee dance, the first ant bridge, the first weaverbird’s nest, the first flipper, the first absolutely everything, throughout 3.X billion years – and every one of them apparently necessary before he could pop in to design each new hominin and homo before at long last he could combine all the different bits and pieces to fulfil his one and only purpose: H. sapiens (plus food). Meanwhile, what do you think was the purpose of your God giving all these cell communities the ability to interpret if they didn’t need to interpret anything?

Ant bridge algorithm
DAVID: Not hiding. The concept that early stages of evolution are built upon by later stages as complexity increases is obvious.

Of course it is. But you insist that every stage of every life form was part of the goal of designing humans plus their food. THAT is what you keep hiding from, because you know it doesn’t make sense.

dhw: And now, using your undoubted ability to reason, please explain the difference between the cognitive, sentient, purposeful, sensory, information-processing and decision-making activities of bees and ants – other than time and scale – and our own, bearing in mind that the God-given “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret, and not all the individual interpretations of all the individual pieces of information.

DAVID: They have built-in interpretation guidelines.

dhw: Which makes total nonsense of your agreement that they have the ability to interpret!

DAVID: They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.

The ability to interpret is exactly my thought, since it entails the autonomous, intelligent use of all the abilities listed above, as opposed to bees and ants automatically obeying instructions.

Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: "The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

DAVID: Their mammalian brains have lots more interpretive ability than bees and ants, obviously.

dhw: Firstly, “more ability” concedes that bees and ants have the ability, and secondly finding the way home apparently demands more interpretive ability that finding particular flowers in different locations at different distances as well as finding the way home!

DAVID: Finding home needs some basic memory, nothing more. The bee has forward directions of direction, distance from the waggle. Memory of landmarks on the way brings them back. I'll grant basic memory supported by understanding initial information.

You have just told us that the bat’s mammalian brain has more interpretive ability because it can find its way home. The bee does far more than just find its way home! This suggests enhanced interpretive ability, i.e. enhanced intelligence.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 16:08 (829 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I still have no concept of when God inserted necessary information during the course of evolution. Certainly, the start of life contained enormous amounts, but each new complexity added more.

dhw: If he didn’t preprogramme it all, he must have kept popping in whenever a new organ, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was required, i.e. the first bee dance, the first ant bridge, the first weaverbird’s nest, the first flipper, the first absolutely everything, throughout 3.X billion years – and every one of them apparently necessary before he could pop in to design each new hominin and homo before at long last he could combine all the different bits and pieces to fulfil his one and only purpose: H. sapiens (plus food). Meanwhile, what do you think was the purpose of your God giving all these cell communities the ability to interpret if they didn’t need to interpret anything?

It doesn't matter to me how God did his programming. My conclusion that God designed evolution suffices. My concept of cell intelligence is totally opposite yours. It is entirely automatic as constantly stated.


Ant bridge algorithm

DAVID: They have built-in interpretation guidelines.

dhw: Which makes total nonsense of your agreement that they have the ability to interpret!

DAVID: They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.

dhw: The ability to interpret is exactly my thought, since it entails the autonomous, intelligent use of all the abilities listed above, as opposed to bees and ants automatically obeying instructions.

And I'll stick with automaticity.


Baby bats learn navigation
QUOTE:: "The young bats would then make a solo trip from the cave mouth to the nursery tree and begin their exploration of the wider world using that tree as a base. This means the pups somehow learn to navigate to their nursery tree while hanging upside down from their mothers, the researchers conclude."

DAVID: more research is needed to see how they learn.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that they learn by observing and memorizing details of their surroundings, just as human children go out with Mummy and Daddy and eventually know which streets lead to their house, and which house is theirs. What’s your theory? That 3.8 billion years ago God preprogrammed bees and their dance, one species of ant and its bridges, and baby bat navigation – or did he pop in and give them private lessons?

DAVID: Their mammalian brains have lots more interpretive ability than bees and ants, obviously.

dhw: Firstly, “more ability” concedes that bees and ants have the ability, and secondly finding the way home apparently demands more interpretive ability that finding particular flowers in different locations at different distances as well as finding the way home!

DAVID: Finding home needs some basic memory, nothing more. The bee has forward directions of direction, distance from the waggle. Memory of landmarks on the way brings them back. I'll grant basic memory supported by understanding initial information.

dhw: You have just told us that the bat’s mammalian brain has more interpretive ability because it can find its way home. The bee does far more than just find its way home! This suggests enhanced interpretive ability, i.e. enhanced intelligence.

Just an enhanced algorithm, nothing more per the article and book.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 10:44 (828 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It doesn't matter to me how God did his programming. My conclusion that God designed evolution suffices.

But it doesn’t “suffice” for you! I also conclude that if God exists, he designed evolution! Our discussions concern his possible purposes and methods, because your conclusion is that he personally designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food, although most of them had no connection with humans or their food. We needn’t go over my objections to your logic, or over my various alternative theistic explanations of life’s history. It is clear that, although you admit that have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method of achieving your version of his purpose, you will never budge. The problem is that it permeates so many of your posts that we are locked into this endless repetition!

dhw: Meanwhile, what do you think was the purpose of your God giving all these cell communities the ability to interpret if they didn’t need to interpret anything?

DAVID: My concept of cell intelligence is totally opposite yours. It is entirely automatic as constantly stated.

Same again. You make concessions, as below, but then withdraw them with a repetition of your fixed belief.

DAVID: They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.

dhw: The ability to interpret is exactly my thought, since it entails the autonomous, intelligent use of all the abilities listed above, as opposed to bees and ants automatically obeying instructions.

DAVID: And I'll stick with automaticity.
And under "Spider webs”:

DAVID: Spider webs are at the same level of complexity as weaverbird nests and require the same designer help.

You agree that these life forms have the ability to interpret. The attributes involved in bee and ant interpretation include sentience, cognition, information-processing, purpose, and decision-making. I asked how these differ – apart from time and scale – from our own. Your answer is that you’ll stick with automaticity. Do you agree with the above list of attributes involved in interpretation? And do you still accept that bees and ants have the ability to interpret?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 15:46 (828 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It doesn't matter to me how God did his programming. My conclusion that God designed evolution suffices.

dhw: But it doesn’t “suffice” for you! I also conclude that if God exists, he designed evolution! Our discussions concern his possible purposes and methods, because your conclusion is that he personally designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food, although most of them had no connection with humans or their food. We needn’t go over my objections to your logic, or over my various alternative theistic explanations of life’s history. It is clear that, although you admit that have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method of achieving your version of his purpose, you will never budge. The problem is that it permeates so many of your posts that we are locked into this endless repetition!

I arrived at a fixed position, as you describe it. from reading lots of opinions by very bright folks. Especially Adler and you understand his opinion, I hope, that the appearance of humans offers the BEST proof of God available. Surprise, my 'fixed position' became belief. Why should I change just because you haven't? We differ in how God designed evolution, and your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs. I have pointed out the big holes in that theory: huge fossil gaps, and all we know about existing species is they can modify to changing conditions, but are still the same species. So our debate is the cause of new species. You agree God ran evolution. Your thought that cells are intelligent, not just appearing so, come from those scientists who scrupulously avoid any sense of God, although they might be believers, in their opinions which are not FACT. I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. Actually I arrived at my position much before fully embracing ID. We will always differ.

dhw: Meanwhile, what do you think was the purpose of your God giving all these cell communities the ability to interpret if they didn’t need to interpret anything?

DAVID: My concept of cell intelligence is totally opposite yours. It is entirely automatic as constantly stated.

Same again. You make concessions, as below, but then withdraw them with a repetition of your fixed belief.

DAVID: They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.

dhw: The ability to interpret is exactly my thought, since it entails the autonomous, intelligent use of all the abilities listed above, as opposed to bees and ants automatically obeying instructions.

DAVID: And I'll stick with automaticity.
And under "Spider webs”:

DAVID: Spider webs are at the same level of complexity as weaverbird nests and require the same designer help.

dhw: You agree that these life forms have the ability to interpret. The attributes involved in bee and ant interpretation include sentience, cognition, information-processing, purpose, and decision-making. I asked how these differ – apart from time and scale – from our own. Your answer is that you’ll stick with automaticity. Do you agree with the above list of attributes involved in interpretation? And do you still accept that bees and ants have the ability to interpret?

Because they are guided in how to do so by the algorithms you abhor. Like single cells, you are watching primarily unthinking guided behavior from the outside and making a rigid wishful conclusion, not borne out by the scientific evidence being presented. You have admitted seeing the cell automaticity in specific processes and imagine thought behind it! The thought you wish is in the design.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Monday, December 13, 2021, 17:52 (827 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I arrived at a fixed position, as you describe it, from reading lots of opinions by very bright folks. Especially Adler and you understand his opinion, I hope, that the appearance of humans offers the BEST proof of God available. Surprise, my 'fixed position' became belief.

The same old dodge. We are not talking about your fixed belief in God, which I accept has a logical base (design), but about your illogical theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although the majority of life forms etc. had no connection with humans and their food

DAVID: Why should I change just because you haven't? We differ in how God designed evolution, and your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs.

Another old dodge. My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” of freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: I have pointed out the big holes in that theory: huge fossil gaps….

Fossils over billions of years are bound to be scarce. Your belief that the gaps denote separate creation - as per Cambrian - conflicts with your belief in common descent and also makes nonsense of your God’s apparent inability to directly design his one and only goal of humans plus food. For example:

QUOTE from “Human evolution”): From this perspective, Middle Pleistocene Homo groups evolved unique traits during periods of isolation and shared features as a result of crossing paths and mating. (David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold supports my theory about the importance of a homo bush providing an excellent combination of necessary traits for the final human form as God guided evolution to the current endpoint.

You take the “huge fossil gaps” as evidence that your God designed species without any predecessors (as in the Cambrian), thereby proving that he can create “de novo” what he wants when he wants, and the next moment you are telling us that all the different predecessors of sapiens contributed bits and pieces to the only species he really wanted to design! And the same principle applies to all life forms and natural wonders that ever existed, because you believe they were all “part of the goal of evolving [=] designing humans” plus food! Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: ….and all we know about existing species is they can modify to changing conditions, but are still the same species. So our debate is the cause of new species.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that innovation as an extension of adaptation is a theory that has not been proven.

DAVID: You agree God ran evolution. Your thought that cells are intelligent, not just appearing so, come from those scientists who scrupulously avoid any sense of God, although they might be believers, in their opinions which are not FACT.

Of course the theory is not FACT. Nor is God’s existence, and nor is your anthropocentric theory of evolution. It is not an avoidance of God to allow for him to be the designer of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. Actually I arrived at my position much before fully embracing ID. We will always differ.

How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

dhw: You agree that these life forms [bees, ants etc] have the ability to interpret. The attributes involved in bee and ant interpretation include sentience, cognition, information-processing, purpose, and decision-making. I asked how these differ – apart from time and scale – from our own. […]

DAVID: Because they are guided in how to do so by the algorithms you abhor. Like single cells, you are watching primarily unthinking guided behavior from the outside and making a rigid wishful conclusion, not borne out by the scientific evidence being presented. You have admitted seeing the cell automaticity in specific processes and imagine thought behind it! The thought you wish is in the design.

No scientist can tell us how the dance, bridge or web originated. In the case of bees and ants, we know seniors teach juniors. You have no trouble accepting that human learning entails the above attributes and associating them with our “ability to interpret”, which I see as commensurate with autonomous intelligence. The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history. See “cellular intelligence” for the rest of the argument.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Monday, December 13, 2021, 21:56 (826 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The same old dodge. We are not talking about your fixed belief in God, which I accept has a logical base (design), but about your illogical theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although the majority of life forms etc. had no connection with humans and their food

Same tired illogical complaint. I'll stick with Adler's approach, that the evolution of humans is the best proof of God we've got.


DAVID: Why should I change just because you haven't? We differ in how God designed evolution, and your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs.

dhw: Another old dodge. My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” of freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?


dhw: Fossils over billions of years are bound to be scarce. Your belief that the gaps denote separate creation - as per Cambrian - conflicts with your belief in common descent and also makes nonsense of your God’s apparent inability to directly design his one and only goal of humans plus food. For example:

QUOTE from “Human evolution”): From this perspective, Middle Pleistocene Homo groups evolved unique traits during periods of isolation and shared features as a result of crossing paths and mating. (David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold supports my theory about the importance of a homo bush providing an excellent combination of necessary traits for the final human form as God guided evolution to the current endpoint.

dhw: You take the “huge fossil gaps” as evidence that your God designed species without any predecessors (as in the Cambrian), thereby proving that he can create “de novo” what he wants when he wants, and the next moment you are telling us that all the different predecessors of sapiens contributed bits and pieces to the only species he really wanted to design! And the same principle applies to all life forms and natural wonders that ever existed, because you believe they were all “part of the goal of evolving [=] designing humans” plus food!

God obviously designed what He wished to design, pure history .

dhe: Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. Actually I arrived at my position much before fully embracing ID. We will always differ.

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967..


dhw: You agree that these life forms [bees, ants etc] have the ability to interpret. The attributes involved in bee and ant interpretation include sentience, cognition, information-processing, purpose, and decision-making. I asked how these differ – apart from time and scale – from our own. […]

DAVID: Because they are guided in how to do so by the algorithms you abhor. Like single cells, you are watching primarily unthinking guided behavior from the outside and making a rigid wishful conclusion, not borne out by the scientific evidence being presented. You have admitted seeing the cell automaticity in specific processes and imagine thought behind it! The thought you wish is in the design.

dhw: No scientist can tell us how the dance, bridge or web originated. In the case of bees and ants, we know seniors teach juniors. You have no trouble accepting that human learning entails the above attributes and associating them with our “ability to interpret”, which I see as commensurate with autonomous intelligence. The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history. See “cellular intelligence” for the rest of the argument.

And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 14:44 (826 days ago) @ David Turell

The different threads are spilling over into one another, and so I am separating the posts into their respective themes. The following is all that remains of the insect thread. We shall then revert to your theory of evolution.

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:08 (826 days ago) @ dhw

The different threads are spilling over into one another, and so I am separating the posts into their respective themes. The following is all that remains of the insect thread. We shall then revert to your theory of evolution.

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

dhw: I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:00 (825 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

dhw: I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

DAVID: Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

You’ve got it at last! All life forms have their own language, and all life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn the language of the species they grow up with, which for some reason you are now calling an “innate primary facility”. There is no difference between their ability and ours, other than in the context of time and scale. That ability (perhaps God-given) requires the characteristics of intelligence that I have listed. See also the article you have posted under “cellular intelligence”.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:13 (825 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

dhw: I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

DAVID: Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

dhw: You’ve got it at last! All life forms have their own language, and all life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn the language of the species they grow up with, which for some reason you are now calling an “innate primary facility”. There is no difference between their ability and ours, other than in the context of time and scale. That ability (perhaps God-given) requires the characteristics of intelligence that I have listed. See also the article you have posted under “cellular intelligence”.

I'll agree with God given.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 10:47 (824 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

dhw: I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

DAVID: Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

dhw: You’ve got it at last! All life forms have their own language, and all life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn the language of the species they grow up with, which for some reason you are now calling an “innate primary facility”. There is no difference between their ability and ours, other than in the context of time and scale. That ability (perhaps God-given) requires the characteristics of intelligence that I have listed. See also the article you have posted under “cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: I'll agree with God given.

Good. I hope this means you now accept the concept of God-given intelligence in such life forms as bees and ants, though of course at a far lower level than our own.

Natures wonders: insect migration; fly brain vector math

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 14:41 (824 days ago) @ dhw

A careful study of fly neurons:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211215113221.htm

"Neurons in the fly brain appear to literally perform vector math in order to signal the direction in which their bodies are traveling, regardless of which way their heads are pointing.

***

"How the brain calculates an animal's direction of travel when the head is pointing one way and the body is moving in another is a mystery in neuroscience.

"A new study makes significant headway on solving this mystery by reporting that the fly brain has a set of neurons that signal the direction in which the body is traveling, regardless of the direction in which the head is pointing. The findings, published in Nature, also describe in detail how the fly's brain calculates this signal from more basic sensory inputs.

"'Not only do these neurons signal the fly's direction of travel, but they do also so in a world-centered reference frame," says Rockefeller neuroscientist Gaby Maimon. What's remarkable, adds first author Cheng Lyu, a graduate student in the Maimon lab, is that these insects are transforming body-referenced sensory inputs into a world-referenced signal, allowing the fly to know that it is traveling, for instance, 90 degrees to the right of the sun or northward.

***

"Lyu glued fruit flies to miniature harnesses that hold only the insects' heads in place, enabling him to record brain activity while leaving the flies free to flap their wings and steer their bodies through a virtual environment. The setup contained several visual cues, including a bright light representing the sun and a field of dimmer dots that could be adjusted to make the fly feel like it was being blown backward or sideways.

"As expected, the head direction cells consistently indicated the fly's orientation to the sun, simulated by the bright light, independently of the dimmer dots' motion. In addition, the researchers identified a new set of cells that indicated which way the flies were traveling, and not just the direction their head was pointing. For example, if the flies were oriented directly toward the sun in the east while being blown backward, these cells indicated that the flies were (virtually) traveling west. "This is the first set of cells known to indicate which way an animal is moving in a world-centered reference frame," Maimon says.

***

"'We make a strong argument that what's happening here is an explicit implementation of vector math in a brain." Maimon says. "What makes this study unique is that we show, with extensive evidence, how neuronal circuits implement relatively sophisticated mathematical operations."

"The present research clarifies how flies figure out which way they're going, in the moment."

Comment: as the article notes, our brain doe the same thing. How did this ability develop? Not by chance. It is so important to all activity by all organisms, it fits the need for
design.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 15:32 (824 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The only difference you can find between bee/ant form of learning and ours (apart from time and scale), is your rigid belief that in their case, all these processes are the result of vague algorithms, which is your posh-sounding word for what you used to call a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled life form and natural wonder in life's history.

DAVID: And the comparison in humans is the inborn guide it language, however it works, remember? Guided algorithms exist.

dhw: I don’t know why you are trying to dodge the issue by bringing in human language. Humans learn their language just as bees and ants learn their language – from contact with and imitation of those who use the language! All life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn their language, and that requires autonomous perception, information-processing, communication, decision-making etc. Why do you think feral children learn to speak wolf language until they live with humans?

DAVID: Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

dhw: You’ve got it at last! All life forms have their own language, and all life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn the language of the species they grow up with, which for some reason you are now calling an “innate primary facility”. There is no difference between their ability and ours, other than in the context of time and scale. That ability (perhaps God-given) requires the characteristics of intelligence that I have listed. See also the article you have posted under “cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: I'll agree with God given.

dhw: Good. I hope this means you now accept the concept of God-given intelligence in such life forms as bees and ants, though of course at a far lower level than our own.

I haven't accepted your version

Natures wonders: insect migration

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 14:18 (823 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Learning wolf language is no different than human language, given the child has a given innate primary facility residing in his developing brain.

dhw: You’ve got it at last! All life forms have their own language, and all life forms are born with the ABILITY to learn the language of the species they grow up with, which for some reason you are now calling an “innate primary facility”. There is no difference between their ability and ours, other than in the context of time and scale. That ability (perhaps God-given) requires the characteristics of intelligence that I have listed. See also the article you have posted under “cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: I'll agree with God given.

dhw: Good. I hope this means you now accept the concept of God-given intelligence in such life forms as bees and ants, though of course at a far lower level than our own.

DAVID: I haven't accepted your version.

It was you who picked on the example of language learning. A human child learns language by perceiving, processing information, communicating, decision making etc. So do animals and insects. They all have the ability (= “innate primary facility”) to do this, and that ability may have been given to them by your God. So once more: please explain the difference, apart from the time it takes and the scale of the language that is learned.

Fly brain vector math
DAVID: as the article notes, our brain does the same thing. How did this ability develop? Not by chance. It is so important to all activity by all organisms, it fits the need for design.

I agree, and here too you have drawn a parallel between human and insect abilities. One might even be inclined to think that if God exists, he gave insects and animals and humans similar autonomous abilities, which of course in our case have developed far beyond the limited scale of the life forms that preceded us.

Natures wonders: insect migration

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:17 (823 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll agree with God given.

dhw: Good. I hope this means you now accept the concept of God-given intelligence in such life forms as bees and ants, though of course at a far lower level than our own.

DAVID: I haven't accepted your version.

dhw: It was you who picked on the example of language learning. A human child learns language by perceiving, processing information, communicating, decision making etc. So do animals and insects. They all have the ability (= “innate primary facility”) to do this, and that ability may have been given to them by your God. So once more: please explain the difference, apart from the time it takes and the scale of the language that is learned.

Learning language is the only human algorithm I know. I think it is God given, just as bees learn the waggle dance.


Fly brain vector math
DAVID: as the article notes, our brain does the same thing. How did this ability develop? Not by chance. It is so important to all activity by all organisms, it fits the need for design.

dhw: I agree, and here too you have drawn a parallel between human and insect abilities. One might even be inclined to think that if God exists, he gave insects and animals and humans similar autonomous abilities, which of course in our case have developed far beyond the limited scale of the life forms that preceded us.

Our brains Also do automatic vector math: gymnastics as an example.

Natures wonders: clustered icefish nests

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 18:36 (796 days ago) @ David Turell

A large group under Antarctica ice:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ice-fish-nest-antarctica-breeding-colony-largest-group

"Five hundred meters below the ice covering Antarctica’s Weddell Sea sits the world’s largest known colony of breeding fish, a new study finds.

"An estimated 60 million active nests of a type of icefish stretch across at least 240 square kilometers, nearly the size of Orlando, Fla. Many fish create nests, from freshwater cichlids to artistically inclined pufferfish (SN: 10/13/20). But until now, researchers have encountered only a handful of icefish nests at a time, or perhaps several dozen. Even the most gregarious nest-building fish species were previously known to gather only in the hundreds.

"The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (my bold)

***

"At one location on the Filchner ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, one of Purser’s colleagues was operating the camera tow and noticed that it kept encountering circular Jonah’s icefish (Neopagetopsis ionah) nests down below. Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (my bold)

***

"It’s not clear why so many icefish are gathering in one spot to breed. There appears to be good access to plankton in this location, which would be a crucial food source for newly hatched fish. The team also found a zone with slightly warmer water in the area, which could help the icefish locate the breeding ground.

"The icefish could be sustaining Weddell seals, the researchers say. Prior studies have shown the seals spending a lot of time diving in waters above the colony area.

***

“'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

Comment: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

Natures wonders: hummingbird torpor

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 19:15 (775 days ago) @ David Turell

Every night:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220202111806.htm

"At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor. Scientists from multiple universities now find there's more than one level of torpor: shallow and deep, plus the transition stage between levels of torpor and the normal sleep state.

***

"They measured the temperature emitted from the skin around the eyes of the birds. The differences in heat generation at various stages are stark.

"The normal daytime body temperature of a hummingbird is more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, even in colder weather. During shallow torpor, their body temperature drops by about 20 degrees Fahrenheit. In deep torpor, the bird maintains a body temperature 50 degrees Fahrenheit below its normal daytime temperature. If human body temperature were to drop a mere 3 degrees from the standard 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, we'd be in a state of hypothermia and, unlike hummingbirds, would need outside help to get warm again. Size also matters.

***

"Shallow torpor may have developed to balance energy-saving with the costs of deep torpor. In deep torpor a hummingbird is probably more vulnerable to disease because its immune system shuts down, plus it is vulnerable to predation and sleep deprivation. This ability to use torpor at varying depths indicates that at least some birds are capable of fine-tuning how cold they get in torpor, and how they manage saving energy with the potential costs of dropping way down into deep torpor.

"Torpor is not the same as sleep. Sleep uses much more energy and serves many restorative functions. Daily torpor also differs from hibernation. Hibernating animals enter a low-energy state for weeks or months at time while hummingbirds can enter torpor every night.

"Many questions remain about what is taking place in the brain during torpor, how levels of body fat may trigger torpor, and how the hummingbirds can generate the heat to warm up again -- a process that can take up to 30 minutes.

"'At least 42 bird species use torpor," said Shankar, "But only hummingbirds, nightjars, and one species of mousebird go into deep torpor. Studying the range of torpor could help us understand the evolution of thermoregulation in birds.'"

Comment: Why this occurs has obvious purpose, to replenish wing muscle energy sources for the
day's activities with wings moving at enormous speeds per second. Hummingbirds use high sugar nectar as food source and from human studies sugars digest very easily with only 10% energy use to do it. But, how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

Natures wonders: sea spiders are not spiders

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 19:39 (775 days ago) @ David Turell

Weird sea dwellers:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2022/02/02/the_strange_unsettling_world_of_sea_sp...

"Pycnogonids, as they are also called, generally have small midsections dwarfed by four pairs of large, spindly legs, which are perhaps their defining and most unsettling body parts. They use them to walk along the seafloor or hover just above with pulsing strokes. A few sea spiders even have five or six pairs of legs. These appendages can each extend from mere millimeters to almost two and a half feet! Pycnogonids also sport four eyes, a mouth-like proboscis used for feeding, and – flanking the proboscis – a pair of chelifores which take the form of modest pincers.

"About 1,300 species of sea spiders have been identified, and more are found every year. Fossils suggest that they've existed on Earth for at least 450 million years. Back then, pycnogonids and other arthropods likely dominated the oceans. Few animals lived on land.

"Sea spiders lack organs for breathing, instead expelling carbon dioxide and taking in oxygen directly through their outer layer, or cuticle. This gas exchange primarily occurs via the legs, as they have the most surface area by far. Even more fascinating, it seems that pycnogonids primarily transport oxygen within their bodies via peristalsis, involuntary constriction and relaxation of the gut. Peristalsis moves hemolymph, or blood, throughout the body. "Shared digestive and respiratory functions may save energy," the researchers who uncovered this strategy said. "Legs function as the gills used by other arthropods, and the gut functions as a heart."

"As far as reproduction goes, males carry fertilized eggs then care for offspring. Females produce and lay eggs, which males then externally fertilize. Subsequently, males pick them up and store them with specialized body parts called ovigers.

"Different species of pycnogonids eat everything from algae, worms, and decaying organic material to mollusks, cnidarians (jellyfish, coral, etc.) and crustaceans. Many are parasitic, living inside bivalves or snacking on (but not killing) anemones. Others are herbivores, eating plants, or detritivores, consuming dead organic material. All sea spiders suck up food with their multi-lipped proboscis."

comment: fully adapted to their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem. They appeared post-Cambrian

Natures wonders: how spiders can fly

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 20:00 (740 days ago) @ David Turell

Some type of electrostatic mechanism?:

https://www.sciencealert.com/simulations-show-in-unprecedented-detail-how-spiders-fly-u...

"Having never evolved wings, many species of spider instead evolved an uncanny ability to take to the skies using nothing more than a few short threads of gossamer dangling from their dainty butts.

***

"...as evidence piles up in support of a rather steampunk mechanism. Instead of riding thermals, spiders might instead sail into the sky on tides of electricity.

"Studies conducted by researchers from the University of Bristol in 2018 showed electric fields generated by weather activity could sufficiently drag a single electrostatically-charged strand of web and its aeronautical arachnid off the ground.

"Now, a new study modeling the mathematics behind the electromagnetic interactions on multiple dangling spider threads has contributed important new details to the discussion.

"This isn't to say electric charges are necessarily responsible for the phenomenon scientists refer to as ballooning, either wholly or partially. But it does answer a bunch of questions on the actual physics at work.

"The fact spiders can add a slight charge to their webs in order to catch prey (and potentially pick up pollutants) has been a focus of experimental studies for some time now.

***

"To explore that question, physicists Charbel Habchi from Notre Dame University-Louaize in Lebanon, and Mohammad K. Jawed from the University of California, Los Angeles, combined measurements from previous studies with an algorithm commonly used in computerized graphics to trace hair.

"Attaching between two and eight virtual hairs to a 2-millimeter-wide sphere that represented a tiny species of spider, they could tweak a range of variables such as the distribution of charge, atmospheric electric fields, and air resistance, and watch it fly.

"At first, the threads all remained more or less vertical. But as the simulations unfolded, the negative charges along the threads pushed apart, expanding the collection of strands into an inverted cone-shape.

"This in turn slowed their ascent, causing them to drop and the strands to collect together again, making tension between electrostatic repulsion and atmospheric drag an important factor in determining the thread-count of a spider balloon.

"'We think that, at least for small spiders, the electric field, without any help from upward air currents, can cause ballooning," Habchi told Rachel Berkowitz at Physics.

"As for larger spiders, it's possible a good kick from a rising air current might be necessary, implying the competing hypotheses behind spider-flight might not be so mutually exclusive after all."

Comment: spiders are strange enough, but to take advantage of static electricity is logical.

Natures wonders: more bird migration discoveries

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 22:10 (734 days ago) @ David Turell

At the quantum level detecting the magnetic field plus more:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-migrating-birds-use-quantum-effects-to-n...

"Our experimental evidence suggests something extraordinary: a bird’s compass relies on subtle, fundamentally quantum effects in short-lived molecular fragments, known as radical pairs, formed photochemically in its eyes. That is, the creatures appear to be able to “see” Earth’s magnetic field lines and use that information to chart a course between their breeding and wintering grounds.

***

"Migratory birds’ navigational input comes from several senses—mainly sight, smell and magnetoreception. By observing the apparent nighttime rotation of the stars around the North Star, the birds learn to locate north before they embark on their first migration, and an internal 24-hour clock allows them to calibrate their sun compass. Characteristic smells can help birds recognize places they have visited before. Scientists know a great deal about the detailed biophysical mechanisms of the birds’ senses of sight and smell. But the inner workings of their magnetic compass have proved harder to understand.

"First, observations of caged birds exposed to carefully controlled magnetic fields show that their compass does not behave like the magnetized needle in a ship’s compass. A bird detects the axis of the magnetic field and the angle it makes with Earth’s surface, the so-called inclination compass...even though songbirds fly at night under the dim light of the stars, their magnetic compass is light-dependent, hinting at a link between vision and magnetic sensing.

***

"When two radicals are created simultaneously by a chemical reaction (this is what we mean by radical pair), the two unpaired electrons, one in each radical, can have either antiparallel spins (⇅) or parallel spins (↑↑), arrangements known as singlet and triplet states, respectively.

"Immediately after a radical pair is created in a singlet state, internal magnetic fields cause the two electronic spins to undergo a complex quantum “waltz” in which singlet turns into triplet and triplet turns back into singlet millions of times per second for periods of up to a few microseconds. Crucially, under the right conditions, this dance can be influenced by external magnetic fields. Schulten suggested that this subtle quantum effect could form the basis of a magnetic compass sense that might respond to environmental stimuli a million times weaker than would normally be thought possible. Research that we and others have carried out in recent years has generated fresh support for this hypothesis.

***

"From experiments such as these, it is clear that the magnetic compass sensors are located in the birds’ retinas.

***

"Schulten’s hypothesis also predicts that there must be sensory molecules (magnetoreceptors) in the retina in which magnetically sensitive radical pairs can be created using the wavelengths birds need for their compass to operate, which another line of research had identified as light centered in the blue region of the spectrum. In 2000 he suggested that the necessary photochemistry could take place in a then recently discovered protein called cryptochrome.

***

"We chose cryptochrome-4a (Cry4a), partly because it binds FAD much more strongly than do some of its siblings, and if there is no FAD in the protein, there will be no radical pairs and no magnetic sensitivity.

***

"One more cryptochrome finding deserves mention here. We compared robin Cry4a with the extremely similar Cry4a proteins from two nonmigratory birds, pigeons and chickens. The robin protein had the largest magnetic sensitivity, hinting that evolution might have optimized robin Cry4a for navigation.

***

"Many questions about the birds’ magnetic compass remain, including whether the magnetic field effects on robin Cry4a observed in vitro also exist in vivo. We also want to see whether migratory birds with genetically suppressed Cry4a production are prevented from orienting using their magnetic compass. If we can prove that a radical-pair mechanism is behind the magnetic sense in vivo, then we will have shown that a biological sensory system can respond to stimuli several million times weaker than previously thought possible. This insight would enhance our understanding of biological sensing and provide new ideas for artificial sensors."

Comment: to put this together from a design standpoint, I cannot believe these birds figured out how and where to migrate naturally. It is logical to want a warm spot in winter, but birds don't think at that level. And they don't follow maps. They migrate by instructions in their brains, as we know according to the article. The guidance mechanism using the magnetic field is highly complex in design. It could not have developed stepwise or the birds would fly to their deaths. This is irreducible complex and therefore fully designed all at once.

Natures wonders: how boa constrictors squeeze and breathe

by David Turell @, Friday, March 25, 2022, 18:20 (725 days ago) @ David Turell

By controlling multiple muscles to keep some lung open:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/boa-constrictor-snake-squeeze-prey-without-suffocating

"The boa constrictor’s choke hold is an iconic animal attack. By coiling around its prey, a snake can squeeze the life out of a victim in mere minutes before gulping it down whole (SN: 8/9/15). But it’s been unclear just how Boa constrictor squeezes so hard — or swallows something as big as a monkey — without suffocating itself.

"Now, experiments show that when one part of a boa constrictor’s rib cage is compressed — preventing the part of its lungs enclosed there from drawing in air — the snake can move another section of its rib cage to inflate its lungs there. Boas and other snakes probably couldn’t have started throttling and swallowing large prey without this ability, researchers report March 24 in the Journal of Experimental Biology. (my bold)

***

"In these videos, the team wrapped a blood pressure cuff around different parts of the animals’ bodies. Then, the scientists increased the cuff’s pressure until the rib cage couldn’t move in that area — mimicking the effect of a snake using that part of its body to grip or gulp down prey.

"When gripped by a cuff about one-third of the way down their body, snakes breathed by moving some ribs closer to their tails. When wrapped in a cuff about halfway down their body, snakes breathed by moving some ribs closer to their heads. “They can basically just breathe wherever they want,” Capano says. That makes him wonder whether snakes also adjust their breathing during other activities that compress their bodies, such as slithering."

Comment: Same chicken and egg problem: If boas eat this way, the bolded comment above is important. If not designed tis way, how could it evolve naturally? The boa came with 400 ribs to allow this squeeze and breath technique, as stated in the research article. Did the boa evolve all those ribs in advance? Not likely. God's design is a better explanation.

Natures wonders: nerveless multicellular movement

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 27, 2022, 15:19 (723 days ago) @ David Turell

Research into a tiny moving sea animal:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/before-brains-mechanics-may-have-ruled-animal-behavior-2...

"The extremely simple animal Trichoplax adhaerens moves and responds to its environment with agility and seeming purpose, yet it has no neurons or muscles to coordinate its movements. New work shows that biomechanical interactions among the animal’s cilia are sufficient to explain how it moves.

"The animal beneath the lenses wasn’t much to look at, resembling an amoeba more than anything else: a flattened multicellular blob, only 20 microns thick and a few millimeters across, with neither head nor tail. It moved on thousands of cilia that blanketed its underside to form the “sticky hairy plate” that inspired its Latin name, Trichoplax adhaerens.

"This odd marine creature, classified as a placozoan, has practically an entire branch on the evolutionary tree of life to itself, as well as the smallest known genome in the animal kingdom. But what intrigued Prakash most was the well-orchestrated grace, agility and efficiency with which the thousands to millions of cells in Trichoplax moved.

***

"In a trio of preprints totaling more than 100 pages — posted simultaneously on the arxiv.org server last year — he and Bull showed that the behavior of Trichoplax could be described entirely in the language of physics and dynamical systems. Mechanical interactions that began at the level of a single cilium, and then multiplied over millions of cells and extended to higher levels of structure, fully explained the coordinated locomotion of the entire animal. The organism doesn’t “choose” what to do. Instead, the horde of individual cilia simply moves — and the animal as a whole performs as though it is being directed by a nervous system. The researchers even showed that the cilia’s dynamics exhibit properties that are commonly seen as distinctive hallmarks of neurons.

"The work not only demonstrates how simple mechanical interactions can generate incredible complexity, but also tells a compelling story about what might have predated the evolution of the nervous system.

***

"...single cells alone are capable of remarkable behaviors, and they can self-assemble into collective systems (such as slime molds or xenobots) that can achieve even more, all without the help of neurons or muscles.

***

"In their models, the walking activity emerged naturally from the interplay between the internal driving forces of the cilia and the energy of their adhesion to the surface. The right balance between those two parameters (calculated from experimental measurements of the cilia’s orientation, height and beat frequency) resulted in regular locomotion, with each cilium sticking and then lifting away, like a leg. The wrong balance produced the slipping or stalled phases.

***

"The cilia aren’t getting paced. There’s not some central thing that’s saying ‘Go, go, go.’ It’s the mechanical interactions that are setting up something that goes, goes, goes.”

***

"Prakash, Bull and Kroo’s cilia models turned out to map very well onto established models for action potentials in neurons. “This kind of unique phenomenon admits itself to a very interesting analogy with what you see in the nonlinear dynamics of single neurons,” Bull said.

***

"Eventually, Prakash and Bull found that they could write down a set of mechanistic rules for when Trichoplax might spin in place or move about in lopsided circles, when it might follow a straight path or suddenly veer to the left, and when it might even use its own mechanics to rip itself into two separate organisms.

“'The trajectories for the animals themselves are literally encoded” in these simple mechanical properties, Prakash said. (my bold)

Comment: this study is entirely of mechanical principles in motility. It must sense food chemically as other simple animals do. It is obviously a step toward complete multicellularity and illustrates how big the Cambrian gap really is. Note the comment about coding. It must exist in the tiny DNA in this animals.

Natures wonders: another zombie relationship

by David Turell @, Monday, March 28, 2022, 19:53 (722 days ago) @ David Turell

Virus zombifies caterpillar:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/virus-caterpillars-zombies-climb-death-genes-vision...

"Higher and higher still, the cotton bollworm moth caterpillar climbs, its tiny body ceaselessly scaling leaf after leaf. Reaching the top of a plant, it will die, facilitating the spread of the virus that steered the insect there.

"One virus behind this deadly ascent manipulates genes associated with caterpillars’ vision. As a result, the insects are more attracted to sunlight than usual, researchers report online March 8 in Molecular Ecology.

"The virus involved in this caterpillar takeover is a type of baculovirus. These viruses may have been evolving with their insect hosts for 200 million to 300 million years, says Xiaoxia Liu, an entomologist at China Agricultural University in Beijing. Baculoviruses can infect more than 800 insect species, mostly the caterpillars of moths and butterflies. Once infected, the hosts exhibit “tree-top disease,” compelled to climb before dying and leaving their elevated, infected cadavers for scavengers to feast upon.

***

"The researchers compared infected and uninfected caterpillars’ positions in glass tubes surrounding a climbing mesh under an LED light. Uninfected caterpillars would wander up and down the mesh, but would return to the bottom before pupating. That behavior makes sense because in the wild, this species develops into adults underground. But infected hosts would end up dead at the top of the mesh. The higher the source of light, the higher infected hosts climbed.

"The team moved to the horizontal plane to confirm that the hosts were responding to light rather than gravity, placing caterpillars in a hexagonal box with one of the side panels illuminated. By the second day after infection, host caterpillars crawled to the light about four times as often as the uninfected.

***

"Baculoviruses appear capable of commandeering the genetic architecture of caterpillar vision, exploiting an ancient importance of light for insects, Liu says.

"Light can cue crucial biological processes in insects, from directing their developmental timing, to setting their migration routes.

"These viruses were already known to be master manipulators in other ways, tweaking their hosts’ sense of smell, molting patterns and the programmed death of cells, says Lorena Passarelli, a virologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who was not involved with the study. The new research shows that the viruses manipulate “yet another physiological host process: visual perception.'”

Comment: We've seen this many times before. Think leaf-chewing ants and fungus. We are just another of ways viruses fight to survive. All part of the biological warfare in our form of life.

Natures wonders: spider web giant hearing aide

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 31, 2022, 15:37 (719 days ago) @ David Turell

Certain spiders found to use it that way:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/spider-uses-its-web-like-a-giant-engineered-...

"Bridge spiders “outsource” their hearing by building webs that double as acoustic arrays, allowing them to perceive sounds from great distances.

***

"The bridge spider uses its web as an engineered “external ear” up to 10,000 times the size of its body, according to a preprint study posted to bioRxiv on October 18. The discovery, which has not yet been peer reviewed, challenges many assumptions that scientists have held for years about how spiders and potentially other arthropods navigate and interact with the world around them.

***

"Spiders—both orb-weavers and others—are perfectly capable of hearing at closer distances without their webs thanks to the tiny hairs and organs on their legs that sense vibrations as air flows past. But the majority of spider biologists assumed that they could only hear sounds in their immediate vicinity, senior study author and Cornell University neurobiologist Ronald Hoy tells The Scientist.

***

“'That is one of the hardest parts: showing that they don’t have a little hidden ear on them that’s picking it up,” Miles tells The Scientist. “To do that, we created a sound source in the air that would propagate sound over a very short distance.”

"Once they heard the signal, the spiders responded by crouching, flattening out, or otherwise giving a startled response, the study authors explain. Because the web is so much larger than the spider, the paper suggests this mechanism allows the spider to hear noises it would otherwise miss, such as birds or crickets from over ten meters away.

***

"The researchers speculate that spiders may increase their hearing range to help dodge predators or track prey, but the spiders in this experiment primarily responded to the noise stimuli with apparent alarm and confusion." My bold)

Comment: a fascinating finding, but note the bold. Teh researchers aren't sure what it means to the spider. Other studies have shown spiders sense movement in the web of trapped insects.

Natures wonders: some bird sex organs are weird

by David Turell @, Friday, April 01, 2022, 01:48 (718 days ago) @ David Turell

Three percent of birds have complex sex organs:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-have-female-animals-evolved-such-wild...

"Ninety-seven percent of all bird species have no phallus. Those that did, including ostriches, emus and kiwis, sported organs quite different from the mammalian variety. Corkscrew-shaped, they exploded out into the female in one burst, and engorged with lymphatic fluid rather than blood. Sperm traveled down spiraling grooves along the outside.

***

"But she knew there was no way an appendage as complex and unusual as the duck penis would have evolved on its own. If the penis were a long corkscrew, the vagina ought to be an equally complex structure.

"The first step was to find some female ducks. Brennan and her husband drove out to one of the surrounding farms and purchased two Pekin ducks, which she euthanized without ceremony on a bale of hay. (Brennan’s husband is used to these kind of excursions: “He brings me roadkill as a nuptial gift,” she says.) Instead of slicing the reproductive tract up the sides, she spent hours carefully peeling away the tissues, layer by layer, “like unwrapping a present.” Eventually, a complex shape emerged: twisted and mazelike, with blind alleys and hidden compartments.

***

"By carefully dissecting the genitals of 16 species of waterfowl, Brennan and her colleagues found that ducks showed unparalleled vaginal diversity compared to any known bird group. There was a lot going on inside those vaginas. The main purpose, it appeared, was to make the male’s job harder: It was like a medieval chastity belt, built to thwart the male’s explosive aim. In some cases, the female genital tract prevented the penis from fully inflating, and was full of pockets where sperm went to die. In others, muscles surrounding the cloaca could block an unwanted male, or dilate to allow entry to a preferred suitor.

***

"Whatever the females were doing, they were succeeding. In ducks, only 2 to 5 percent of offspring are the result of forced encounters. The more aggressive and better endowed the male, the longer and more complex the female reproductive tract became to evade it. “When you dissected one of the birds, it was really easy to predict what the other sex was going to look like,” Brennan told the New York Times. It was a struggle for reproductive control, not bodily autonomy: Although a female couldn’t avoid physical harm, her anatomy could help her gain control over the genes of her offspring after a forced mating.

"The duck vagina, Brennan realized, was hardly the passive, simple structure that biologists had made it out to be. In fact, it was an expertly rigged penis-rejection machine. But what about in other animal groups?

***

"What they found at first reminded them strongly of the duck story. In the harbor porpoise, for instance, the vagina spiraled like a corkscrew and had several folds blocking the path to the cervix. Porpoise penises, in turn, ended in a fleshy projection, like a finger, that seemed to have evolved to poke through the folds and reach the cervix. Just as in ducks, it seemed that males and females were both evolving specialized features in order to gain the evolutionary advantage during sex.

***

"What she found in dolphins gave her pause. The substantial clitoris before her was a hint at something that seems obvious, but often isn’t: sex isn’t just for reproduction.

***

"Today, we know that genitalia do far more than just fit together mechanically. They can also signal, symbolize and titillate—not just to a potential mate, but to other members of a group. In humans, dolphins and beyond, sexual behavior can be used to strengthen friendships and alliances, make gestures of dominance and submission, and as part of social negotiations like reconciliation and peacemaking, points out evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden,

***

"Focusing solely on a few dramatic cases of sexual conflict—the “battle of the sexes” approach—obscures some of the other powerful forces that shape genitals. Doing so risks leaving out species in which the sexes cooperate and negotiate, including monogamous seabirds like albatrosses and penguins, and those in which homosexual bonds are as strong as heterosexual ones. In fact, it appears that the stunning variety of animal genitals are shaped by an equally stunning variety of driving forces: conflict, communication, and the pursuit of pleasure, to name a few."

Comment: So it is not just two by two up Noah's gangplank. These arrangements give some animals a sexual choice of mate. But not all. In domesticated beef cattle the cow goes into heat and wants someone, anyone quick. Vagina and penis are just like ours, so we might have changed them from what happens in the wild. The photos in the article show amazingly complex shapes. Look at them. Were they designed for the purpose of selection?

Natures wonders: shark magnetic migration

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2022, 16:07 (695 days ago) @ David Turell

Like others:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00476-0?_returnURL=https%3A...

"Migration is common in marine animals, and use of the map-like information of Earth’s magnetic field appears to play an important role. While sharks are iconic migrants and well known for their sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, whether this ability is used for navigation is unresolved. We conducted magnetic displacement experiments on wild-caught bonnetheads (Sphyrna tiburo) and show that magnetic map cues can elicit homeward orientation. We further show that use of a magnetic map to derive positional information may help explain aspects of the genetic structure of bonnethead populations in the northwest Atlantic. These results offer a compelling explanation for the puzzle of how migratory routes and population structure are maintained in marine environments, where few physical barriers limit movements of vagile species."

Comment: obviously ubiquitous

Natures wonders: bats mimic bees and hornets:

by David Turell @, Monday, May 09, 2022, 18:41 (680 days ago) @ David Turell

To avoid being eten by owls:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2319148-bats-buzz-like-bees-and-hornets-to-scare-o...

"Bats mimic the buzzing sound of stinging insects to scare off predatory owls. This type of acoustic trickery, when a harmless animal mimics a dangerous one, has been found previously in some insects but has never before been described in mammals.

***

"While all owls were spooked by the buzzing sound, some birds recoiled more than others. The researchers suspect that the owls’ varied reactions may be linked to their prior experience, as the wild owls that could potentially have had previous encounters with stinging insects had the most dramatic responses.

"Salser says he is curious to see if this mimicry wards off other avian predators in addition to owls. “Just because [the buzzes] work on owls, doesn’t mean they only work on owls.”

"He notes that if greater mouse-eared bats employ acoustic deception, others may do the same. “There’s so much diversity in bats, I’d be surprised if this was the only bat that’s using sound in this particular way,” says Salser."

Comment: bats, as mammals, are advanced animals with active brains. I'm not surprised they developed this.

Natures wonders: a spider hides under water

by David Turell @, Monday, May 09, 2022, 18:51 (680 days ago) @ David Turell

On a film of air under the surface:

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-tropical-spider-underwater-minutes.html

"A tropical spider species uses a "film" of air to hide underwater from predators for as long as 30 minutes, according to faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

***

"The spider spent about 30 minutes underwater. While submerged, it kept a "film" of air over its entire body. Swierk and her colleagues suspect that the fuzzy hairs that cover its body help it to maintain this film of air, which helps to prevent thermal loss while underwater, or to prevent water from entering the spider's respiratory organs.

"'The film of air surrounding the spider when it is underwater appears to be held in place by hydrophobic hairs covering the spider's entire body surface," said Swierk. "It's so complete that the spider almost looks like it's been dipped in silver. The film of air might serve to keep the respiratory openings away from water, since these spiders are air-breathing. The film of air might also help to minimize thermal loss to the cold stream water that the spider submerges itself in."

"According to Swierk, this observation provides new insight into how species can cope with the problem of finding refuge underwater.

"'These spiders, and any animal hiding from predators in general, have to do their best to manage risk," said Swierk. "Risk of predation, yes, but also risk of the costs they'll experience by fleeing. For some species that means leaving territory or mates unguarded, or maybe spending stored energy in a sprint. In this species, potential risks of underwater refuge use can include lack of respiration and a loss of body heat. There are many more questions to dig into starting from this first observation.'"

Comment: same question about this adaptation is did God help? My rule is to look at the complexity involved, in this case special hydrophobic body hairs. I favor God.

Natures wonders: octopuses self-destruct after mating

by David Turell @, Friday, May 13, 2022, 19:05 (676 days ago) @ David Turell

A weird event:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-close-in-on-why-octopuses-tragically-destroy-th...

"Octopuses are doomed to be orphans from a very young age. After a female octopus lays her eggs, she stops eating and begins self-mutilating, tearing off her skin and biting off the tips of her tentacles.

"By the time a young octopus wriggles out of its egg, its mother is already dead. A few months later, its father will die, too.

"The short and grim life of the octopus has long fascinated scientists. In 1944, researchers hypothesized that mating was somehow hitting a molecular "self-destruct" button within the sea creatures.

***

"In 1977, researchers figured out that the optic gland somehow plays a role in an octopus's programmed death.

"This organ is similar to the pituitary organ in humans. It sits between the octopus's eyes and it is linked to sexual development and aging in cephalopods. When it is removed from a female octopus, the creature lives several months after laying her eggs.

"In 2018, scientists took this knowledge and sequenced the RNA of two optic glands from two female octopuses in differing stages of decline.

"As an octopus neared death, the authors noticed higher levels of activity in several genes that control for sex hormones, insulin-like hormones, and cholesterol metabolism.

"Now, a few years later, some of the same researchers have directly analyzed the molecules secreted from this organ in both mated females and unmated females.

"After mating, its appears the optic gland really does secrete more sex hormones, insulin-like hormones, and precursors of cholesterol.

"All three of these molecules could ultimately contribute to signaling systems that trigger death. Or, perhaps it is merely the accumulation of these molecules in the octopus's body that is lethal, as is the case in humans.

"While the optic gland has previously been linked to the production of sex hormones in cephalopods, the other two pathways have only recently been identified in the "self-destruct" sequence.

***

"Wang says she is particularly excited that two of the pathways her team has identified are known from other studies in rodents.

"'[N]ow there's evidence from our study that those pathways are probably present in octopuses as well," says Wang.

"'It was really exciting to see the similarity across such different animals.'"

Comment: There is no clear reason for this happening. The oceans are huge, so a danger of overpopulation isn't present. Did God plan this? I view everything created is God's doing, but I cannot find a reason for God's actions here. I simply accept it.

Natures wonders: sturdy bird nests

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 14, 2022, 17:35 (675 days ago) @ David Turell

Birds know how to do it:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bird-nest-sturdy-physics

"To build its nest, a bird won’t go for any old twig. Somehow, birds pick and choose material that will create a cozy, sturdy nest.

“'That’s just totally mystifying to me,” says physicist Hunter King of the University of Akron in Ohio. Birds seem to have a sense for how the properties of an individual stick will translate to the characteristics of the nest. That relationship “is something we don’t know the first thing about predicting,” King says.

"A bird’s nest is a special version of a granular material: a substance, such as sand, made up of many smaller objects (SN: 4/30/19). King and colleagues combined laboratory experiments and computer simulations to better understand the quirks of nestlike granular materials, the researchers report in a study to appear in Physical Review Letters.

"In the experiments, a piston repeatedly compressed 460 bamboo rods scattered inside a cylinder. The computer simulations let researchers analyze the points where sticks touched, which is key to understanding the material, the team says.

"The more force the piston applied to the pile, the stiffer the pile became, meaning it resisted further deformation. As the piston bore down, sticks slid against one another, and the contact points between them rearranged. That stiffened the pile by allowing additional contact points to form between sticks, which prevented them from flexing further, the simulations showed.

"Changes in the pile’s stiffness seemed to lag behind the piston’s motion, a phenomenon called hysteresis. That effect caused the pile to be stiffer when the piston pushed in than when the material bounced back as the piston retracted. Simulations suggest that the hysteresis arose because the initial friction between sticks needed to be overcome before the contact points started to rearrange.

"Beyond bird nests, this research could be applied to other materials made of disordered arrangements of long fibers, such as felt. With a better understanding of the physical qualities of such materials, engineers could use them to create new structures designed to protect not only bird eggs, but other cargo that humans consider precious."

Comment: on the issue of nesting, birds are smarter than we are. It is not just the knots of the weaverbird. I still feel God helped.

Natures wonders: skydiving salamanders

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 15:13 (665 days ago) @ David Turell

High in the Redwoods tops:

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/wandering-salamanders-10833.html?utm_source=feedburner&...

"Wandering salamanders (Aneides vagrans) reside in the crowns of the world’s tallest trees, California’s coast redwoods, and have been observed to readily jump from the canopy when disturbed. In a new paper published today in the journal Current Biology, University of South Florida doctoral candidate Christian Brown and colleagues described the aerial performance of falling wandering salamanders, which maintain stable gliding postures via adjustments of the limbs and tail in lieu of specialized control surfaces.

***

"The animal is native to California, the United States, and is thought to be introduced to British Columbia, Canada.

"That wandering salamanders jump from the tallest trees on Earth suggests adaptation for controlled descent in these creatures, especially considering the potential dangers of uncontrolled falls from the canopy.

“'Although hundreds of species of lungless salamanders are known to climb, aerial behavior had not been described,” Brown said.

“'Our investigation of aerial behavior revealed that highly arboreal species of salamanders, especially the wandering salamander, reliably engage in parachuting and gliding to slow and direct their descent.”

***

"In wind-tunnel experiments, the salamanders parachuted consistently, slowing their vertical speed by up to 10% while falling.

"They also coupled parachuting with undulations of their tail and torso to effect gliding at non-vertical angles about half of the time.

“'To observe salamanders, which are generally associated with ponds and streams, in the air is a bit unexpected in and of itself,” Brown said.

“'Most surprising to us was the exquisite level of control that the more arboreal salamanders had in the vertical wind tunnel.”

“'Wandering salamanders were especially adept and seemed to instinctively deploy skydiving postures upon first contact with the airstream.”

“'These salamanders were not only able to slow themselves down, but also used fine-scale control in pitch, roll, and yaw to maintain upright body postures, execute banking turns, and glide horizontally.”

“'This level of aerial control was unexpected because these salamanders do not seem to possess conspicuous features for aerial control.”

Comment: adapting body control in free fall is most likely a learned adaptation. No body parts are altered

Natures wonders: dragonfly flight controls

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 17:12 (663 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 17:17

Carefully studied:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220513113228.htm

"Researchers have untangled the intricate physics and neural controls that enable dragonflies to right themselves while they're falling.

***

"The research reveals a chain of mechanisms that begins with the dragonfly's eyes -- all five of them -- and continues through its muscles and wing pitch.

***

"'When we looked at their flight behavior, we were simultaneously in awe and frustrated," she said. "The trajectories are complex and unpredictable. Dragonflies constantly make maneuvers, without following any obvious direction. It's mysterious."

***

"Wang realized that, unlike humans who have an inertial sense, dragonflies could rely on their two visual systems -- a pair of large compound eyes, and three simple eyes called ocelli -- to gauge their uprightness.

***

"'These experiments suggest that vision is the first and dominant pathway to initiate the dragonfly's righting reflex," Wang said.

"That visual cue triggers a series of reflexes that sends neural signals to the dragonfly's four wings, which are driven by a set of direct muscles that modulate the left-wing and right-wing pitch asymmetry accordingly. With three or four wing strokes, a tumbling dragonfly can roll 180 degrees and resume flying right-side up. The entire process takes about 200 milliseconds.

"'What was difficult was figuring out the key control strategy from the experimental data," Wang said. "It took us a very long time to understand the mechanism by which a small amount of pitch asymmetry can lead to the observed rotation. The key asymmetry is hidden among many other changes."

***

"'Flight control on the timescale of tens or hundreds of milliseconds is difficult to engineer," Wang said. "Small flapping machines now can take off and turn, but still have trouble remaining in the air. When they tilt, it is hard to correct. One of the things that animals have to do is precisely solve these kinds of problems.'" (my bold)

Comment: the bold emphasized the issue. How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

https://www.biophiliafoundation.org/dragonflies-environmental-indicators/

"Dragonflies -The Hawks of the Insect World Are Important Environmental Indicators
Dragonflies are an ancient family of insects. They have been around for 300 million years — predating even the dinosaurs. Some ancient dragonflies had a wingspan of more than 2 feet. Today, there are more than 5,000"

"...different species of dragonflies and they can be found on every continent except Antarctica. Conserving dragonflies and their habitat must be a priority because they are valuable environmental indicators. Biophilia Foundation is proud of its partners’ work to restore and protect dragonfly habitat."

Natures wonders: archerfish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 17:52 (636 days ago) @ David Turell

Squirts water like an archer to get prey:

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/archerfish-defy-notion-that-complex-vision-requi...

"Fortunately for researchers, archerfish (family Toxotidae) readily spit at targets in a lab in exchange for snacks, says University of Oxford visual ecologist Cait Newport, who adds that the fish are “very hard workers . . . and generally not too shy.” These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago. Even though they lack a cortex, the part of the mammalian brain that processes visual stimuli, archerfish can still perform many of the same behavioral tasks as mammals, making direct comparisons between the two groups possible. “Anything that you can place in the form of a multiple-choice question, you can actually study with the archerfish,” says Ronen Segev, a neuroscientist at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel.

***

"Object discrimination isn’t the only surprising thing that archerfish seem to be able to do without a cortex, and archerfish as a group remain a fruitful source of research ideas, says Shai Gabay, an evolutionary neuroscientist at the University of Haifa in Israel. Gabay’s lab uses archerfish to complement his research on the human brain and to challenge what he calls a “cortico-centric bias” in the neuroscience literature. His team has argued that archerfish respond to stimuli in a volitional manner—that is, by processing and acting on information in a way that goes beyond purely reflexive reactions—and preliminary work suggests that the animals engage in prosocial behaviors such as food sharing. In findings recently presented at a conference by a member of Gabay’s lab, the team found that an archerfish will consistently choose a target that rewards both itself and a passive tankmate with food, so long as the chooser receives at least as much as its neighbor. While it was thought that a highly evolved brain that includes a cortex was needed for social behaviors, “now we can see very complex social behaviors even in fish,” Gabay tells The Scientist, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to sociality."

Comment: they are just like humnan archers. What this means it is the design of the archerfish neurons that allow this degreee of cognition. No. it is not just brain size but the neuron design.

Natures wonders: archerfish

by dhw, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 11:00 (635 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: “These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago.

Quoted simply to emphasize the nature of “common descent”, which means that all life forms (other than the very first) have descended from earlier life forms.

“His team has argued that archerfish respond to stimuli in a volitional manner—that is, by processing and acting on information in a way that goes beyond purely reflexive reactions—and preliminary work suggests that the animals engage in prosocial behaviors such as food sharing.”

"While it was thought that a highly evolved brain that includes a cortex was needed for social behaviors, “now we can see very complex social behaviors even in fish,” Gabay tells The Scientist, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to sociality."

DAVID: they are just like human archers. What this means it is the design of the archerfish neurons that allow this degree of cognition. No. it is not just brain size but the neuron design.

Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

Natures wonders: archerfish

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 16:22 (635 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: “These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago.

Quoted simply to emphasize the nature of “common descent”, which means that all life forms (other than the very first) have descended from earlier life forms.

“His team has argued that archerfish respond to stimuli in a volitional manner—that is, by processing and acting on information in a way that goes beyond purely reflexive reactions—and preliminary work suggests that the animals engage in prosocial behaviors such as food sharing.”

"While it was thought that a highly evolved brain that includes a cortex was needed for social behaviors, “now we can see very complex social behaviors even in fish,” Gabay tells The Scientist, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to sociality."

DAVID: they are just like human archers. What this means it is the design of the archerfish neurons that allow this degree of cognition. No. it is not just brain size but the neuron design.

dhw: Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

A nice sidestep to my observation about their neuron's probable design.

Natures wonders: a giant visible bacteria

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 19:20 (635 days ago) @ David Turell

More complex than the small ones:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2325909-largest-known-bacteria-in-the-world-are-vi...

"The world’s largest known bacteria have been found in the tropical mangroves of Guadeloupe. Each bacterium is about a centimetre in length and has a structural complexity never seen before in bacteria.

***

"Most bacteria are around two micrometres – 0.0002 centimetres – in length. Their size is limited by the fact that the energy-carrying molecules they use to power themselves are produced using enzymes embedded in the cell membrane. This means bacteria need to have a suitable surface-area-to-volume ratio to function. Growing bigger also limits how well they can move around.

***

“'They grow much larger than what was thought to be the maximum possible size for bacteria,” said team member Jean-Marie Volland at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California at the press briefing.

“'It is the equivalent for us humans to encounter another human who would be as tall as the Mount Everest, so of course that was quite a surprise,” added Volland.

"By imaging T. magnifica cells, the researchers revealed that the bacteria have an extended network of membranes – studded with ATP-producing enzymes – packed within their cell volume. This allows them to meet their energy needs despite their large size.

"One end of each bacterium anchors to hard surfaces, such as sunken leaves, that lie among the sulphur-rich sediments on the mangrove floor, while the rest of the body stretches up into the water. How exactly it attaches is unclear.

***

“'They may somehow bridge the gap between these two chemical compartments, and they seem to be exploiting these chemical gradients to generate energy and fix carbon,” said Volland.

By labelling the membranes of T. magnifica cells with a dye and imaging the bacteria, the researchers also discovered that the cells store their DNA and protein-making machinery, or ribosomes, inside sacs made from cell membrane. This is a feature normally only seen in more complex eukaryotic cells such as those found in plants and animals.

“'Most bacterial cells have their DNA floating freely inside their cells,” said Volland. “These compartments in T. magnifica represent a new type of bacterial [cell compartment] that we named pepins, which means in French, the small seeds in fruits.”

"Despite its unusual features, T. magnifica has many genetic similarities with members of the Thiomargarita group of bacteria and fits nicely within the current tree of life.

***

“'It is always a delight when an [unusual bacterium] is added to the microbial bestiary,” says Paul Schavemaker at the University of Groningen, who wasn’t involved in the work. “Given its large volume and its complex internal organisation, T. magnifica certainly expands what we imagine possible for prokaryotes [such as bacteria] and renders the boundaries between prokaryotes and eukaryotes more fuzzy.”

“'The impact of the study is enormous. All microbiology textbooks mention that bacteria are small and simple. However, the results described in this paper will completely change our view on these aspects,” says Gerard Muijzer at the University of Amsterdam."

Comment: perhaps another hint at how eukaryotes appeared.

Natures wonders: archerfish

by dhw, Friday, June 24, 2022, 09:25 (634 days ago) @ David Turell

ARCHERFISH

QUOTES: “These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago.”

dhw: Quoted simply to emphasize the nature of “common descent”, which means that all life forms (other than the very first) have descended from earlier life forms.

In the light of today’s post, and indeed all your earlier posts, I presume you believe your God designed the archerfish separately.

His team has argued that archerfish respond to stimuli in a volitional manner—that is, by processing and acting on information in a way that goes beyond purely reflexive reactions—and preliminary work suggests that the animals engage in prosocial behaviors such as food sharing.”
"While it was thought that a highly evolved brain that includes a cortex was needed for social behaviors, “now we can see very complex social behaviors even in fish,” Gabay tells The Scientist, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to sociality."

DAVID: they are just like human archers. What this means it is the design of the archerfish neurons that allow this degree of cognition. No. it is not just brain size but the neuron design.

dhw: Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: A nice sidestep to my observation about their neuron's probable design.

Not a sidestep. I have always accepted the logic of the argument for design. I have simply added my own comment, as this whole post is highly relevant to our discussions on animal and cellular intelligence. Thank you again for bringing it to our attention.

Natures wonders: archerfish

by David Turell @, Friday, June 24, 2022, 16:51 (634 days ago) @ dhw

ARCHERFISH

QUOTES: “These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago.”

dhw: Quoted simply to emphasize the nature of “common descent”, which means that all life forms (other than the very first) have descended from earlier life forms.

dhw: In the light of today’s post, and indeed all your earlier posts, I presume you believe your God designed the archerfish separately.

The archerfish looks like all other fish. God gave/designed the archerfish specialized neurons


His team has argued that archerfish respond to stimuli in a volitional manner—that is, by processing and acting on information in a way that goes beyond purely reflexive reactions—and preliminary work suggests that the animals engage in prosocial behaviors such as food sharing.”
"While it was thought that a highly evolved brain that includes a cortex was needed for social behaviors, “now we can see very complex social behaviors even in fish,” Gabay tells The Scientist, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to sociality."

DAVID: they are just like human archers. What this means it is the design of the archerfish neurons that allow this degree of cognition. No. it is not just brain size but the neuron design.

dhw: Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: A nice sidestep to my observation about their neuron's probable design.

dhw: Not a sidestep. I have always accepted the logic of the argument for design. I have simply added my own comment, as this whole post is highly relevant to our discussions on animal and cellular intelligence. Thank you again for bringing it to our attention.

You are welcome. Design but no designer. Logical???

Natures wonders: archerfish

by dhw, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 08:22 (633 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: “These features make them a powerful model for studying visual cognition in fish, a group that diverged from its most recent common ancestor with humans roughly 420 million years ago.”

dhw: Quoted simply to emphasize the nature of “common descent”, which means that all life forms (other than the very first) have descended from earlier life forms.
dhw: In the light of today’s post, and indeed all your earlier posts, I presume you believe your God designed the archerfish separately.

DAVID: The archerfish looks like all other fish. God gave/designed the archerfish specialized neurons.

Yep. Thought so. Preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago? Or did he pop in and do a dabble on some pre-archerfish? Or did he design them without any precursors? And why do you think their specially designed neurons were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food?

dhw: Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: A nice sidestep to my observation about their neuron's probable design.

dhw: Not a sidestep. I have always accepted the logic of the argument for design. I have simply added my own comment, as this whole post is highly relevant to our discussions on animal and cellular intelligence. Thank you again for bringing it to our attention.

DAVID: You are welcome. Design but no designer. Logical???

I’m sorry you don’t wish to comment on the subject of animal and cellular intelligence. Yes, the argument for design is logical. And your God may have been the designer. I am an agnostic. On the other hand, the argument for a sourceless, unknown, unknowable, immaterial being that has simply always been there and designs universes and archerfish neurons sounds more like a fairy tale than reality. I am an agnostic. You might have noticed.

Natures wonders: archerfish

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 17:03 (633 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The archerfish looks like all other fish. God gave/designed the archerfish specialized neurons.

dhw: Yep. Thought so. Preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago? Or did he pop in and do a dabble on some pre-archerfish? Or did he design them without any precursors? And why do you think their specially designed neurons were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food?

Same old answer: part of a necessary ecosystem.


dhw: Thank you for yet another wonderful illustration of animal intelligence, which “goes beyond purely reflexive reactions” (what you would call automatic behaviour). It doesn’t take much imagination to extend these observations to the amazing intelligence and social behaviour of cells and cell communities. The only thing that prevents some people from taking this step is what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: A nice sidestep to my observation about their neuron's probable design.

dhw: Not a sidestep. I have always accepted the logic of the argument for design. I have simply added my own comment, as this whole post is highly relevant to our discussions on animal and cellular intelligence. Thank you again for bringing it to our attention.

DAVID: You are welcome. Design but no designer. Logical???

dhw: I’m sorry you don’t wish to comment on the subject of animal and cellular intelligence. Yes, the argument for design is logical. And your God may have been the designer. I am an agnostic. On the other hand, the argument for a sourceless, unknown, unknowable, immaterial being that has simply always been there and designs universes and archerfish neurons sounds more like a fairy tale than reality. I am an agnostic. You might have noticed.

A rigid agnostic.

Natures wonders: eel migration by magnetic field

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 21:41 (632 days ago) @ David Turell

A common approach:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-electric-eel-navigation-skills-magneti...

"Many species of ocean fish [such as American eels] migrate over large distances. Some of them do so with such extreme accuracy that they can come thousands of miles to return to the stream or area where they were born. Naturalists naturally wonder how they do it. One of the suggestions is that they use electricity.

"It’s still a mystery how the American eel (Anguilla rostrata) navigates to its breeding grounds. But a growing body of evidence has shifted focus from electricity to magnetic fields. Experiments suggest that the American eel’s European cousin, A. anguilla, seems to follow a magnetic map to the North Atlantic’s Sargasso Sea, guided by an internal compass. In March, scientists proposed that freshly spawned A­merican and European eels follow paths of increasing magnetic intensity from the Sargasso Sea to their freshwater homes. As adults, the eels may sense decreasing intensity to retrace the path to their birthplace."

Comment: the Earth has a great magnetic field. Why not use it? Just add ferrous particles.

Natures wonders: one shot sea anemone stinger

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 20:19 (622 days ago) @ David Turell

Just analyzed:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sea-anemone-venomous-stinger-launch-prey

"A new look at the starlet sea anemone’s stinger gets right to the point.

Live-animal images and 3-D computer reconstructions have revealed the complex architecture of the tiny creature’s needlelike weapons. Like a harpoon festooned with venomous barbs, the stinger rapidly transforms as it fires,

***

"In the wild, the starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis) can live in salty lagoons or shallow estuaries, where freshwater rivers meet the sea. Its tubular body burrows into the mud, and a crown of Medusa-like tentacles reaches up into the water, waiting for dinner to drift by (SN: 5/7/13). Each tentacle is packing heat: hundreds of stingers that can mean death for brine shrimp or free-floating plankton.

"These stingers are among the fastest micromachines in nature. An anemone can jab a predator or nab some lunch in about a hundredth of a second, says Karabulut, also of the Stowers Institute. Scientists had an idea of how such stingers worked, but until now, had never gotten so up close and personal.

***

"Packed inside a stinger’s capsule, a venomous thread coils around a central shaft. When triggered, the shaft explodes out of the pressurized capsule and extends, turning itself inside out like a sock. Finally, the thread races up through the shaft, sending its barbs into an animal’s soft tissue.

"Each stinger is good for just one shot. “It’s a one-hit wonder,” Karabulut says. “Once Nematostella uses it, it’s gone.'”

Comment: Another example of an irreducibly complex organ, which is so complex it had to appear all at once in complete form. This shows a designer is required.

Natures wonders: sea cucumber self-protection

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 15:56 (622 days ago) @ David Turell

They produce poisons for others but they are protected:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-the-sea-cucumber-defends-itself-from-its...


"Despite being soft, squishy, and slow-moving, sea cucumbers (Class Holothuroidea) are surprisingly tough. They scavenge in harsh, rapidly changing conditions on the ocean floor, under the constant threat of toxic bacteria. To protect themselves against predators and pathogens alike, sea cucumbers produce defensive toxins called saponins, as do their close cousins, starfish. However, new research finds that sea cucumbers are the only echinoderms—and among the only animals on Earth—that produce chemicals called triterpenoid saponins, which don’t poison the sea cucumbers themselves thanks to their unique metabolic pathways.

"A study published Monday (June 27) in Nature Chemical Biology finds that sea cucumbers have evolved a way to synthesize these saponins with different enzymes than those used by their echinoderm cousins and the vast majority of other animals. In doing so, they’ve evolved a mechanism that makes them immune to their own saponins.

***

"...since sea cucumbers lack any adaptive immunity and must rely on their innate defenses to survive, “it’s not so surprising that . . . sea cucumbers evolved something special” to defend themselves.

"Previously, scientists knew that sea cucumbers produced triterpenoid saponins, which are more commonly found in plants than in animals. These chemicals bind to cholesterol molecules on cell membranes and rapidly cause death. In the new study, the researchers found that the sea cucumbers don’t produce cholesterol and have very little of it on their membranes, which allows them to remain unfazed by saponins.

***

"The team discovered that the cucumber OSC genes produced two sterol-like molecules, both of which were involved in triterpenoid production. These molecules also converted compounds into the cholesterol-like molecules that are present in the sea cucumber cell membranes. The molecules function similarly to cholesterol, but their differences help the animals avoid poisoning themselves with saponins."

Comment: another example of an irreducibly complex mechanism with so many interlocking requirements, it must be created all at once, not step by step by chance. This must be designed.

Natures wonders: hornet distribute Agarwood seeds

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 19:01 (622 days ago) @ David Turell

Attracted by scents mimicking prey scents:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/trees-scent-tricks-hornets-into-shuttling-se...

"Each year, the agarwood tree, a sought-after source of medicines and perfumes that grows in the rainforests of southwest China, needs to solve a problem. The tree’s fruits mature during the hottest time of the year. As temperatures climb, the fruits split and the seeds hang from the fruit, where they can dry out in a matter of hours.

"To meet their ultra-fast seed-dispersal needs, the trees have tricked a species of hornets (Vespa velutina) into becoming seed couriers, a new study suggests. The work, published today (June 30) in Current Biology, describes how the agarwood’s fruit mimic the odors released when the insects start feasting on agarwood leaves. The hornets are lured in by these odors to prey on the insects but encounter a seed instead.

***

"In a series of field experiments performed on two agarwood tree (Aquilaria sinensis) plantations in Yunnan Province, China, researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences followed the fate of a total of 600 seeds on 420 just-opened fruit on four trees. They observed when and how often hornets (genus Vespa) visited the fruit. The hornets descended upon and attacked the hanging, protected seeds of the plant (called diaspores) as if they were prey just 13 minutes after the seeds emerged, on average. While three species of hornets visited the trees, V. velutina aided in dispersal of 84 percent of the seeds.

"Once the hornets tore off the diaspores, they carried them to other branches or to their nests, which they usually built on large, well-shaded branches near the trunk of the tree. The hornets only consume the fleshy, outside part of the seed, called the elastiome, leaving the rest intact and viable. Overall, the hornets aided in the dispersal of 96 percent of the seeds. In separate laboratory experiments, the researchers also found that the seeds germinated in the type of shady environments favored by the hornets, suggesting that the hornets’ leftovers could survive as a next generation of agarwood trees.

***

"Suspecting that the fruit might be mimicking compounds released when leaves are damaged by leaf-eating insects (which happen to be hornet prey), the researchers placed caterpillars (Heortia vitessoides) on A. sinensis seedlings. They analyzed the composition of the volatile molecules released by the damaged leaves, as well as the electrophysiological activity of the hornets’ antennae in response to these chemicals. They found that damaged leaves emitted 14 out of 17 chemicals emitted by the ripe fruit, and eight of these elicited high electrical activity in the hornets’ antennae. The researchers concluded that the fruit must be sending out the same volatiles the leaves deploy when eaten by a hornet’s food."

Comment: using attractive scents to lure hornets to disperse the seeds is a neat trick, not likely to develop by chance mutations. It is not much different than birds eating seeds and dispersing them in their poop.

Natures wonders: dragonfly migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 15:46 (621 days ago) @ David Turell

An insect travels over water 2,500 kilometers each year:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-dragonflies-make-the-most-extraordina...

"Every October, the globe skimmer dragonfly, Pantala flavescens, migrates from India to Africa via the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. The nonstop journey from the Maldives across the Indian Ocean to Somalia is 2500 kilometers.

"The dragonfly is just a few centimeters long so for its body size, this is the longest nonstop journey of any creature.

***

"At the heart of the work by Ranjan and colleagues is their model for studying the energetics involved in dragonfly flight. Their model includes factors such as lift, drag and energy involved in flying with wings beating at a certain frequency. It then compares it with the chemical power the insect has available from onboard fuel storage.

“'Energetics calculations reveal a P. flavescens can endure 90 hours of steady flight at 4.5m/s,” say Ranjana and co.

"That’s an important finding that suggests the migration is not possible without help. “The prevailing winds play a pivotal role; a direct crossing of the Indian Ocean from Africa to India is feasible with the Somali Jet, whereas the return requires stopovers in Maldives and Seychelles,” say the team.

***

"The team analyzed wind patterns throughout the year and found that they only became favorable for a crossing from India to Somalia after September with the greatest probability of success in December.

"Indeed, that’s exactly what entomologists observe. P. flavescens arrive in Somalia in November and December having travelled from India via the Maldives and the Seychelles. The researchers say that the prevailing wind means that each leg of the journey can be done in under 90 hours.

"The return journey is assisted by the Somali Jet, which sends moisture towards Asia for the Summer monsoon. Again this becomes possible within the 90-hour endurance limit.

"Ranjana and co say that more than one route satisfies the conditions for flight. That probably explains why the routes dragonflies take are not always the same and why they end up elsewhere in Asia too — the same pattern of flight, wind, moisture and other factors can send them to entirely different places.

"That’s interesting work that shows how important the timing of the journey must be. The dragonflies can only make the journey when the winds at their chosen altitudes are strong enough and in the right direction.

***

"The research leaves numerous other questions unanswered, such as how the dragonflies know when the winds are optimal for the journey, how they navigate to tiny islands in the Indian Ocean along the way and most puzzling of all, how this knowledge is passed from one generation to the next, since the same flight patterns occur every year." (my bold)

Comment: the bold above asks the right questions. It is instinct by definition, but how did it develop by chance? It is much more precarious than the Monarch trips in North America with shorter ocean routes. It is part of an ecosystem designed by God.

Natures wonders: water flies adapt to avoid capture

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 13, 2022, 22:36 (614 days ago) @ David Turell

They have become too big for capture:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220713114649.htm

"Water fleas are masters of adaptation. Researchers from Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB), the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg and the Technical University of Darmstadt have discovered that they can defend themselves not only against animals but also against carnivorous plants. They showed that water fleas swim more slowly and develop lateral spines in the presence of the aquatic plant Utricularia (bladderworts). It seems that both mechanisms make it more difficult for the carnivorous plant to suck them into its trap.

***

"This change in behaviour and the adaptations in body structure proved effective. The team compared how often animals that had grown up without the plant were eaten compared to animals that had been exposed to the plant. In fact, the latter were eaten less frequently. "This indicates that the activatable adaptations are actually defences against the plant," concludes Sebastian Kruppert.

"'We assume that the appendages let the water fleas grow wider than the diameter of the suction trap entrances," as Martin Horstmann describes the process. "The traps are different sizes, but the smaller traps at least can no longer ingest the animals." Since the water fleas with defences are also slimmer, the water current can probably flow past them more easily. Moreover, the slower swimming movements probably trigger the traps less often.

"'We hadn't been aware of any other case where animals can defend themselves against attacks from plants," as Ralph Tollrian outlines the special nature of the discovery. "The fact that various defences such as behavioural adaptations and changes in body structure can simultaneously be observed shows how adaptable and fascinating these tiny animals are.'"

Comment: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

Natures wonders: how land plant pollen protects DNA

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 00:01 (608 days ago) @ David Turell

Pollination on land offers dangers to the enclosed DNA for fertilization:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-diamond-of-the-plant-world-helped-land-plants-ev...

"All seeding plants make pollen; other land plants, such as moss, produce spores. Carrying half the genetic information that the plants need to reproduce, pollen and spores move through the environment on the wind or on a helpful animal, to reach another plant of their species and fertilize its egg cell. But along the way, pollen and spores must contend with dangers that range from dehydration to the sun’s ultraviolet rays to hungry insects. Since plants first found purchase on land around 470 million years ago, keeping the genetic information within pollen and spores safe during their journey to fertilization has been vitally important.

"The main strategy that plants employ to protect that DNA is to encase it in a specialized shell of sporopollenin, which is impervious to the elements and among the toughest materials produced by any living thing. It has been found intact in half-billion-year-old rocks. A 2016 paper found that because of the robustness of sporopollenin, spores maintained their stability in diamond anvils at pressures of 10 gigapascals, or 725 tons per square inch.

***

"Its [sporopollenin] function was well known, and the genes for making it were in every seed- and spore-producing plant, which implied that sporopollenin was a basic adaptation enabling plants to live on land at the very beginning of their escape from the oceans. (Some species of algae also make a sporopollenin-like substance, which suggests that land plants adapted the biosynthesis of that molecule during their evolution.)

***

"In conversation, Li used his hands to describe the intricate shape of the structure. With his thumb and forefinger, he showed how aromatic molecules hang off the backbone in alternating L-shapes. He demonstrated how the backbone is bound with the cross-linkages by pointing one flattened hand into the other at an angle, as if engaging in some strange form of prayer. These basic units link together to form the complete exine shell, which takes on radically different shapes in different plants, though the basic molecular subunits are fundamentally similar.

"The structure gave credence to the idea that the hardiness of sporopollenin arises from the varied, braided linkages between the backbones. These ester and ether linkages are resistant, respectively, to basic and acidic conditions; together they resist both. The structure that Li’s group proposed also included several aromatic molecules known to be resistant to ultraviolet light, which accounted for sporopollenin’s ability to guard DNA from the elements.

“'Without these metabolic innovations, plants would not have been able to migrate from water to land in the first place,” Weng wrote in an email to Quanta.

***

"Fossils show that plants have been making spores and pollen ever since they first moved to dry land. (my bolds)

***

"Notwithstanding the controversies over their structure for sporopollenin, Li and others in the Weng lab have moved on to another evolutionary question: Has nature figured out how to take apart this nearly indestructible material it put together?

"As he hiked around Walden Pond in search of other pollen-coated inlets, Li compared sporopollenin to lignin, the plant polymer that strengthens wood and bark. After woody plants first evolved about 360 million years ago, the geological record shows an abundance of fossilized lignin in strata for tens of millions of years. Then suddenly about 300 million years ago, the lignin vanishes. Its disappearance marks the moment when a fungus called white rot evolved enzymes capable of degrading lignin and ate much of it before it could fossilize.

"Sporopollenin, Li reasoned, must also have a fungus or other microbe capable of breaking it down. Otherwise we’d be drowning in the stuff. Li’s back-of-the-envelope calculations are that 100 million tons of sporopollenin are produced in forests every year. That doesn’t even account for the sporopollenin produced by grasses. If nothing is eating it, where does it all go?"

Comment: based on all the conditions and dangers affecting pollen, the bolded statements are very pertinent. The plants can't just jump on land without the pollen being protected at the same time. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: hibernating insects destroy & regrow muscle

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 00:17 (608 days ago) @ David Turell

One one type of insect:

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-hibernating-insects-regrow-muscles-demand.html

"New research from Western University has found potato beetles can break down and regrow muscles on demand, allowing them to preserve energy over the winter.

"In a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of insect physiologists from Western showed that hibernating Colorado potato beetles break down mitochondria in their own flight muscle in preparation for the harsh winter climate.

"Often referred to as the powerhouses of the cell, mitochondria normally supply energy for flight and metabolism. In human muscles, mitochondria degrade when not in use (for example, in astronauts that spend a long time in zero gravity) and require exercise to stimulate regrowth.

"However, unlike humans, these beetles spontaneously regrow their mitochondria on demand and prepare their muscles for flight in the spring.

***

"When mitochondria disappear in disease, it's usually because of an irreversible process called mitophagy. Sometimes, this can be reversed with exercise in humans.

"Sinclair and Lebenzon showed that mitophagy did cause the mitochondria to go missing, but when they looked at the beetles at the end of winter, all of the mitochondria were back, even though the beetles hadn't flexed a muscle.

"'This ability to simply regrow an entire muscle's worth of mitochondria is completely novel, and explains how beetles are able to save energy all winter, yet be ready fly and mate immediately in the spring," said Lebenzon."

Comment: it is a neat trick not likely designed by chance.

Natures wonders: cooperating bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 20:11 (607 days ago) @ David Turell

A new form is found:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/inside-versus-out-a-new-form-of-bacterial-co...

"Oceanic bacteria form a transient spherical community to conquer large food sources, taking on different roles to break down the bounty more efficiently.

***

"While she expected the bacteria to aggregate in haphazard clumps, V. splendidus had grown into neat, nearly perfect spheres. These bizarre colonies, described June 30 in Current Biology, turned out to be a previously unknown form of bacterial self-organization. And although these clustered cells share the same genes, Schwartzman and her colleagues found that they expressed them differently based on their location in the sphere, taking on starkly different roles in their miniature community.

***

"Typically, bacteria engage in this sort of cooperation by forming biofilms and other aggregates, in which they’re glued together by a dense extracellular matrix. In this form, they can share nutrients and genetic information. Indeed, Schwartzman had previously observed that V. splendidus clump up when suspended in liquid media, but the colonies that the bacteria formed this time around were much neater and more organized than she expected. By observing these colonies through a microscope, the researchers realized that as the cells divided and created a tight cluster and started to take on different properties depending on their location in the clump. Those along the margins moved very little, creating a static shell, while those in the core continued to move around. Both types of cells then continued to grow and divide until the interior cells eventually burst out through their external companions, leaving a hollow sphere. After the rupture, the authors speculate that the cells remaining in the shell die off while the escapees go on to form new colonies, pointing out that this bursting behavior, which the scientists described as a three-stage process, is similar to how fungi and other organisms propagate.

***

"After observing the two phenotypes that create such structured colonies, Schwartzman employed a battery of techniques to understand how they emerge. RNA sequencing revealed that the core and shell populations were transcriptionally different. The cells in the shell were pumping out filamentous protein structures called type 4 pilli that can expand and retract—Schwartzman likens them to “active Velcro.” This is likely how these outer cells stick to each other and keep the structure contained.

"Meanwhile, the cells in the core activated genes for making lipids, which Schwartzman says was likely a way of stockpiling carbon that the colony could use as it grew.

***

"In the wild, they explain, these bacteria are likely using the division of labor strategy to take advantage of temporary feasts. V. splendidus spend the majority of their lives as single cells floating around in ocean water looking for food, the researchers say. Once they find an abundant source, the divison of labor strategy allows them to break down and store complex sugars quickly and efficiently."

Comment: another form of cooperation as we see in slime mould and I assume stromatolites. The RNA study shows how the mechanism is coded into DNA.

Natures wonders: snap jaw ants

by David Turell @, Friday, July 22, 2022, 17:23 (606 days ago) @ David Turell

The design of how the jaws work:

https://www.livescience.com/trap-jaw-ants-avoid-self-destruction?utm_campaign=368B3745-...

"Moving at speeds thousands of times faster than the blink of an eye, the spring-loaded jaws of a trap-jaw ant catch the insect's prey by surprise and can also launch the ant into the air if it aims its chompers at the ground. Now, scientists have revealed how the ant's jaws can snap closed at blistering speeds without shattering from the force.

"In a new study, published Thursday (July 21) in the Journal of Experimental Biology(opens in new tab), a team of biologists and engineers studied a species of trap-jaw ant called Odontomachus brunneus, native to parts of the U.S., Central America and the West Indies. To build up power for their lightning-fast bites, the ants first stretch their jaws apart, so they form a 180 degree angle, and "cock" them against latches inside their heads. Enormous muscles, attached to each jaw by a tendon-like cord, pull the jaws into place and then flex to build up a store of elastic energy; this flexion is so extreme that it warps the sides of the ant's head, causing them to bow inward, the team found. When the ant strikes, its jaws unlatch and that stored energy gets released at once, sending the jaws smashing together.

"The researchers examined this spring-loaded mechanism in fine detail, but the project's engineers puzzled over how the system could work without generating too much friction. Friction would not only slow the jaws down, but would also generate destructive wear-and-tear at each jaw's point of rotation. Using mathematical modeling, they eventually found an answer as to how trap-jaw ants avoid this problem.

"'This is the part that engineers are incredibly excited about," in part because the discovery could pave the way for the construction of tiny robots whose parts can rotate with unparalleled speed and precision, Sheila Patek, the Hehmeyer Professor of Biology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and the study's senior author, told Live Science."

Comment: this very complex mechanism has many interlocking requirements that means it is irreducibly complex and must be designed to appear all together all at once in evolution. and once again nature is smarter than we are in offering new engineering for us to copy.

Natures wonders: sea cucumber doesn't poison itself

by David Turell @, Monday, July 25, 2022, 18:47 (603 days ago) @ David Turell

Produces toxins to poison predators but not itself:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-the-sea-cucumber-defends-itself-from-its...

"To protect themselves against predators and pathogens alike, sea cucumbers produce defensive toxins called saponins, as do their close cousins, starfish. However, new research finds that sea cucumbers are the only echinoderms—and among the only animals on Earth—that produce chemicals called triterpenoid saponins, which don’t poison the sea cucumbers themselves thanks to their unique metabolic pathways.

***

"Sea star saponins are steroid-based. Triterpenoids and sterols are derived from similar molecules, and the molecular pathways to produce both involve enzymes called oxidosqualane cyclases (OSCs)...To their surprise, the researchers found that sea cucumbers lack the gene that produces LSS entirely, as well as three other enzymes that allow other species to make sterols. Instead, the sea cucumber genome contains two other genes for OSCs.

***

"The team discovered that the cucumber OSC genes produced two sterol-like molecules, both of which were involved in triterpenoid production. These molecules also converted compounds into the cholesterol-like molecules that are present in the sea cucumber cell membranes. The molecules function similarly to cholesterol, but their differences help the animals avoid poisoning themselves with saponins.

***

"Having two OSC-coding genes, neither of which are for LSS, is “highly exceptional in the animal kingdom,” says Thimmappa. He adds that sea cucumbers are the only known animals to have two OSC-coding genes but not make their own cholesterol."

Comment: Another irreducibly complex arrangement: to protect itself the sea cucumber produces the toxins to cholesterol, a chemical vital to all other forms, and uses a different cholesterol-like molecule to not poison itself. This cannot be evolved stepwise, but put in place all at the same time by design.

Natures wonders: pitcher plant spring trap

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 19:45 (593 days ago) @ David Turell

Actively catching bugs with its springy lid:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2332117-pitcher-plants-use-raindrop-impacts-to-fli...

"The slender pitcher plant of South-East Asia has a leafy lid that acts like a springboard, launching prey into a deep cavity filled with digestive juices. Now, scientists have figured out how this macabre machinery works.

"Carnivorous pitcher plants have specialised leaves shaped like elongated sacks that hold digestive fluid. The vessels are baited with nectar to lure unsuspecting insects and lined on the inside with slippery wax that sends the critters tumbling towards death.

"Typically, insects just slip in, unable to cling to the waxy inner lining. But the slender pitcher plant (Nepenthes gracilis) plays a more active role. It baits ant troops to the underside of the leafy lid covering the pitcher. Then, when raindrops pluck the lid, it triggers fast twitches that catapult prey into the gastric pool below –

***

"When rain strikes the lid, it flexes down, channelling energy through the narrow neck connecting it to the pitcher and compressing a springy region several centimetres down the body of the pitcher. Then, the plant releases stored elastic energy and the lid springs upwards. The jerking motion whiplashes bugs into the trap.

"The plant’s geometry constrains lid movement on the upswing so that it doesn’t lift far beyond its resting position. “It’s much easier to push down than up,” says co-author Ulrike Bauer, also at the University of Bristol.

"That dampens the diving board’s oscillations by halting it on the way up and quickly resets the trap to catch the next round of raindrops.

“'This is the only known carnivorous plant that uses a really fast, completely externally powered movement,” says Bauer."

Comment: a neat design, which could not be developed stepwise by an evolutionary process. Irreducibly complex means it was designed all at once

Natures wonders: ancient isopods

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 10, 2022, 15:07 (587 days ago) @ David Turell

Have been around for 200-300 million years:

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-deep-sea-giant-isopod-has-been-discovered-in-the-gul...

'A group of football-sized isopods have been roaming the seafloor like giant, blown-up roly-poly bugs for 200 or 300 million years, even through the dinosaur extinction event.

"One of the largest living species today, Bathynomus giganteus, can be found at depths of more than 2,500 meters (8,200 feet). It was first caught off the Gulf of Mexico in 1879, and as it turns out, it might be two species rolled up in one.

"A modern analysis of known giant isopods living in the deep sea has found subtle yet significant differences in their DNA and morphology (their shape and structure).

***

"The curious specimen was found off the Yucatán Peninsula between 600 and 800 meters deep, where B. giganteus has been found before. But there was something off about this one. It was slightly shorter in total length, measuring in at 26 centimeters (10 inches), and its antennae were relatively long.

"While further data is needed to confirm the specimen's exact taxonomic ranking, researchers suspect it represents a new separate species of Bathynomus, and they have named it B. yucatanensis.

***

"Today, scientists have cataloged about 20 species of living creatures that belong to the Bathynomus genus.

"While these aquatic animals might look similar to giant terrestrial woodlouse, they are also distantly related to crabs, shrimp and lobsters.

"In comparison to their relatives, however, we know next to nothing about giant isopods. What we do know suggests they are well-equipped to deal with major extinction events. Sometimes, they can go without food for years.

"That's probably necessary in the deep, where nutrients are rare and fiercely competed over. When a meal becomes available, it pays to get to the table first.

"In 2019, when researchers dropped an alligator carcass into the Gulf of Mexico, it took a mere day for a troop of giant Bathynomus bugs to descend on the meal. Some of them ate so much they began toppling over as though stupefied."

Comment: A non-evolving form is a living fossil. It's role seems to be a bottom scavenger but it must also be food for someone else in that ecosystem.

Natures wonders: fungus in nest protects chicks

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 23:38 (580 days ago) @ David Turell

In some African nests:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2333846-tropical-birds-build-nests-from-fungi-that...

"Fungi woven into birds’ nests may not only help keep nests flexible and intact, but also control nestling-attacking parasites by releasing antibiotics and volatile chemicals.

"Baby birds, especially when naked and newly hatched, should be vulnerable to skin infections and parasites. Yet even in the stuffy confines of a nest in a steamy tropical rainforest, nestlings generally manage to remain fester-free. Why this is has long puzzled scientists, but Catherine Aime at Purdue University in Indiana and her colleagues wondered if they may derive protection from the long strands of fungal material many tropical birds weave into their nests.

"Called rhizomorphs, these long, pliable and highly decay-resistant structures protect the feeding parts of a fungus, the hyphae, inside a sheath so they can grow from one hospitable place to another. But their length and flexibility also make them ideal as the basic scaffolding for nests under construction. As a result, they are common components of nests throughout the tropics.

"Rhizomorphs are also known to be potent producers of defensive chemicals, designed to keep insects, slugs and even other fungi at bay while the rope-like extensions seek out new spots of decomposable succulence.

***

"...they collected rhizomorphs from just-vacated nests built by 22 bird species in Iwokrama rainforest, Guyana, cleaned the fungal strands and then placed then on agar, a fungal growing medium. They found that, far from being dead, the cord-like strands were active and capable of producing chemical substances.

“Rainforests are challenging places, so rhizomorphs produce a huge variety of protective chemicals,” says team member Rachel Koch Bach, also at Purdue University.

"Many of these chemicals are volatile, meaning they easily evaporate and travel through the air, so they could protect nestlings in the close confines of a nest, says Aime.

"The team considers it highly likely that birds actively choose rhizomorphs as strong supports but also for keeping their nestlings free of the skin-infesting parasites so abundant in the humidity of a tropical rainforest."

Comment: there is no question birds will find strong twigs and strands for the nests, but the birds did not actually reason as the study authors did about the protective values. Not in the beginning at least. They may have come to recognize the value later on.

Natures wonders: beetle fungus symbiosis

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 20, 2022, 17:36 (577 days ago) @ David Turell

The fungus protects the pupae while infecting the plant:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01214-3?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip...

"Summary
Many insects rely on microbial protection in the early stages of their development. However, in contrast to symbiont-mediated defense of eggs and young instars, the role of microbes in safeguarding pupae remains relatively unexplored, despite the susceptibility of the immobile stage to antagonistic challenges. Here, we outline the importance of symbiosis in ensuring pupal protection by describing a mutualistic partnership between the ascomycete Fusarium oxysporum and Chelymorpha alternans, a leaf beetle. The symbiont rapidly proliferates at the onset of pupation, extensively and conspicuously coating C. alternans during metamorphosis. The fungus confers defense against predation as symbiont elimination results in reduced pupal survivorship. In exchange, eclosing beetles vector F. oxysporum to their host plants, resulting in a systemic infection. By causing wilt disease, the fungus retained its phytopathogenic capacity in light of its symbiosis with C. alternans. Despite possessing a relatively reduced genome, F. oxysporum encodes metabolic pathways that reflect its dual lifestyle as a plant pathogen and a defensive insect symbiont. These include virulence factors underlying plant colonization, along with mycotoxins that may contribute to the defensive biochemistry of the insect host. Collectively, our findings shed light on a mutualism predicated on pupal protection of an herbivorous beetle in exchange for symbiont dissemination and propagation."

Comment: the fungus and the beetle both attack the poor plant and accidently found each other. That is how I view it.

Natures wonders: how male sea horses give birth

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 03, 2022, 15:13 (563 days ago) @ David Turell

A description from a study:

https://www.sciencealert.com/study-reveals-the-wonderfully-unique-way-seahorse-dads-giv...

"In seahorses and pipefish, it is the male that gets pregnant and gives birth. Seahorse fathers incubate their developing embryos in a pouch located on their tail.

"The pouch is the equivalent of the uterus of female mammals. It contains a placenta, supporting the growth and development of baby seahorses.

"Seahorse dads provide nutrients and oxygen to their babies during pregnancy, using some of the same genetic instructions as mammalian pregnancy.

"However, when it comes to giving birth, our research shows male seahorses seem to rely on elaborate behaviors and their unique body structure to facilitate labor.

***

"When we examined the pouch under a microscope, we found it contains only scattered small bundles of smooth muscle, far less than the uterus of female mammals. This explained why the pouch did not contract in our experiments.

"In males, we found three bones positioned near the pouch opening, associated with large skeletal muscles.

"These types of bones and muscles control the anal fin in other fish species. In seahorses, the anal fin is minuscule and has little or no function in swimming.

"So, the large muscles associated with the tiny seahorse fin are surprising. The anal fin muscles and bones are much larger in male seahorses than in female seahorses, and their orientation suggests they could control the opening of the pouch.

"Seahorse courtship is an elaborate process. Males open and fill their pouch with water by bending forward and contracting their bodies to force water into the pouch, before "dancing" with the female.

"Similarly, during labor, male seahorses bend their body towards the tail, pressing and then relaxing.

"This "pressing" behavior is accompanied by brief gaping of the pouch opening, with a series of whole-body jerks.

"This movement combined with pouch opening allows seawater to flush through the pouch.

"Jerking and pressing continues, the pouch opening gets gradually bigger, and groups of seahorse babies are ejected with each movement. Many hundreds of babies are ejected in a short time.

"Our findings suggest the opening of the pouch for courtship and birth is facilitated by contractions of the large skeletal muscles located near the pouch opening.

"We propose that these muscles control the opening of the seahorse pouch, allowing seahorse fathers to consciously control the expulsion of their young at the end of pregnancy.

***

"Our unexpected results suggest male seahorses use different mechanisms to give birth compared to female pregnant animals.

"We speculate that oxytocin-family hormones, instead of primarily producing smooth muscle contractions, trigger the cascade of seahorse behaviors that lead to birth.

"Despite the similarities that male seahorses share with female mammals and reptiles during pregnancy, it seems seahorse fathers have a unique way of giving birth to their young."

Comment: this is convergent evolution with the use of oxytocin in perhaps new ways. The males produce 'many hundreds of babies' which makes it obvious only very few are expected to survive.

Natures wonders: immortal jellyfish

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 20:42 (551 days ago) @ David Turell

Changes living forms:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/science/immortal-jellyfish-gene-protein.html?unlocke...

"Fleets of tiny translucent umbrellas, each about the size of a lentil, waft through the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. These miniature jellyfish, known as Turritopsis dohrnii, wave and grasp with their pale tentacles, bringing plankton to their mouths like many other jellyfish species adrift in the glowing water.

"But they have a secret that sets them apart from the average sea creature: When their bodies are damaged, the mature adults, known as medusas, can turn back the clock and transform back into their youthful selves. They shed their limbs, become a drifting blob and morph into polyps, twiggy growths that attach to rocks or plants. Gradually, the medusa buds off the polyp once again, rejuvenated. While a predator or an injury can kill T. dohrnii, old age does not. They are, effectively, immortal.

***

"When they and their colleagues sequenced the creatures’ genomes, the researchers noticed that the jellyfish had extra copies of certain genes, a sign that these might be important for the creatures’ survival. The researchers found many of the duplicated genes among them, including some that protect and repair the jellyfish’s DNA, as DNA is often eroded with age in animals.

***

"As the jellyfish transformed, the scientists were interested to see a marked change in the use of genes linked to DNA storage. In adults, these genes were active or expressed at a high level — that is, they were being used frequently to make proteins. But as the animals began their descent back into polyps, the genes became quieter, with their proteins reaching their lowest levels in the floating ball form.

"Genes related to pluripotency, or a cell’s ability to grow into a variety of fully developed forms, did the opposite. They were quiet in the adult form but leaped into action as a jellyfish broke its body down and started to build it back up. The pluripotency genes then returned to dormancy when the process was complete.

"What this suggests, Dr. Pascual-Torner said, is that DNA that’s normally in storage is brought out during the transformation, and genes that coax cells to reset go into overdrive.

***

"Her team saw that genes related to DNA repair and protection were involved in the jellyfish’s rejuvenation.

Both sets of research suggest when and how much the jellyfish’s genes are expressed matters just as much as the genes themselves in giving an old body new life. In other words, there is no gene for immortality, but there is certainly a procedure for it."

Comment: Just a fascinating study. No one is meant to live forever, but thess guys have a trick. dhs will ask why these exist. They fit into their ecosystem.

Natures wonders: ant wound treatment

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 19:06 (551 days ago) @ David Turell

After battles wound repair:

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-medicine-ants-treatment-individuals.html

"The African Matabele ant (Megaponera analis) lives dangerously when hunting able-bodied termites. However, the animals do not simply give up their wounded. Depending on the degree of injury, they rescue and treat them. Injured individuals decide for themselves whether they will be helped. If a specimen demands rescue, it remains calm, releases pheromones, and allows itself to be carried back to the nest. Animals that are too badly injured, on the other hand, move frantically and boycott being "MedEvaced."

"But that is not all. Back in the nest, the paramedics become doctors and the ants treat potentially infectious wounds in a way that was previously only known from humans.

"Erik Frank has been on the trail of insects since his master's degree. As part of his doctorate at the Julius Maximilians University (JMU) in Würzburg, he had noticed that the ants licked the wounds of the injured—for example, severed legs. The hypothesis was that this behavior was intended to prevent infections. Possibly even antimicrobial substances were used.

"A theory that has now apparently been confirmed: "We found out that injured ants communicate when a wound is infected," explains the biologist. "In the applied substances, we found over a hundred chemical components and 41 proteins. Of about half of them, we can already prove that they have antimicrobial qualities," he continues. These substances seem to be highly efficient; about 90% of the animals treated survived their injuries.

"According to this research, the ants produce the substances in a pocket-like gland in the rear area of the thorax; the so-called metapleural gland. The helping animal picks up these substances—either from itself or directly from the injured comrade—with its feet, takes them into its mouth and from there applies them to the injury.

"What we are dealing with here is a complex system of diagnosis and correspondingly adapted treatment," explains Erik Frank. According to the current state of research, something like this is unique in the animal kingdom. Until now, it was assumed that only humans were capable of diagnosing infections and subsequently treating wounds with antimicrobial substances.

***

"During a stay in Mozambique, Frank noticed that the local population of Megaponera analis hardly suffered any injuries when hunting. The reason: "They hunt smaller termites, which are apparently not able to defend themselves effectively." If the ants were nevertheless confronted with injured animals in the experiment, there was no help. "Although they belong to the same species, they seem to have completely abandoned this behavior. One question now would be whether the ants still produce the substances used for wound treatment at all—or perhaps completely different ones."

"The subject of the second project will be the Eciton driver ant, which is found in Central and South America. "Wound healing has also been observed in this ant. However, due to the duration of their raids of twelve to 14 hours, the Eciton ants do not bring their injured back to the nest but treat them directly on site."

"The study of the antimicrobial substances produced and used could possibly even find substances that have a benefit for human medicine."

Comment: ants are still amazing in their automatic activities. What is more important for humans is the possibility ants like fungi may give us new antibiotics!

Natures wonders: how the stinger is fired

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 21:58 (550 days ago) @ David Turell

Jelly fish yield the secret:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-sea-creatures-pack-a-tiny-propulsive-sting/

"Jellyfish, sea anemones and corals, a group called cnidarians, sting with tiny, pressurized capsules that fire poisonous darts at explosive speeds. Researchers have been unsure of the exact mechanics of this blisteringly fast process, which occurs using special cell organelles called nematocysts. Now a team led by Matt Gibson and Ahmet Karabulut of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., has used cutting-edge imaging technology to study nematocyst firing in very fine detail.

***

"Using super-resolution fluorescence and electron microscopes, the researchers observed a detailed sequence of events involving a stiff shaft and a flexible, whiplike filament that starts out coiled around it within the nematocyst.

"Cells don't have space to operate a slingshot-type mechanism to propel a stinger, “so they evolved another way,” Karabulut says. Both the shaft and the filament are inside out and neatly folded into the tiny organelle. When the nematocyst fires, the shaft is ejected first and turns right-side out. Then the filament unwinds and moves through the shaft, flipping right-side out as well. This flip turns the tiny, inward-facing barbs on the filament's surface outward to release toxins into unlucky prey.

"Seeing this two-phase discharge process is “such a huge contribution to understanding the mechanics of turning this organelle inside out,” says Cornell University evolutionary biologist Leslie Babonis, who was not involved in the study."

Comment: more irreducible complexity. There is no way this could be built stepwise. It must be built all at once. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: tiny spider eats bigger ants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 20, 2022, 18:03 (546 days ago) @ David Turell

Quite a technique:

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-australian-ant-slayer-spider-captures-ants.html

"A team of researchers at Macquarie University, in Australia, working with two colleagues from Universität Hamburg, in Germany, has uncovered the means by which the Australian ant-slayer spider is able to capture and eat the much larger banded sugar ant.

***

"It turns out the spider uses some pretty fancy moves to disable the ant. The researchers found that a hunting event started with a single spider tying itself to the tree trunk and then waiting for an ant to appear. When it did, the spider leapt into the air, and using its back legs, attached a single line of silk to the ant. The spider did not stop, however—in one continuous movement, it soared past the ant in a somersault and then dangled beneath the ant, out of reach.

"Next, the spider began circling the ant, unwinding thread as it went, encircling its prey. Eventually, the ant was encased, unable to defend itself, or even move. At that point, the spider climbed onto the ant and injected it with poison. Once the ant died, it was cut loose and moved to another location where it was safer for the spider to eat it. The researchers noted that another key to the success of the attack was the speed at which the spider moved—so quickly that the ant did not have time to react.

"Across 60 attacks on film, the researchers found the spider's technique to be quite lethal—as a group, they were approximately 87% successful in their attempts to capture an ant. And they would have to be, because prior research has shown that the ants account for approximately 90% of the spiders' diet. The researchers conclude that the attack strategy used by the Australian ant-slayer is the only known instance of it in the spider world."

Comment: instinct or learned? I'm with instinct.

Natures wonders: viruses sense when to attack

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 24, 2022, 20:09 (541 days ago) @ David Turell

They analyze the presence of certain proteins:

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-viruses-eyes-ears.html

"New UMBC-led research in Frontiers in Microbiology suggests that viruses are using information from their environment to "decide" when to sit tight inside their hosts and when to multiply and burst out, killing the host cell. The work has implications for antiviral drug development.

"A virus's ability to sense its environment, including elements produced by its host, adds "another layer of complexity to the viral-host interaction," says Ivan Erill, professor of biological sciences and senior author on the new paper.

"The new study focused on bacteriophages—viruses that infect bacteria, often referred to simply as "phages." The phages in the study can only infect their hosts when the bacterial cells have special appendages, called pili and flagella, that help the bacteria move and mate. The bacteria produce a protein called CtrA that controls when they generate these appendages. The new paper shows that many appendage-dependent phages have patterns in their DNA where the CtrA protein can attach, called binding sites. A phage having a binding site for a protein produced by its host is unusual, Erill says.

"Even more surprising, Erill and the paper's first author Elia Mascolo, a Ph.D. student in Erill's lab, found through detailed genomic analysis that these binding sites were not unique to a single phage, or even a single group of phages. Many different types of phages had CtrA binding sites—but they all required their hosts to have pili and/or flagella to infect them. It couldn't be a coincidence, they decided.

"The ability to monitor CtrA levels "has been invented multiple times throughout evolution by different phages that infect different bacteria," Erill says. When distantly related species demonstrate a similar trait, it's called convergent evolution—and it indicates that the trait is definitely useful.

***

"So, "We hypothesize the phages are monitoring CtrA levels, which go up and down during the life cycle of the cells, to figure out when the swarmer cell is becoming a stalk cell and becoming a factory of swarmers," Erill says, "and at that point, they burst the cell, because there are going to be many swarmers nearby to infect."

***

"The key takeaway from this research is that "the virus is using cellular intel to make decisions," Erill says, "and if it's happening in bacteria, it's almost certainly happening in plants and animals, because if it's an evolutionary strategy that makes sense, evolution will discover it and exploit it.'"

Comment: all biological action /communication at the cellular level is the same. Just as viruses sense certain proteins, and take action, our organ's cells sense proteins and take action. This is cellular communication in action and how it works..

Natures wonders: bacteria protect beetle larvae

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 27, 2022, 20:54 (538 days ago) @ David Turell

Clever arrangement:

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-symbiotic-bacteria-beetle-larvae-pathogens.html

"Lagria beetles have developed unusual physical traits to protect their progeny: Small invaginations on the backs of the larvae are inhabited by defensive bacteria.


"As shown in a new study, the symbiotic bacteria protect the beetles from pathogenic fungi during their development and also during the molting phase when they are particularly vulnerable.

"'The Lagria beetles have found a way to prevent harmful fungal infections and ensure the survival of their offspring," said Rebekka Janke of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU).

***

"In their latest work published in The ISME Journal, the research team shows that the bacterial symbionts of Lagria villosa inhabit the invaginations on the backs of the insects during the entire larval development and that these small pockets remain open to the outside via a narrow channel. In addition, the pockets are not shed during the molting of the larvae, but remain intact throughout larval development.

"'During molting, some of the symbionts are released on the surface of the larvae, where they provide protection from fungal infection in this critical phase," added Professor Martin Kaltenpoth. Lagria villosa are Lagriinae beetles that originated in Africa and have been proliferating in South America since their introduction in the 1970s. They complete seven larval stages with corresponding molting stages before they pupate and subsequently emerge from the pupa as an adult insect.

***

"The findings revealed that the symbiont strain Lv-StB of Burkholderia gladioli, which is vital for protection during the egg stage, is also the main defender of the subsequent developmental stages.

"The Burkholderia strain produces an antifungal compound called lagriamide, which is found in all stages, i.e., on the surface of the eggs, larvae, pupae, and also on the inside of the molted cuticles. Another investigation revealed that the symbionts were present during the larval stages both genders, male and female. During pupation, females retain the symbionts for transmission on to the next generation while the titers decline in males.

"'The removal of these bacterial helpers significantly impairs the survival probability of the young larvae as soon as they are exposed to pathogenic fungi," stated Dr. Laura Flórez. Even though the molting process can contribute to the removal of damaging intruders from the cuticle of the insects, during this time the larva is also robbed of its protective layer and is thus more susceptible to infection.

"'The Lagria beetles have found a way to circumvent the problem by creating pockets in the protective casing on their back, which remain intact even through repeated molting events," explained Flórez."

Comment: did the Lagria's work this out on their own, or did God help?

Natures wonders: wounded parent behaviors

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 05, 2022, 19:37 (531 days ago) @ David Turell

The typical wounded wing:

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/avian-deception-more-widespread-than-previously-...

"Thompson found sporadic examples across avian species through an exhaustive literature search, followed by surveys sent to ornithologists, avian ecologists, and experienced birders around the world. In the end, she and her colleagues uncovered evidence that 285 avian species perform the broken-wing display.

"Mapping those behaviors onto the avian phylogenetic tree revealed that the trait spans from some of the most basal bird families, including pheasants and ducks, to more recently evolved taxa such as songbirds. “It’s pretty amazing,” Francis says, adding that he was surprised how “particular clades on the avian tree of life really just light up,” including blackbirds, warblers, and sparrows. The frequent and disjointed appearance of the behavior across the tree suggests it evolved independently several times, he adds.

"The analysis, published earlier this year, also indicates that predation risk has driven the trait’s evolution. “Birds that experience higher levels of predation, by visual predators in particular, tend to use the display more than those that do not,” Francis says. The team found that the farther the birds’ breeding zones were from the equator, the more likely the animals were to use the broken-wing display. One possible explanation for this relationship, Francis says, is that the portfolio of predators becomes increasingly diurnal—and more visual—towards the Earth’s poles.

***

"In addition to broken-wing, false brooding, and the rodent run, other documented dishonest behaviors include playing dead, feigned exhaustion, false feeding, and pseudo-sleeping. Gómez-Serrano says some birds fake eating, pecking at nothing on the ground—perhaps giving predators the impression they’re distracted and easy to sneak up on. Some birds vocalize their lies. Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) hiss like rattlesnakes to protect against ground squirrels, and fork-tailed drongos (Dicrurus adsimilis) mimic meerkat alarm calls to scare the mammals into abandoning food. “I think there’s some other really interesting deceptive tactics out there that are worth exploring,” and we may be unaware of many, Francis says.

***

"Filipe Cunha, a behavioral ecologist at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, happened upon a particularly unusual case of avian deception while studying Siberian jays (Perisoreus infaustus). “They’re definitely liars,” he says, explaining how the territorial birds fake an alarm call that’s typically reserved for alerting group members to the presence of predators such as sparrowhawks. Cunha determined that the jays deceive neighboring groups of Siberian jays to scare them into fleeing, after which the liars steal caches of scavenged meat that the tricked birds had hidden to survive the Arctic winter. He says that he hopes studying within-species dishonesty will shed light on how trust evolved in our own species.

"Research on avian deception highlights the importance and diversity of these behaviors as survival tools, Francis says. Consider a familiar example of a bird without known deception or indeed any other predation-avoidance behaviors: the extinct dodo, “which [people] were able to just walk up to and club because they had no evolutionary response to approaching humans or any other type of predator,” Francis says. “It’s worth keeping this quiver of tactics because otherwise reproductive success is zero.'”

Comment: like the opossum playing dead, these behaviors require conceptual thinking to be created. Gradually learned to become instinctual or God's help?

Natures wonders: migration factors theory

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 06, 2022, 18:11 (530 days ago) @ David Turell

A complex study of migration types:

https://ecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/predicting-how-inexperienced-migratory-animals...

"///we know that many migrants cross continents, timing their departures to reach more favourable climes, and typically dividing their journeys into multiple daily or nightly flight-steps. Thanks to advanced tracking and computational methods, we can now accurately predict and monitor the density of migration across species and geographical ranges, including of agriculturally-important insects.

***

"Many migratory bird species have access to a sun compass, star compass, or geomagnetic compass. We are getting ever closer to understanding the sensory mechanisms underlying magnetoreception. Experienced (adult) bird migrants, similarly to their oceanic counterparts, can assimilate map-like information to reach previously-known migratory goals. Contrastingly, many naïve migrants are thought to complete the bulk (long-distance phase) of their inaugural migrations based on inherited migratory compass headings, often termed clock-and-compass migration. The resultant compass courses vary with choice of primary compass cue (e.g., sun, stars or geomagnetic), and according to how headings are derived from the primary cue. Star compass and geomagnetic compass courses maintain constant headings relative to their North-South axes, whereas magnetoclinic and sun compass headings typically shift increasingly Southward, particularly for the time-compensated sun compass, where migrants account for the sun’s diurnal arc.

***

"While it is well known that juvenile bird migrants are particularly prone to being displaced by wind, some displacement experiments indicate that they can partially self-correct for such displacements. But how might that be possible without a map sense? It turns out, that partial correctional shifts would be feasible if migrants’ directional responses to the stars or sun is time-compensated to account for their rotation. The star compass of migrating birds does not seem to work in this way, but the sun compass has not been analogously tested.

***

"As a result, sun compass courses performed best – and most closely resembled – the daytime migration routes of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and the longest nocturnal routes such as willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus yakutensis) migrating 13,000 km from East Siberia to East Africa. Constant-heading star or geomagnetic courses (loxodromes) performed best across short to medium distances, like for the common rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus) migrating from South-East Europe to India. The gradually-shifting magnetoclinic compass was found to be over-sensitive to imprecision and untenable for longer-distance and East-West oriented migration routes. Based on simulations of the nine modelled species for biologically-relevant error scenarios (0-60° expected error among flight-steps), we could predict > 97% of variability in compass course performance among the species tested based on three factors – number of flight-steps, a spherical geometry factor and (daily or nightly) flight-step distance.

***

"Our study supports twilight sun-compass orientation being key to many high-latitude and long-distance inaugural migrations. However, this does not exclude geomagnetic compass use by long-distance migrants, not least among night-migratory species (given that stars are often obscured). To test the possibility of time-compensated sun compass use and self-correction, we recommend controlling for inner clock updates in experiments testing orientation among real or virtually displaced migrants. Our modelling framework can be extended to assess how inherited migratory orientation can facilitate exploitation of favourable migratory habitats. For example, in the simplest case, our models could include migratory detours, with a second migratory heading triggered by geomagnetic or other environmental factors. While the jury is still out regarding the ubiquity of inherited compass headings by naïve migrants (e.g., as opposed to gradient-based navigation), our study suggests that clock-and-compass migration can provide a basis to reach restricted destinations, illustrating how simple rules can potentially explain complicated patterns observed in nature."

Comment: this may explain the migratory mechanisms but does not explain the initial steps. A bird or an insect had to suddenly decide to cross an ocean looking for a warmer climate. How does a concept like that appear in a tiny brain? To go wherever and back? God has to be involved.

Natures wonders: bacteria/algeal fake symbiosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2023, 18:48 (405 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria and algae as frenemies:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bacteria-algae-phytoplankton-symbiosis-backstab

*The photosynthesizing plankton Emiliania huxleyi has a dramatic relationship with its bacterial frenemies. These duplicitous bugs help E. huxleyi in exchange for nutrients until it becomes more convenient to murder and eat their hosts. Now, scientists have figured out how these treacherous bacteria decide to turn from friend to foe.

"One species of these bacteria appears to keep tabs on health-related chemicals produced by E. huxleyi, researchers report January 24 in eLife. The bacteria maintain their friendly facade until their hosts age and weaken, striking as soon as the vulnerable algae can’t afford to keep bribing them with nutrients. The finding could help explain how massive algal blooms come to an end.

***

"E. huxleyi’s partnership with these bacteria, which belong to a group called Roseobacter, might be best described as a love-hate relationship. The single-celled alga can’t produce the B vitamins it needs on its own, so it offers up nutrients to lure in Roseobacter that can (SN: 7/8/16). The trade is win-win — at least until the bacteria decide they’d be better off slaying and devouring their algal hosts than sticking around in peaceful coexistence.

***

"The bacteria kill their algal pals when exposed to high concentrations of a sulfur-containing chemical called DMSP, the researchers found. E. huxleyi leaks more and more DMSP as it ages. This eventually cues its duplicitous microbial partners to go rogue, kill their aging host, and kick their genes for nutrient-grabbing proteins and flagella — whiplike tails used to swim — into overdrive.

"It’s an “eat-and-run strategy,” says Noa Barak-Gavish, a microbiologist at ETH Zurich. “You eat up whatever you can and then swim away to avoid competition … [and] to find alternative hosts.”

***

"This kind of frenemies relationship could be a key factor in controlling the boom and bust of massive algal blooms if other phytoplankton and bacteria have a similar dynamic, says Mary Ann Moran of the University of Georgia in Athens, who was not involved in the study. Algal blooms can be toxic (SN: 8/28/18). But they also “fix” enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into biomass and are a major source of organic carbon to the ocean. (my bold)

"Phytoplankton fix half of all the carbon on the planet, and probably 20 percent to 50 percent of what they fix … actually goes right to bacteria,” she says. So if this kind of relationship controls how carbon flows through the ocean, “that is something that we would really like to understand.'” (my bold)

Comment: an amazing cutthroat relationship, but it shows the interrelatedness of all organisms as part of the giant interlocking ecosystems on Earth.

Natures wonders: novel genes in octopus

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2023, 16:20 (404 days ago) @ David Turell

Genes that no one else have:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18177

"With its eight prehensile arms lined with suckers, camera-like eyes, elaborate repertoire of camouflage tricks and spooky intelligence, the octopus is like no other creature on Earth.

"Added to those distinctions is an unusually large genome, described in Nature1 on 12 August, that helps to explain how a mere mollusc evolved into an otherworldly being.

“It’s the first sequenced genome from something like an alien,” jokes neurobiologist Clifton Ragsdale of the University of Chicago in Illinois, who co-led the genetic analysis of the California two-spot octopus (Octopus bimaculoides).

***

"Surprisingly, the octopus genome turned out to be almost as large as a human’s and to contain a greater number of protein-coding genes — some 33,000, compared with fewer than 25,000 in Homo sapiens.

"This excess results mostly from the expansion of a few specific gene families, Ragsdale says. One of the most remarkable gene groups is the protocadherins, which regulate the development of neurons and the short-range interactions between them. The octopus has 168 of these genes — more than twice as many as mammals. This resonates with the creature’s unusually large brain and the organ’s even-stranger anatomy. Of the octopus's half a billion neurons — six times the number in a mouse — two-thirds spill out from its head through its arms, without the involvement of long-range fibres such as those in vertebrate spinal cords. The independent computing power of the arms, which can execute cognitive tasks even when dismembered, have made octopuses an object of study for neurobiologists such as Hochner and for roboticists who are collaborating on the development of soft, flexible robots.

***

"A gene family that is involved in development, the zinc-finger transcription factors, is also highly expanded in octopuses. At around 1,800 genes, it is the second-largest gene family to be discovered in an animal, after the elephant’s 2,000 olfactory-receptor genes.

"The analysis also turned up hundreds of other genes that are specific to the octopus and highly expressed in particular tissues. The suckers, for example, express a curious set of genes that are similar to those that encode receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The genes seem to enable the octopus’s remarkable ability to taste with its suckers.

"Scientists identified six genes for proteins called reflectins, which are expressed in an octopus's skin. These alter the way light reflects from the octopus, giving the appearance of a different colour — one of several ways that an octopus can disguise itself, along with changing its texture, pattern or brightness.

"Another discovery hinted at the basis of an octopus’s intelligence. The genome contains systems that can allow tissues to rapidly modify proteins to change their function. Electrophysiologists had predicted that this could explain how octopuses adapt their neural-network properties to enable such extraordinary learning and memory capabilities.

***

"The octopus’s position in the Mollusca phylum illustrates evolution at its most spectacular, Hochner says. “Very simple molluscs like the clam — they just sit in the mud, filtering food. And then we have the magnificent octopus, which left its shell and developed the most-elaborate behaviours in water.'”

Comment: octopus evolution dashed off on its own and produced a surviving form that is like no one else. It fits into its own ecosystem and is a food humans relish. I'm sure it is a God-designed form .

Natures wonders: bacterial gut help

by David Turell @, Friday, June 23, 2023, 18:47 (270 days ago) @ David Turell

What humans eat determines the gut microbiome and how it acts:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02065-y?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

"The human gut is teeming with trillions of microbes, but most studies of this vast community have focused on people living in urban regions. Now, a team of researchers has sequenced gut microbiomes from Hadza people — members of a hunter-gatherer society in northern Tanzania — and compared them with those from people in Nepal and California1. The study has found not only that the Hadza tend to have more gut microorganisms than people in the other groups, but that a Western lifestyle seems to diminish the diversity of gut populations.

"The Hadza had an average of 730 species of gut microbe per person. The average Californian gut microbiome contained just 277 species, and the Nepali microbiomes fell in between. People with a farming-based lifestyle had an average of 436 microbe species, whereas those who live by foraging had an average of 317.

"The team also found species in the Hadza microbiomes that were not present in the Californian samples, such as the corkscrew-shaped bacterium Treponema succinifaciens. Only some of the Nepali microbiomes contained this microbe, suggesting that the bacterium is dying out as societies become more industrialized.

***

"The researchers sequenced microbiomes from fecal samples collected from 167 Hadza people — including infants and mothers — between 2013 and 2014. For comparison, the team also generated sequences from stool samples collected from four groups of people in Nepal in 2016, and samples from Californian participants in a 2021 study2 that explored how diet affects the microbiome.

"From these samples, Sonnenburg and his team sequenced more than 90,000 genomes from microbes found in the human gut, including bacteria, viruses that infect bacteria, and single-celled organisms from groups called archaea and eukaryotes. Some 44% of these microbial genomes had not yet been recorded in large catalogues such as the Unified Human Gastrointestinal Genome database. Among the genome sequences recovered from the Hadza samples, more than 1,000 were from bacterial or archaeal species that are new to science.

"Furthermore, gut-microbe species commonly found in industrialized populations often contained genes associated with responding to oxidative damage. The team suspects chronic inflammation in the gut could trigger such damage, creating a selective pressure for those genes, says study co-author Matthew Olm, a microbiologist at Stanford. “If you have a state of chronic inflammation, it would make sense that your gut microbiome has to adapt,” he says. These genes were not detected in the Hadza microbiomes."

Comment: most bacteria are very helpful and necessary. They are not the evil dhw portrays. It is when bacteria get in the wrong places that trouble develops. And God cannot control free-living organisms.

Natures wonders: eel migration to sargasso sea

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, 02:06 (517 days ago) @ David Turell

A long trip via the Azores:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-track-eels-to-their-ocean-breeding-grounds-in-w...

"After generations of speculation, scientists have finally managed to track European eels the entire way back to their breeding grounds in the Sargasso Sea – following their movements thousands of kilometers along what is considered one of the most impressive animal migrations in nature.

***

"European eels migrate between 5,000 and 10,000 kilometers (3,100 to 6,210 miles) to spawn at sea, after which their larvae drift back towards land and the relative safety of rivers.

"Using satellite tags, the researchers behind this latest discovery obtained tracking data from 21 female European eels as they navigated the last leg of their epic journey, southwest from the Azores, a volcanic archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean, far west of Portugal.

***

"Past research tracking eel migrations had shown eels from all over Europe converge around the Azores islands before departing for the Sargasso Sea, an ocean region bounded by four swirling ocean currents and named for its vast forests of Sargassum seaweed.

"The eels were captured, tagged with detachable satellite trackers, swabbed for DNA testing, and released back into the Atlantic Ocean from the Azores islands back in 2018 and 2019.

"Six eels reached the Sargasso breeding grounds months later with their satellite trackers still attached; data from 15 other eels were collected along the way. The longest recorded straight-line distance was 2,275 kilometers (1,410 miles).

"'Their journey will reveal information about eel migration that has never been known before," says fisheries biologist Ros Wright of the UK Environment Agency, who led the study.

"It's still unclear how the eels find their way to the Sargasso Sea or even how long their spawning season extends.

"The swimming speed of the eels in this study, which averaged 6.8 kilometers (4.2 miles) a day, and the length of their marathon journey – which takes more than a year – suggests these long-haulers need to make a very calculated migration.

"'Rather than make a rapid migration to spawn at the earliest opportunity, European eels may instead make a long, slow spawning migration at depth that conserves their energy and reduces mortality risk," Wright and team write in their published paper.

"'This timing would enable the completion of their reproductive maturation before they arrive at the spawning area."

"'It's also incredible to know they go way deeper than 1,000 meters on the way!" James Maclaine, a senior fish curator at the UK National History Museum, tweeted. That's plunging more than 3,280 feet down into darkness.

"But questions remain over the eels' timing and navigation across thousands of kilometers in open ocean to reach the Sargasso Sea.

"It could be that they sense Earth's magnetic fields like Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which return to the exact stream where they hatched. Sniffing out olfactory cues or following ocean currents or temperature fronts are other possibilities, too."

Comment: this circuitous route suggests dhw's fairy tale of brave ones wandering off in hope of finding warmth fits this meandering migration. It fits in an unprepared way in just blundering around and searching. Using the Earth's magnetic field has been previously established. Witch tells them just swim south and wa' la' the Azores are right in the way.

Natures wonders: fooled hornets spread seed

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, 20:26 (516 days ago) @ David Turell

The tree produces a chemical lure:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plants-call-in-hornets-to-rescue-their-seeds/

"A hornet senses a chemical distress signal from an agarwood tree and zips over, hoping to devour a customary meal of attacking caterpillars. But when it arrives, there are no caterpillars, and it has to settle for agarwood seeds—which the duped insect carries away, unwittingly helping the tree reproduce. A new study in Current Biology says this is the first-known case of a plant deploying such defensive chemicals to spread its seeds.

"The agarwood species Aquilaria sinensis is native to tropical China. When caterpillars start eating its leaves, the leaves respond with a type of defense found in many plants: they release compounds called herbivore-induced plant volatiles, or HIPVs, to attract hungry predators. “Most plants have these [HIPVs],” says Jessamyn Manson, an ecologist at the University of Virginia, who was not involved with the new research.

"A hornet senses a chemical distress signal from an agarwood tree and zips over, hoping to devour a customary meal of attacking caterpillars. But when it arrives, there are no caterpillars, and it has to settle for agarwood seeds—which the duped insect carries away, unwittingly helping the tree reproduce. A new study in Current Biology says this is the first-known case of a plant deploying such defensive chemicals to spread its seeds.

"The agarwood species Aquilaria sinensis is native to tropical China. When caterpillars start eating its leaves, the leaves respond with a type of defense found in many plants: they release compounds called herbivore-induced plant volatiles, or HIPVs, to attract hungry predators. “Most plants have these [HIPVs],” says Jessamyn Manson, an ecologist at the University of Virginia, who was not involved with the new research.

"In the study, researchers used chemical analyses and field experiments to demonstrate that agarwood fruit can also produce compounds found in HIPVs—even in the absence of a caterpillar assault. This quickly draws various types of hornets, which feed on fleshy, nutrient-rich blobs called elaiosomes attached to the seeds. The hornets tend to discard the seeds near their nests—shaded areas where they can germinate without drying out. In direct sunlight, the seeds die within hours.

"The study illuminates an infrequently studied phenomenon. “Rapid seed dispersal is overlooked,” says study co-author Gang Wang, an ecologist at Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Seed dispersal by hornets is particularly mysterious. Although ants—hornets' relatives—are estimated to spread seeds for more than 11,000 plants, the study notes, documented cases of hornets themselves doing so are rare.

Comment: Any form of mimicry raises the question of how did it happen? How do butterflies
make eye spots appear in their evolution. How does this tree know how to make a complex plant protein? Perhaps God helped by design.

Natures wonders: longest non-stop bird migration

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 03, 2022, 20:45 (501 days ago) @ David Turell

Alaska to Tasmania:

https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2022-10-28/alaska-australia-flight-could-plac...

"A young bar-tailed godwit appears to have set a non-stop distance record for migratory birds by flying at least 13,560 kilometers (8,435 miles) from Alaska to the Australian state of Tasmania.

"The bird was tagged as a hatchling in Alaska during the Northern Hemisphere summer with a tracking GPS chip and tiny solar panel that enabled an international research team to follow its first annual migration across the Pacific Ocean, BirdLife Tasmania convenor Eric Woehler said. Because the bird was so young, its gender wasn’t known.

"Aged about five months, it left southwest Alaska at the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta on Oct. 13 and touched down 11 days later at Ansons Bay on the island of Tasmania’s northeastern tip on Oct. 24, according to data from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Ornithology. The research has yet to be published or peer reviewed.

"The bird started on a southwestern course toward Japan then turned southeast over Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, a map published by New Zealand’s Pūkorokoro Miranda Shorebird Centre shows.

"The bird was again tracking southwest when it flew over or near Kiribati and New Caledonia, then past the Australian mainland before turning directly west for Tasmania, Australia's most southerly state. The satellite trail showed it covered 13,560 kilometers (8,435 miles) without stopping.

“'Whether this is an accident, whether this bird got lost or whether this is part of a normal pattern of migration for the species, we still don’t know,” said Woehler, who is part of the research project.

"Guinness World Records lists the longest recorded migration by a bird without stopping for food or rest as 12,200 kilometers (7,580 miles) by a satellite-tagged male bar-tailed godwit flying from Alaska to New Zealand.

"That flight was recorded in 2020 as part of the same decade-old research project, which also involves China’s Fudan University, New Zealand's Massey University and the Global Flyway Network.

***

"The same bird broke its own record with a 13,000-kilometer (8,100-mile) flight on its next migration last year, researchers say. But Guinness has yet to acknowledge that feat.

"Woehler said researchers did not know whether the latest bird, known by its satellite tag 234684, flew alone or as part of a flock.

“'There are so few birds that have been tagged, we don’t know how representative or otherwise this event is,” Woehler said.

“'It may be that half the birds that do the migration from Alaska come to Tasmania directly rather than through New Zealand or it might be 1%, or it might be that this is the first it’s ever happened,” he added."

Comment: trained by ancestor's previous daredevil adventures or by a designer?

Natures wonders: how Great Gray owls hunt voles

by David Turell @, Monday, December 05, 2022, 17:40 (470 days ago) @ David Turell

The shape of their face allows the=m to hear sounds through thick snow:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-giant-faced-owls-snag-voles-hidden.html

"Hovering over a target helps giant-faced Great Gray owls pinpoint prey hidden beneath as much as two feet of snow.

"Several of the owls' physical features, especially parts of their wings and face, help them correct for sonic distortions caused by the snow, enabling them to find their moving food with astonishing accuracy, according to a new UC Riverside study.

"While most owls fly straight at their prey, this species hovers just above a target area before dropping straight down and punching through the snow with its talons.

***

"A key finding relates to the owls' broad disc-like face, which they use like radar to find food. The fleshy part of our ears works the way their facial features do. An opening under their feathers funnels sound toward their ears, which are located near the center of their faces.

***

"Bigger facial discs are more sensitive to low-frequency sounds. With the largest facial disc of any bird, great gray owls are built for hunting voles, their preferred food. Often mistaken for mice, voles have high-pitched voices that get lost under snow cover. However, their digging and chewing sounds beam straight onto the owls' facial radar.

***

"'The fact that low frequency sound passes through snow explains the facial disc of this species, because they have better low frequency hearing with such a big disc."

"The group's sonic experiments also demonstrated that snow bends the voles' sounds, creating an "acoustic mirage," which could lead owls astray. By spending a moment directly above their prey, the birds correct for the snow's distortions.

"'The distance the sound has to travel from just overhead is shorter, and there's less snow for the sound to travel through from that spot," Clark said. "This definitely helps the owls land where they need to."

"Great gray owls also have wings that appear to dampen the sound of flying, which may allow them to concentrate on the noises coming from the voles. Among all owls, this species is among the quietest in flight, owing to long, fringed wings coated in thick "velvet." The sound-dampening qualities of these wings may be particularly useful during the hovering phase of the hunt."

Comment: look at the picture to see how broad the face is, with two straight-ahead eyes of a predator. This complex adaptation would require multiple mutations. Not by chance. It had to be designed

Natures wonders: beavers are weird valuable rodents

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 07, 2022, 00:02 (468 days ago) @ David Turell

They have changed the landscape of America:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-beavers-shaped-america-from-capitalism-t...

"These tireless engineers build woody dams that form ponds, which in turn filter out water pollution, sequester carbon, furnish wildlife habitat and avert drought. The Los Angeles Times recently called the beaver a “superhero,” and the New York Times has deemed them “furry weapons of climate resilience.” Wetlands with beavers are so good at fighting megafires that some researchers have urged the U.S. Forest Service to switch mammal mascots from Smokey Bear to Smokey Beaver.

***

"In truth, western science is merely relearning what North America’s Indigenous peoples have known for millennia. The Blackfeet so venerated beavers’ water-creating abilities that they forbade killing them, and some Algonquian tribes consider the Great Beaver responsible for molding the Connecticut River Valley. Beavers fascinate people not only because of their landscaping skills but because of their anatomical oddities—their scaly tails, burnt-orange teeth, webbed hind feet and dexterous hands. “[T]here is an element of the sacred in the beaver, if only in its deep weirdness …” writes Leila Philip in her engaging new book, Beaverland. “Is it any surprise that beavers have fired the human imagination in every continent that they are found?”***

"Of course, the most valuable beaver-based commodities were their pelts. Beaverland’s subtitle, How One Weird Rodent Made America, is no exaggeration. The industrial fur trade drove westward colonization, hurled tribes into centuries of resource war, and lined the pockets of John Jacob Astor, the country’s first multimillionaire, who parlayed pelts into a New York real estate empire. By destroying beaver ponds and wetlands, the fur trade also distorted ecosystems. “Before 1600, all of the continent from west to east, save a few desert sections, had stretched out as one great Beaverland,” Philip writes—a lush, wet world whose waterways were “diffuse, messy, spread out, flexible at times, and most of all incredibly dynamic ... hydrating everything like a great wand of moving water.” (my bold)

***

"She also visits a forest in New Hampshire where contemporary scientists are studying the hydrology of rebuilt beaver meadows: “giant underground sponges that can soak up and hold large stores of water,” thus saving watersheds from drought.

***

"Philip spends a lot of time with contemporary fur trappers. Pelts rarely fetch more than $20 these days, but some trappers still make a half-decent living killing beavers at the behest of agencies and landowners, who fret that expanding ponds will damage roads and private property. Philip admirably negotiates these complex interactions: she’s respectful of trappers’ hard-won knowledge of beaver behavior yet rightly skeptical about whether lethal control is the best way to solve conflicts (although she could have more forcefully refuted the self-serving claim that we need trappers to prevent beaver populations from running amok). Rather than resorting to traps, it’s better to use “pond levelers”—pipe systems that partially drain impoundments, thereby balancing human needs with rodents’ instincts."

Comment: we had a group of them set up a campout while downing pretty trees around a community pound. An expert was hired to remove them. No ecological problem and no ecosystem damage as it was originally a stock pond to catch rainwater and actually dammed a side allowedtributary that appeared only in heavy rain. The beavers are now allowed to do their work elsewhere. FRom s book eviee.

Natures wonders: amazing insect group activities

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 10, 2022, 18:26 (465 days ago) @ David Turell

Much new research into insect group activities:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-08/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/can-the-c...

the day of the nuptial flight of the harvester ants. Once a year, on the first sunny day after the first rain, these ants take wing in their multitudes, from all their colonies. These creatures, so closely identified with the ground on which they walk, suddenly sprout translucent wings and soar into the skies.

During this flight, male and female ants mate. After a flying bride mates with several males from neighboring colonies and bears their seed within her, she lands back on earth, sheds her nuptial wings and looks for a site to establish a new colony. The future queen starts by creating an initial nesting space in which, from then until her death some two decades later, she will lay millions of eggs, all of them fertilized by sperm in that one, single nuptial flight. From the eggs, larvae will emerge, which will develop into worker ants.

***

At the same time, other ants build scaffolding using silk-like threads. Where do the threads come from? The ants hold their larvae in their mouth, and extrude the thread from the latter’s bodies. The threads are used as a means of attachment to a nearby leaf, and so on from one leaf to the next, until a ball of leaves is formed that is quite sturdy on the outside and empty on the inside. The ants can accomplish this with virtually any type of leaf. When the structure is sufficiently stable, they build chambers inside it with their silk threads, one floor after another, room after room with openings between them – a veritable apartment building.

***

All [ants], without exception, live in groups and mature together as a collective that confronts the array of challenges. Perhaps the most intriguing fact about them is that, like their cousins, the bees, ants do everything without a leader dictating their actions.

***

Her team also examined what happens to this apian structure when vibrations or shaking, threaten to break it apart. It turns out that the bees simply create a more physically durable alternative when faced with such a challenge. “You can call it a ‘collective brain’ or ‘distributed decision making,’ which is not dependent on a hierarchical order from a leader,” Peleg says

***

In another study, Peleg sought to examine how information is conveyed between bees. Much has been said about these creatures’ complex social structure – they have one queen and many workers, and they communicate with each other through pheromones (chemicals that are secreted or excreted and trigger a social response).

***

Another intriguing insect, when it comes to the subject of synchronized and social behavior, is the firefly. Scientists say that the firefly’s mischievous flickering is a form of communication whose goal is copulating.

“A firefly of a certain species is looking for a firefly from the same species in order to mate. They identify each other by means of specific flickering, which is unique only to that species,” Peleg explains. “It’s a simple signal, which resembles Morse code, or 0 and 1 [binary] computer language.

***

“Grasshoppers aren’t social by definition, [meaning they are not] divided into castes such as queen and workers,” Prof. Ayali says. “But on the other hand, it’s not for nothing that they are so famous for their swarms, from biblical times down to the present."

"They display collective behavior, and especially collective movement. In the lab we are investigating the interactions between individuals, and between the individual and the group, and how the collective organizes and decides, for example, that they will all turn left now.”

***

Ayali: “The grasshopper is effectively using a speed filter in order to find logic in what is happening around it within a crowded, dense swarm. It ignores things that don’t interest it and chooses to relate only to objects that are moving at the speed of another grasshopper.

***

there is a sweeping scientific consensus that it’s thanks to insects that most other life forms on the planet have been made possible. In other words, without insects we would not be able to exist. Insects pollinate plants, including those cultivated by humans; they recycle organic waste; preserve the health of the soil and constitute a source of food for birds, fish and many other animals. If the insect population decreases, basic natural processes will not be able to occur, including the growth of trees.

***

In the past 50 years, as a result of expansion of the human population, the displacement of animals from their natural habitats, the use of pesticides and global warming – the number of insects in the world has decreased by 75 percent. This development is aptly being called the “insect apocalypse.”

“We warn that, if no action is taken to better understand and reduce the action of climate change on insects, we will drastically reduce our ability to build a sustainable future based on healthy, functional ecosystems,” dozens of leading scientists worldwide warned. i

Comment: As usual I think God programmed these guys to do their intelligent work. Note how vital they are to our ecosystems. I've only presented a few of the examples in this enormous article.

Natures wonders: sea urchin sexual reproduction

by David Turell @, Monday, December 12, 2022, 19:46 (462 days ago) @ David Turell

A cloud of eggs, a cloud of sperm and then hide and seek:

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-strategy-sea-urchin-sperm-natural.html

"A trio of researchers, two from the University of California at Irvine, the third from the University of Michigan at Flint, has found that sea urchin sperm navigation is a natural implementation of extremum seeking.

***

"Prior research has shown that as part of mating, female urchins eject a cloud of eggs into the sea around them. Similarly, male urchin eject a cloud of sperm into the sea. The sperm then make their way to the eggs and fertilize them. But how do the sperm find the eggs? That has been a question oceanographers have asked themselves for quite some time. In this new effort, the research trio has solved the puzzle.

***

"For the searching entity to find its targets, it need only continue seeking an increase in signal strength. Extremum seeking is widely used in human applications such as combustion control and control of antilock brakes in cars.

"With the sea urchin, the researchers found that the eggs emit a peptide that serves the same purpose as the signals in a computer system. Sperm continually react to such signals, seeking to increase their strength until they reach an egg. The researchers note that their findings suggest that extremum seeking could be used in biological applications, such as in the development of therapies targeting tumors. They note also that it appears likely that other creatures use extremum seeking, including bacteria looking for food, and alga that move toward light."

Comment: obviously the sperm are programmed to follow-up the scent. All automatic as designed

Natures wonders: wood boring clams live in own poop

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 17, 2022, 17:41 (458 days ago) @ David Turell

A very ecological family tree:


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221215191626.htm

"Deep beneath the waves, tiny clams with shells usually about as big as a pea bore into pieces of sunken wood. The wood is food for them, as well as a home. These rare, scattered, sunken pieces of wood support miniature ecosystems where different wood-boring clam species can live in harmony for years. But in a new paper in Marine Biodiversity, researchers found that one group of wood-boring clams has evolved a unique way to get the wood all for itself: building chimneys made of poop.

***

"Deep beneath the waves, tiny clams with shells usually about as big as a pea bore into pieces of sunken wood. The wood is food for them, as well as a home. These rare, scattered, sunken pieces of wood support miniature ecosystems where different wood-boring clam species can live in harmony for years. But in a new paper in Marine Biodiversity, researchers found that one group of wood-boring clams has evolved a unique way to get the wood all for itself: building chimneys made of poop.

***

"As the clams dig and move into their boreholes in the wood, they fill the space around them inside the holes with their own feces.

"'They don't do it on purpose, their anatomy makes them do it," says Voight. "When these clams bore into wood, their little shell does the boring." Meanwhile, the clams' siphons, tubular appendages for taking in water to get oxygen and expelling waste, stick out behind them. "In most wood-boring clams, these two "in and out" siphons are equal in length and stick out into the water column," says Voight. "But in these related hyper-nasty borers, the siphon for expelling de-oxygenated water and feces is short; it stays inside the borehole in the wood. As a result, says Voight, "they poop in their borehole. They just have to, unless they really, really push." The waste stays right there with the clam, forming a chimney that wraps around the siphon.

"That animals would evolve an anatomy that keeps them in such close contact with their own waste, is surprising, says Voight: "It sure isn't very hygienic, and yet they show no evidence of immune problems. They're healthy, they're clearly going to town on the wood. So why did they evolve this way?"

***

"'This group of species of clam has been shown in previous studies to be unusually tolerant of low oxygen," says Voight. They also have additional adaptations, like a mucosal lining of their fecal chimneys, and a substance like hemoglobin in their blood that picks up more oxygen; both may reduce the risk of sulfide poisoning from the waste. Taken together, these adaptations allow these species to survive in conditions that would make non-related wood-boring clams sick. The end result is more wood for the chimney-producing species to eat, live in, and for their offspring to settle on, unbothered by competitors.

"Beyond just solving the mystery of the gross chewed-up wood with an even grosser solution, Voight says that the study illustrates the importance of looking at ecology with an understanding of how different species are related to each other.

"'When you're confronted with something that seems enigmatic, sometimes you need to step back and look at the big picture, put a lot of different studies together, to see how what had appeared to be enigmatic is a product of evolution," says Voight. "Having a good family tree can help reveal patterns, and the more we know about the evolutionary histories of these different groups, the more we'll be able to find out about how they fit together.'"

Comment: amazing study. And it develops from reasons to study the right picture. Look at ecology and ecosystems. Wood is good food source. Ask termites

Natures wonders: frogs go translucent

by David Turell @, Friday, December 23, 2022, 00:26 (452 days ago) @ David Turell

By sequestering their red blood cells into their livers:

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-glassfrogs-red-blood-cells-liver.html

"Glassfrogs make themselves transparent while they rest by taking red blood cells from circulation and concealing them in their livers.

***

"It's easy to miss a glassfrog in its natural environment. The northern glassfrog, Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni, measures no more than a few centimeters, and they are most active at night, when their green skin helps them blend in with the surrounding leaves and foliage.

"But these amphibians become true masters of camouflage during the day when they're asleep.

"When glassfrogs are resting, their muscles and skin become transparent, and their bones, eyes and internal organs are all that's visible," said Carlos Taboada, a post-doctoral fellow at Duke and a co-first author of the paper. "These frogs sleep on the bottoms of large leaves, and when they're transparent, they can perfectly match the colors of the vegetation."

***

"Glassfrogs are some of the only land-based vertebrates that can achieve transparency, which has made them a target for study. Taboada first began studying glass frogs as a post-doctoral fellow in the lab of Sönke Johnsen, a professor of biology at Duke who specializes in studying transparency. Working with Jesse Delia, who traveled around the world collecting different glassfrogs for the study, they observed that red blood cells seemed to be disappearing from the circulating blood whenever the frogs became transparent.

"They conducted additional imaging tests on the animals, proving via optical models that the animals were able to achieve transparency because they were pushing red blood cells out of their vessels. He suspected that the cells were being stored in one of the frog's inner organs which are packaged in a reflective membrane.

***

"In their imaging set-up, the frogs slept upside down in a petri dish, similar to how they would sleep on a leaf, and the team shined a green laser at the animal. The red blood cells in the frog's body absorbed the green light and emitted ultrasonic waves, which were then picked up by an acoustic sensor to trace their whereabouts, with high spatial resolution and high sensitivity.

"The results were startlingly clear: When the frogs were asleep, they removed nearly 90 percent of their circulating red blood cells and stored them in their liver.

In further tests, the team also saw that red blood cells flowed out of the liver and circulated when the frogs were active, and then re-aggregated in the liver while the frogs were recovering.

"'The primary result is that whenever glassfrogs want to be transparent, which is typically when they're at rest and vulnerable to predation, they filter nearly all the red blood cells out of their blood and hide them in a mirror-coated liver—somehow avoiding creating a huge blood clot in the process," said Johnsen. "Whenever the frogs need to become active again, they bring the cells back into the blood stream, which gives them the metabolic capacity to move around."

"According to Delia and Taboada, this process raises questions about how the frogs can safely store almost all their red blood cells in their liver without clotting or damaging their peripheral tissues. One potential next step, they said, could be to study this mechanism and how it could one day apply to vascular issues in humans."

Comment: This is an internal trick, so how did frogs learn to turn it on? It is not an external instinct where one could learn from watching others. That is one problem. The next is clumps of red cells adhere together as clots/scabs. Something or some metabolite has to stop that. It is probable that falling asleep triggers the vanishing trick since one always follows the other. How does evolution create any of this? It can't. The trick is survival protection. If not present all at once, when the frogs appeared, they would not have survived until now. The disappearing clumped red cells had to be protected from clotting, so here again, the trick of disappearing and no-clotting had to be designed all at once. Irreducible complexity once again. /Can't/Doesn't appear without a designer. This is one of the best examples of God-must-design I've ever found

Natures wonders: long-lived ant queens

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 00:06 (433 days ago) @ David Turell

How they do it:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/ants-live-10-times-longer-by-altering-their-insulin-resp...


"In some ant species, queens live more than 30 years while laying the thousands upon thousands of eggs that become all the workers in the nest. In contrast, worker ants, which are females that don’t reproduce, live only months. Yet if circumstances demand it, the workers of some species can step up to become pseudo-queens for the good of the nest — and to reap a significant extension in their life span.

"What governs this gigantic range in ant life span is poorly understood, but two recent studies have revealed important details about what makes the life spans of ants so flexible. In Science, researchers at New York University showed that some ant queens produce a protein that suppresses the aging effect of insulin so that they can consume all the additional food needed for their egg-laying without shortening their lives. And in a preprint recently posted on the biorxiv.org server, researchers in Germany described a parasite that greatly lengthens the lives of its ant hosts by secreting a rich cocktail of antioxidants and other compounds. Both studies add to the evidence that the observed life spans of organisms have little to do with limitations imposed by their genes.

***

"...four years ago, when Vikram Chandra was a graduate student at Rockefeller University studying the differences between ant queens and workers, insulin was very much on his mind. He led a team that looked at gene expression in seven ant species and concluded that more insulin signaling occurred in the brains of the queens than in the workers. When they injected worker ants with insulin, it activated their dormant ovaries and triggered egg development. According to Kronauer, who was Chandra’s adviser, these findings showed that insulin signaling caused the ants to become reproductive.

***

"...from previous studies of insulin and aging, the NYU researchers had expected that greater insulin signaling would be linked to a shorter life span, not a longer one.

"The researchers found the answer hiding in the details of insulin signaling. When insulin binds to its receptor on a cell surface, it sets off cascades of reactions inside the cell, including two distinct chemical pathways. One pathway activates an enzyme called MAP kinase and is critical for metabolism and ovary development. The other pathway suppresses a transcription factor that seems to promote a longer life span. To the researchers’ surprise, when they looked at the ovary and the fat body (which is roughly equivalent to the mammalian liver) in gamergates, they found that the MAP kinase pathway was active but the other one was not.

"Further work showed that the ovaries of the gamergates strongly expressed a protein, Imp-L2, that ignored the MAP kinase pathway but interfered with the second pathway in the fat body. “This protein appears to have the function of protecting one pathway that allows metabolism, but inhibiting the pathway that leads to aging,” Desplan said."

Comment: this is an example of how a series of molecules deliver messages to active processes, to speed up or slow down. All of this happens automatically and cannot be evolved stepwise.

Natures wonders: snacking only on viruses

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, 21:10 (425 days ago) @ David Turell

The Haltaria ciliates do this:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-microbes-eat-virus-virovory-algae

"Tiny, pond-dwelling Halteria ciliates are virovores, able to survive on a virus-only diet, researchers report December 27 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The single-celled creatures are the first known to thrive when viruses alone are on the menu.

"Scientists already knew that some microscopic organisms snack on aquatic viruses such as chloroviruses, which infect and kill algae. But it was unclear whether viruses alone could provide enough nutrients for an organism to grow and reproduce, says ecologist John DeLong of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

"In laboratory experiments, Halteria that were living in water droplets and given only chloroviruses for sustenance reproduced, DeLong and colleagues found. As the number of viruses in the water dwindled, Halteria numbers went up. Ciliates without access to viral morsels, or any other food, didn’t multiply. But Paramecium, a larger microbe, didn’t thrive on a virus-only diet, hinting that viruses can’t satisfy the nutritional requirements for all ciliates to grow.

"Viruses could be a good source of phosphorus, which is essential for making copies of genetic material, DeLong says. But it probably takes a lot of viruses to account for a full meal.

***

"These feasts could shunt previously unrecognized energy into the food web, and add a new layer to the way viruses move carbon through an ecosystem — if it happens in the wild, DeLong says (SN: 6/9/16). His team plans to start finding out once ponds in Nebraska thaw."

Comment: every living thing has enemies in this dog-eat-dog world, even half-alive viruses. Everyone must eat.

Natures wonders: fungus kills nematodes with nerve gas:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, 21:29 (425 days ago) @ David Turell

And then eats them up:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2355065-oyster-mushroom-fungus-uses-nerve-gas-to-p...

"Oyster mushrooms are the reproductive structures – or fruiting bodies – of the fungus Pleurotus ostreatus. We have known since the 1980s that this fungus preys on nematodes, which are microscopic roundworms, but how it does this has been a mystery.

"Yen-Ping Hsueh at Academia Sinica, a research institute in Taiwan, and her colleagues previously discovered that P. ostreatus contains tiny, lollipop-shaped structures that break open when nematodes press their heads against them. They have now found that, once ruptured, these structures release a gas that is highly toxic to nematodes’ nervous systems.

"The researchers determined this by first inducing thousands of random genetic mutations in the fungus, after which they noticed that mutants lacking these lollipop structures were no longer toxic to the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

"Next, the researchers analysed the contents of the lollipop structures in non-mutant fungi and found that they were packed with a volatile chemical called 3-octanone. When they exposed four different nematode species to this chemical, it triggered a massive influx of calcium ions into nerve and muscle cells throughout their bodies, leading to rapid paralysis and death.

"Hsueh calls this a “nerve gas in a lollipop” killing strategy.

"The toxic lollipop structures are present on hyphae, the long, branching structures that grow inside rotting wood and make up most of the fungus. The oyster mushrooms themselves are non-toxic, says Hsueh.

"After the fungus kills its prey, its hyphae grow into the nematodes’ bodies to suck out their contents. It may do this to absorb nitrogen, since this nutrient is deficient in the rotting wood on which the fungus mostly grows, says Hsueh.

"Nematodes are the most abundant animals in soil, which makes them a natural food choice for fungi, she says. Other fungi use different tactics to catch nematode prey, including sticky traps and nooses that tighten around their necks."

Comment: I'm always puzzled as to how this mechanism used by the fungus was developed by evolution. It is a specialized protein that must be found and developed. Not by chance mutation.

Natures wonders: eel metamorphosis and migration:

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 19, 2023, 20:26 (424 days ago) @ David Turell

Metamorphosis in eels is outlined by not fully understood, while the migration of European eels to the Sargasso is confirmed:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25734222-000-how-we-finally-tracked-european-eel...

"RIGHT now, millions of sinuous, silvery fish are swimming determinedly across the Atlantic Ocean. They are snake-like, more than a metre long and have huge, bulbous eyes. They left their homes in Europe in late autumn and have been navigating westwards ever since, often swimming against the currents that once carried them the other way. They travel alone at a languid pace, never stopping to rest. By night they are near the surface; by day in the depths. Their journey will take more than a year. Many won’t make it. But those that do have a reward awaiting them: sex and death in the Sargasso Sea.

"This is the ultimate goal, and fate, of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla), a remarkable and enigmatic species that has nourished the human imagination, and belly, for millennia. Their life cycle is fascinating and their final journey, the details of which have only recently been discovered, is jaw-dropping. “This is a species which is notoriously difficult to understand,” says eel expert Jack Wootton. What we do know for certain is that the European eel is critically endangered and needs help to recover, or woe betide it and the ecosystems it nourishes.

"This species starts life far from Europe in the Sargasso Sea, a region in the western Atlantic that is defined by the four ocean currents that form its boundaries. From December to May adult eels spawn there, and their larvae – known as leptocephali – start a long journey to Europe and North Africa. They are largely carried by the prevailing currents, which drag on their leaf-shaped bodies, but they also navigate. “There’s some active swimming,” says Ros Wright of the UK’s Environment Agency.

"From the Sargasso Sea, the leptocephali fan out and eventually arrive across the western shores of Eurasia and Africa, from Iceland to Morocco, while also penetrating deep into the Mediterranean and Black Sea. By now they have reached the next stage of their life cycle, becoming glass eels, which are less than 10 centimetres long, thin and transparent, but distinctly eely (see diagram below).

"For the next few months, glass eels wash in and out of estuaries, feeding and growing and gradually transforming into elvers, which are dark brown and about 12 cm long. At this point they are ready to swap the sea for freshwater and make their way up rivers and streams to find a place to grow up. Once settled in a lake or river, they transform again, into yellow eels. “This life stage can be decades long,” says Wootton. “And this is usually what we see when we see eels within our rivers and lakes and lochs.”

"Eventually, though, it is time to return. Following an unknown cue, our yellow eel begins its final metamorphosis into a silver eel. “It doesn’t fully mature yet, but it’s starting the process,” says Wootton. “It has an incredible metallic silver belly, a really dark back, its eyes grow and enlarge, pectoral fins grow, its digestive tract changes and its sexual organs start to develop.” “They’re so silver it’s ridiculous, a really blue silver,” says Andy Don, also of the UK’s Environment Agency. The silver eels then head for the Sargasso Sea, where they mate for the first and last time, spawn and die.

***

"One big surprise was that the leg of the journey from the Azores to the Sargasso Sea takes the best part of a year. The presumption was that silver eels go hell for leather to reach the Sargasso Sea for the first spawning season after their departure. But the truth is that they dawdle and meander for months, travelling an average of just 6.5 kilometres a day, skipping the first season and joining the next one.

***

"From 1980 to 2010, glass eel recruitment declined 15 per cent a year. In 2011 the decline stopped, and recruitment has been bumping along the bottom ever since, but it is still in a terrible state, says Kerr. “This is a critically endangered fish”.

"The consequences of this decline ripple through the whole ecosystem. Eels once represented a huge influx of nutrients into wetland environments, providing food for species such as otters and bitterns. “All this work that we do on eels has got wider biodiversity benefits and that’s just so important now,” says Wright.

***

"Then there is the small matter of how they navigate back to their birthplace, across up to 10,000 km of open ocean. “The navigation, I think, is still something we really don’t know,” says Wright. It could be guided by magnetic fields, or maybe visual cues from the sky – hence the huge eyes and shallow swimming by night. It could be genetic: American eels also spawn in the Sargasso Sea, but head east as their European counterparts head west; hybrids occasionally arise and head north. Those route-finding skills could be down to something else entirely. But that is a mystery that the European eel may well take to its watery grave."

Comment: migration mechanism not solved. I'll bet it is our magnetic field in use. Ells are like butterflies, not only migrating but metamorphosing. I feel it is something so complex it must be designed. The article has magnificent illustrations to make this all clear.

Natures wonders: carnivorous plants switch to poop:

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 16:25 (419 days ago) @ David Turell

Better nitrogen supply:

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-species-of-carnivorous-plant-evolved-into-a-toilet-an...

"Some species of carnivorous pitcher plant, Nepenthes, have switched from capturing and digesting insects to absorbing animal poop for their daily dose of nutrients – and it's a switch that's proving very beneficial.

"These botanical poop eaters are managing to take in more nitrogen through their diet adaptation than other Nepenthes that snack on prey, scientists found. The difference is a considerable one, even though the new food regime doesn't sound all that appetizing.

***

"'A handful of Nepenthes species have evolved away from carnivory towards a diet of animal scats," says Alastair Robinson, a botanist from the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria in Australia.

"'We found that nitrogen capture is more than two times greater in species that capture mammal droppings than in other Nepenthes."

***

"Nitrogen is a key driver of photosynthesis and other plant processes, and the scientists found the heavier 15N isotope of nitrogen was significantly more abundant in the Nepenthes compared with nearby non-carnivorous plants, and especially so in the species that specialized in consuming mammal droppings.

***

"In most Nepenthes species, foraging insects slip on the smooth surfaces and edges of 'pitcher' leaves and fall into a trap of water and digestive fluids. As discovered in 2009, some of the plants have developed a mutually beneficial relationship with mountain tree shrews: the animals deposit nitrogen-rich waste into the pitchers while they feed on carbohydrates on the plant lids.

"Further research revealed a similar relationship between certain Nepenthes species and summit rats, birds, and bats. Now we know that these resource trades with animals are more beneficial in terms of nutrient capture than catching insects.

***

"'Understanding the ecological requirements of species, particularly where species are involved in complex biological mutualisms, is crucial in conservation planning and management for threatened carnivorous plants," the researchers write in their published paper."

Comment: the final statement above obviously relates to the delicate balance in ecosystems where this plant plays a role. dhw will be pleased with how these plants adapted for survival.

Natures wonders: ants sniff out cancer in urine

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 26, 2023, 15:47 (418 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazing:

https://www.livescience.com/ants-smell-cancer-tumors?utm_term=C3CFD69C-A485-4C10-9DB4-8...

'Ants can be trained to detect cancer in urine, a new study finds.

"Although ant sniffing is a long way from being used as a diagnostic tool in humans, the results are encouraging, the researchers said.

"Because ants lack noses, they use olfactory receptors on their antennae to help them find food or sniff out potential mates. For the study, published Jan. 25 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences(opens in new tab), scientists trained nearly three dozen silky ants (Formica fusca) to use these acute olfactory receptors for a different task: finding tumors.

"In a lab, scientists grafted slices of breast cancer tumors from human samples onto mice and taught the 35 insects to "associate urine from the tumor-bearing rodents with sugar," according to The Washington Post(opens in new tab). Once placed in a petri dish, the ants spent 20% more time next to urine samples containing cancerous tumors versus healthy urine, according to the study.

***

"Because tumor cells contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that researchers can use as cancer biomarkers, animals such as dogs — and now ants — can be quickly trained to detect these anomalies through their sense of smell. However, researchers think that ants "may have the edge over dogs and other animals that are [more] time-consuming to train," according to The Washington Post.

"This is important because the earlier cancer is detected, the sooner treatment can begin. The researchers are hopeful that cancer-sniffing ants have the potential "to act as efficient and inexpensive cancer bio-detectors," they wrote in their study."

Coment: what a surprise. Is there anything ants can't do?

Natures wonders: fungus helps pine beetles attack

by David Turell @, Friday, February 24, 2023, 15:06 (389 days ago) @ David Turell

Complex research shows the relationship:

https://www.sciencealert.com/creepy-study-shows-how-fungi-lure-tree-killing-beetles-to-...

"Millions of conifers have been destroyed across Europe due to infestations of the Eurasian spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus), and fungi may be helping the tree-killing critters by manipulating the tree's natural defenses.

"According to a new study, the tiny beetles can sniff out aromatic compounds produced by their symbiotic partners – fungi – breaking down tree resin, making it easier for the beetles to find suitable trees to eat and have babies in.

***

"The authors showed in previous research that I. typographus could identify its fungal symbionts of the genera Grosmannia, Endoconidiophora, and Ophiostoma by their chemical compounds.

"Now they have shown that Grosmannia penicillata and other fungal symbionts metabolize spruce resin compounds from the Norway spruce (Picea abies), which is the beetle's host tree, altering the aroma into an attractive blend of oxygenated derivatives.

***

"The team of researchers from Europe and South Africa performed a series of tests in the lab with bark beetles and samples of bark from Norway spruce trees to find out what chemical signals the beetles use to find trees infected with the fungus.

"They found that G. penicillata fungus breaks down chemicals in the bark resin, known as monoterpenes, into new compounds and that 12 days after fungal infection, these compounds made up most of the chemicals that the bark samples gave off.

"Specific pheromones in the bark attracted the beetles, and female beetles, in particular, were more interested in the pheromones on the spruce bark when symbiotic fungi were present.

"Researchers also found that I. typographus have dedicated olfactory neurons sensitive to these oxygenated compounds. Another type of fungus called Trichoderma sp., which is harmful to bark beetles, was also tested, and it produced oxygenated metabolites too, but I. typographus wasn't interested in them.

"Kandasamy and colleagues were surprised to find that when fungal symbionts grew on the spruce bark, beetles were drawn to the bark and made tunnels in it.

"The results suggest that bark beetles can smell mixtures of compounds produced by fungi and follow the scent depending on whether those fungi are their symbiotic partners or a danger to them.

"The oxygenated metabolites may help beetles determine if a fungus is present, how well the host tree protects itself, or if the fungi are overwhelming it, and locate potential feeding and breeding sites."

Comment: a very complex mechanism developed by adaptation or by design?

Natures wonders: magnetic field sensing

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 25, 2023, 17:38 (388 days ago) @ David Turell

At the cellular level:

https://www.sciencealert.com/all-living-cells-could-have-the-molecular-machinery-for-a-...

"Scientists working on fruit flies have now identified a ubiquitous molecule in all living cells that can respond to magnetic sensitivity if it is present in high enough amounts or if other molecules assist it.

"The new findings suggest that magnetoreception could be much more common in the animal kingdom than we ever knew. If researchers are right, it might be an astonishingly ancient trait shared by virtually all living things, albeit with differing strengths.

***

"Magnetoreception might sound like magic to us, but plenty of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other mammals in the wild can sense the tug of Earth's magnetic field and use it to navigate space.

'Because this force is essentially invisible to our species, it took a remarkably long time for scientists to notice it.

***

"This molecule – a receptor in the retina of migrating birds called a cryptochrome – can sense light and magnetism, and it seems to work through quantum entanglement.

"In basic terms, when a cryptochrome absorbs light, the energy triggers one of its electrons, pushing it to occupy one of two spinning states, each of which is differently influenced by Earth's geomagnetic field.

"Cryptochromes have been a leading explanation for how animals sense magnetic fields for two decades, but now researchers at the Universities of Manchester and Leicester have identified another candidate.

"Manipulating the genes of fruit flies, the team found that a molecule called Flavin Adenine Dinucleotide (FAD), which usually forms a radical pair with cryptochromes, is actually a magnetoreceptor in and of itself.

"This basic molecule is found at differing levels in all cells, and the higher the concentration, the more likely it is to impart magnetic sensitivity, even when cryptochromes are lacking.

"In fruit flies, for instance, when FAD is stimulated by light, it generates a radical pair of electrons that are responsive to magnetic fields.

"However, when cryptochromes are present alongside FADs, a cell's sensitivity to magnetic fields increases.

***

"Even though human cells show sensitivity to Earth's magnetic field, we don't have a conscious sense of that force. Maybe that's because we don't have any cryptochromes assisting."

Comment: helps show why many migrations use magnetic fields. How does chance evolution find these specialized molecules which use quantum attributes to sense the field? How about design. This shows how evolution must work. The appearance of migrating animals cannot happen until the biochemistry is in place. Since that apparatus is everywhere, that is most likely. Alternatively, by design creating separate animals with it seems very unlikely.

Natures wonders: zebra stripes thwart flies

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 26, 2023, 15:57 (387 days ago) @ David Turell

Studies with different blanket patterns proved it:

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-now-know-why-zebras-stripes-are-so-effective?utm_source...

"'We knew that horse flies are averse to landing on striped objects," says evolutionary ecologist Tim Caro from the University of Bristol in the UK. "A number of studies have now shown this, but it is not clear which aspects of stripes they find aversive."

"'Is it the thinness of the stripes? The contrast of black and white? The polarized signal that can be given off objects? So we set out to explore these issues using different patterned cloths draped over horses and filmed incoming horse flies."

"While the horse flies were most attracted to large dark objects in their environment – with all-gray blankets resulting in the most landings – once the dark color is broken up with some white, the flies become less keen to interact.

"Coats with large black triangles placed in different positions were shown to be the next most popular design amongst flies, followed by coats with small checkerboard patterns. Stripes were the most off-putting for flies, with higher contrast stripes attracting the fewest fly landings during tests.

"The researchers think the key is eliminating the strong outline of a large dark patch in the field of view of horse flies, something which stark black and white stripes do rather well. In other words, it means zebras look like less of a target.

***

"Based on the findings of this study, the flies aren't being put off by any kind of optical illusion effect or by light polarization (certain parts of the zebra appearing brighter). The pattern of thin stripes that acts as a kind of camouflage after all; not against large predators, but tiny ones.

"Scientists have been trying to figure out the purpose of the zebra's stripes for years – it's previously been suggested that they're some kind of temperature control mechanism or a way of confusing approaching horse flies.

"The next question up for debate is why are zebras the only hoofed mammals we know of to have evolved this special design on their bodies. That's something that can be looked at in the future.

Comment: strangely, in Africa zebras stood out, but then I'm not a fly. Is this a God design?

Natures wonders: whale series genetically explored

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 26, 2023, 16:51 (387 days ago) @ David Turell

New explanations:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2022/evolution-whales-land-to-sea

"Going back to being aquatic was a drastic move that would change the animals inside and out, in the space of about 10 million years — an eyeblink in evolutionary terms. Members of this group, now called cetaceans, dropped their hind limbs for powerful flukes and lost nearly all their hair. For decades, their bizarre body plans perplexed paleontologists. (my bold)

***

"Then, in the late 1990s, genetic data confirmed that whales were part of the same evolutionary line that spawned cows, pigs and camels — a branch called Artiodactyla. Fossils from modern-day India and Pakistan later fleshed out that family tree, identifying the closest ancient relatives of cetaceans as small, wading deer-like creatures.

"But their body plans are just the start of cetaceans’ weirdness. To survive in the sea, they also had to make internal modifications, altering their blood, saliva, lungs and skin. Many of those changes aren’t obvious in fossils, and cetaceans aren’t easily studied in the lab. Instead it was, once again, genetics that brought them to light.

***

"The first cetaceans lost a lot more than legs when they went back to the water: Entire genes became nonfunctional. In the vast of book of genetic letters that make up a genome, these defunct genes are among the easiest changes to detect. They stand out like a garbled or fragmented sentence, and no longer encode a full protein.

***

"Some 85 genes became nonfunctional when cetaceans’ ancestors adapted to the sea, the team reported in Science Advances in 2019. In many cases, Hiller says, they could guess why those genes became defunct.

"For example, cetaceans no longer possess a particular gene — SLC4A9 — involved in making saliva. That makes sense: What good is spit when your mouth is already full of water?

"Cetaceans also lost four genes involved in the synthesis of and response to melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. The ancestors of whales probably discovered pretty quickly that they couldn’t surface to breathe if they shut off their brains for hours at a time. Modern cetaceans sleep one brain hemisphere at a time, with the other hemisphere staying alert. “If you don’t have the regular sleep as we know it anymore, then you probably do not need melatonin,” says Hiller.

***

"Cetaceans aren’t the only mammals that returned to the water, and the genetic losses in other aquatic mammals often parallel those in whales and dolphins. For example, both cetaceans and manatees have deactivated a gene called MMP12, which normally degrades the stretchy lung protein called elastin. Maybe that deactivation helped both groups of animals develop highly elastic lungs, allowing them to quickly exhale and inhale some 90 percent of their lungs’ volume when they surface.

"Deep-diving adaptations aren’t all about loss, though. One conspicuous gain is in the gene that carries instructions for myoglobin, a protein that supplies oxygen to muscles. Scientists have examined myoglobin genes in diving animals from tiny water shrews all the way up to giant whales, and discovered a pattern: In many divers, the surface of the protein has a more positive charge. That would make the myoglobin molecules repel each other like two north magnets. This, researchers suspect, allows diving mammals to maintain high concentrations of myoglobin without the proteins glomming together, and thus high concentrations of muscle oxygen when they dive.

"The migration of the nasal opening is one of many morphological changes that accompanied the transition from land to water. The earliest cetaceans (beginning at left) had nasal bones (gray) and nasal openings (black) near the tip of their snouts, like many land-dwelling mammals. As cetaceans transitioned to life underwater, their bones retracted and nasal openings migrated to the top of the head, becoming blowholes.

***

"The researchers reported in 2016 that they found hundreds of genes that showed just this pattern in members of these three different aquatic groups. Genes under such dialed-up evolutionary pressure included ones that code for proteins in the skin, and a gene encoding the liquid surfactant that coats the inside of the lungs. It’s difficult to know exactly how those genetic changes altered the animals’ physiology for the better, but protection from germs is Clark’s best guess.

***

"Scientists know they are only just beginning to plumb the genetic depths of cetacean evolution. Now, with dozens of cetacean genomes available to study, and with new analytic techniques under development, they are poised to further probe the aquatic transition, along with other exciting moments in cetacean evolutionary history. Dolphins alone offer a wealth of questions: How did they diversify into so many types? They make up nearly half of cetacean species today. How did they and other toothed whales pick up the skill of echolocation, navigating the ocean via sound? And how did dolphin brains get so large, with a brain-to-body-size ratio to rival that of great apes?"

Comment: once again we see the adverse complexities that faced mammals returning to water. The nine stages in whales in only ten million years suggests a special driving force, perhaps a designing God? Many minor discoveries skipped for brevity.

Natures wonders: synchronized by the light of the moon

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 26, 2023, 17:21 (387 days ago) @ David Turell

Ocean organisms act in this way:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2023/lunar-cycles-guide-spawning?utm_...

"coral releasing a colorful bundle of eggs and sperm, tightly packed together. “You’re looking at it and it starts to flow to the surface,” Shlesinger says. “Then you raise your head, and you turn around, and you realize: All the colonies from the same species are doing it just now.”

"Some coral species release bundles of a pinkish- purplish color, others release ones that are yellow, green, white or various other hues. “It’s quite a nice, aesthetic sensation,” says Shlesinger, a marine ecologist at Tel Aviv University, Israel, who has witnessed the show during many years of diving. Corals usually spawn in the evening and night within a tight time window of 10 minutes to half an hour. “The timing is so precise, you can set your clock by the time it happens,” Shlesinger says.

***

"How does it work? That has long been a mystery, but researchers are getting closer to understanding. They have known for at least 15 years that corals, like many other species, contain light-sensitive proteins called cryptochromes, and have recently reported that in the stony coral, Dipsastraea speciosa, a period of darkness between sunset and moonrise appears key for triggering spawning some days later.

***

"The bristle worm originally comes from the Bay of Naples but has been reared in laboratories since the 1950s. It is particularly well-suited for such studies, says Kristin Tessmar-Raible, a chronobiologist at the University of Vienna. During its reproductive season, it spawns for a few days after the full moon: The adult worms rise en masse to the water surface at a dark hour, engage in a nuptial dance and release their gametes. After reproduction, the worms burst and die.

"The tools the creatures need for such precision timing — down to days of the month, and then down to hours of the day — are akin to what we’d need to arrange a meeting, says Tessmar-Raible. “We integrate different types of timing systems: a watch, a calendar,” she says. In the worm’s case, the requisite timing systems are a daily — or circadian — clock along with another, circalunar clock for its monthly reckoning.

***

"Though the story is far from complete, the scientists have evidence that the protein plays a key role in something very important: distinguishing sunlight from moonlight. L-Cry is, in effect, “a natural light interpreter,” Tessmar-Raible and coauthors write

"The role is a crucial one, because in order to synchronize and spawn on the same night, the creatures need to be able to stay in step with the patterns of the moon on its roughly 29.5-day cycle — from full moon, when the moonlight is bright and lasts all night long, to the dimmer, shorter-duration illuminations as the moon waxes and wanes.

***

"How does the worm know that it’s sensing moonlight, though, and not sunlight? Under moonlight conditions, only one of the two flavins was photoreduced, the scientists found. In bright light, by contrast, both flavin molecules were photoreduced, and very quickly. Furthermore, these two types of L-Cry ended up in different parts of the worm’s cells: the fully photoreduced protein in the cytoplasm, where it was quickly destroyed, and the partly photoreduced L-Cry proteins in the nucleus.

"All in all, the situation is akin to having “a highly sensitive ‘low light sensor’ for moonlight detection with a much less sensitive ‘high light sensor’ for sunlight detection,” the authors conclude in a report published in 2022.

***

"...they confirmed that another molecule is key for the worm to spawn during the right one- to two-hour window — the dark portion of that night between sunset and moonrise — on the designated spawning nights.

"Called r-Opsin, the molecule is extremely sensitive to light, the scientists found — about a hundred times more than the melanopsin found in the average human eye. It modifies the worm’s daily clock by acting as a moonrise sensor, the researchers propose (the moon rises successively later each night). The notion is that combining the signal from the r-Opsin sensor with the information from the L-Cry on what kind of light it is allows the worm to pick just the right time on the spawning night to rise to the surface and release its gametes.

***

"Scientists are also interested in knowing what roles are played by microbes that might live with marine creatures. Corals like Acropora, for example, often have algae living symbiotically within their cells. “We know that algae like that also have circadian rhythms,” Tarrant says. “So when you have a coral and an alga together, it’s complicated to know how that works.'”

Comment: an amazingly precise reaction to the moon's schedule. Why is this required? Or was it designed?

Natures wonders: ants benefit forests

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 28, 2023, 19:08 (384 days ago) @ David Turell

As shown in old growth forests:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230228113750.htm

"Many plant species rely on a mutual relationship with ants to disperse their seeds. In fact, northeastern North America is one of the major hotspots of ant-plant mutualism, although it also happens in parts of Europe, Australia, South Africa and in northeastern Asia, Buono said.

"'These plants evolved with seeds that have an appendage rich in fats attached to them, and that's very attractive to woodland ants," she said. "Ants need fats just as much as protein and sugar, and it's hard to find foods rich in fats in the forest."

"Shiny black and medium-sized, woodland ants are a native species that lives in logs, forest leaf litter and underneath rocks. Woodland ants take the seeds with fatty rewards back to their nests, protecting them from consumption by rodents and other organisms. Once the fatty appendages are consumed, the ants -- in a kind of insect housekeeping -- remove the seeds from the nest, dispersing them far from the original plant. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

***

"Old growth forests are rare treasures that play an important role in preserving species diversity, Buono pointed out. Pockets of the Northeast's ancient forest cover remain in some areas, often on land deemed unsuitable for farming.

"They differ from secondary forests literally starting at the ground level. Ground previously cleared for agriculture is flat, whereas old growth forests have a "pit and mound" topography.

"It's uneven, from years and years of trees falling over," Buono explained.

"The pits are left from the roots of toppled trees lifted out of the ground, while mounds result from the extracted root and soil. Species within the two types of forest are also different, with quick colonizers moving into younger woodlands. An established forest often features a greater number of shade-tolerant plants in the understory.

"There are slightly fewer woodland ants in secondary forests, perhaps owing to their displacement during years of agricultural use. Differences in forest canopies and the amount of light that reaches the forest floor could also play a role, but that has yet to be explored, Buono said.

"The real issue appears to be competition with invasive slugs, which are found largely in the regenerated woodlands and also have a taste for fatty seed appendages. Slugs often prefer forest edges, and secondary forests may be located closer to habitats that slugs prefer, such as open meadows or active farms, Buono said.

"To restore newer forests to a healthier state, we need to look beyond the trees to the diversity of insects, which play a crucial role in the forest ecosystem, according to the researchers.

"'Ants are beneficial. They're not as charismatic as butterflies or bees that help pollinate flowers, but they are just as important," Buono said.

Comment: it is just ants doing their usual thing and being very beneficial. Another ecosystem example.

Natures wonders: conifers fight herbivores

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 14:45 (383 days ago) @ David Turell

That lovely pine odor fights:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/pine-trees-fragrances-help-neighbors-battle-...

"Rooted to the spot, trees face deathly attacks from pests, people, and even other plants without the possibility of escape. Instead, they fend off assailants with physical and chemical defenses. With insect attacks in particular, trees emit chemical compounds that, in addition to rebuffing the nibbling beast, can alert nearby predators to the presence of a tasty snack.

"These herbivory-induced aromas can also warn nearby trees of impending danger, granting them the chance to steel themselves against an assault. However, this phenomenon is understudied in pines and other conifers, a group that includes many commercially and ecologically important species. Now, a group of Finnish researchers are endeavoring to rectify that, and they have produced robust evidence of conifers “priming” each other against beetle attacks using chemical signals.

***

"The herbivores in this study were large pine weevils (Hylobius abietis L.), common pests in European coniferous forests that feed on tree bark and kill young seedlings. Clearcutting of forests amplifies the beetles’ impact; weevils reproduce in the newly created stumps and ravage the seedlings that grow in their place.

"However, conifers aren’t completely defenseless against these dime-sized invaders. Much like kitchen herbs whose scent becomes more potent when crushed or broken apart, Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) and other trees emit fragrant molecules when herbivores chew through their bark. These molecules, known as herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs), repel the herbivore and attract its predators.

"Additionally, Hao Yu, a plant ecophysiologist at the University of Eastern Finland, knew that some tree species use these volatile compounds to communicate with one another, allowing for neighbors of a besieged plant to increase their defenses against whatever animal is attacking them. However, this behavior had never been studied in conifers, which are famous for their belowground networks of fungal communication."

Comment: in this dog-eat-dog world it's about food and defenses. It is still an issue of adaptability within God-given capacity or direct God design.

Natures wonders: weird parasitic ants

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 05, 2023, 02:38 (380 days ago) @ David Turell

Live quietly in small size-controlled groups:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230303105250.htm

"Called workerless social parasites, these rare species exist only as queens, and they die without workers to tend to them. To survive, parastic ants infiltrate a colony of closely related ants, where, as long as they keep their numbers relatively low, they and their offspring become the leisure class of the colony.

"Now scientists in the Laboratory of Social Evolution and Behavior at The Rockefeller University, together with their collaborators at Harvard University, have a new theory. As they report in Current Biology, they've discovered queen-like mutants -- parasitic ants that spontaneously appeared in colonies of clonal raider ants, which are typically queenless.

***

"Among the more than 15,000 identified ant species are hundreds that qualify as social parasites. Born inside a host colony, a parasitic ant will leave the colony, use a sex pheromone to attract a male from another colony to mate with, and once pregnant, will infiltrate the original colony or find another nearby. She'll often use subterfuge to sneak past colony guards. The shampoo ant, for example, will snatch a few ants just outside a nest entrance, lick them to acquire the colony's signature chemical scent, and then lick herself all over to transfer it to her own body. Chemically cloaked, she then can slip inside to live out her life and reproduce both new queens and males who mate outside the colony. The males die, and the queens begin the cycle again.

***

"The researchers then ran a series of experiments and genetic analyses. One of the first experiments was to isolate them to see whether the phenotype was heritable. Because clonal raider ants reproduce asexually, they didn't have to worry about interbreeding with other ants.

"The queen-like mutants lay eggs that developed into copies of themselves. "We knew we had something cool," Kronauer says.

***

"Despite laying twice as many eggs as their hosts, the ants self-regulate their head count. As long as their numbers stay below about 25 percent of the host population, they do well. More than that and they run into trouble. Queens need help from workers to free their wings as they emerge from the pupae, and if there are too many queens for the workers to look after, they'll die entangled in their pupal skin.

"'They seem to have the ability to regulate their own reproduction so that they don't drive their host colony extinct, which is a very smart thing for a parasite to do," says Trible,

***

"Whole-genome sequencing revealed that the parasitic queens have a mutation in chromosome 13, which is structurally similar to chromosomes that regulate colony social structure in other ants. This mutant chromosome seems to contain a "supergene," a set of genes that work together to create a phenotype. In this case, the supergene contains more than 200 individual genes, a disproportionate number of which assist in the metabolism of hormones. These include genes that code for cytochrome p450 enzymes, which are required to synthesize hormones in both ants and humans, and may play a role in the creation of these highly unusual mutants.

***

"It appears that with this single mutation, "their form, the higher egg production, the behavior -- it can all shift in a single mutational step," Kronauer says

***

"That idea -- that two very different forms of an animal can arise in a single species -- gets at the heart of the mystery of ant castes. Because workerless social parasites arise from a very specific type of mutation affecting ant caste development, studying the queen-like mutants has the potential to reveal insights into the still-unknown molecular mechanisms that allow ant larvae to develop distinct caste morphologies. "It provides a very comprehensive framework in which to study their evolution," says Kronauer."

Comment: Well, it seems ants can think of everything, even inventing their own parasites.

Natures wonders: octopus has three hearts and weird blood

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 07, 2023, 18:51 (378 days ago) @ David Turell

Octopus biology remains weird:

https://www.livescience.com/how-many-hearts-does-an-octopus-have?utm_term=C3CFD69C-A485...

"It turns out that an octopus has three hearts, Kirt Onthank(opens in new tab), an octopus biologist at Walla Walla University in Washington, told Live Science. The same holds true for their closest relatives, squid and cuttlefish.

"The octopuses' largest heart, the systemic heart, is located in the middle of the mollusk's body. It pumps oxygenated blood around the body, but not to the gills. "It is the largest and most muscular of the three hearts," Onthank said.

"The other two hearts are called the branchial hearts, each of which is attached to one of the octopus's two gills, "so they are often called the 'gill hearts,'" Onthank said.

"Each branchial heart's job is to pump blood through the gill it is attached to. "These hearts are relatively small and not especially strong," Onthank said.

"So why does an octopus need three hearts? "The same reason that humans and other mammals need four chambers in their hearts — solving the problem of low blood pressure," Onthank explained.

"Animals need enough blood pressure to deliver blood throughout their bodies effectively. If a person suffers from low blood pressure, "they can get lightheaded or even pass out if they stand up too fast or exert themselves," Onthank noted. "This is because the low pressure isn't sufficient to deliver blood to the brain."

"Octopus gills help draw in vital oxygen from the water, and the branchial hearts help pump oxygen-poor blood through the gills. However, the oxygen-rich blood that emerges from the gills comes out at low pressure, "which is not good for sending blood to the body," Onthank said. So octopuses "have another heart after the gills to pressurize the blood again so that it can be sent to the body efficiently," he explained.

"Humans have a similar problem. The right two chambers of the heart — the right atrium and the right ventricle — pump oxygen-poor blood from the veins into the lungs. When oxygen-rich blood leaves the lungs, it comes out at low pressure, Onthank said.

"However, humans then send this oxygen-rich blood back to the heart — specifically, to the left two chambers: the left atrium and the left ventricle. These chambers repressurize the blood and send it through the arteries to the rest of the body.

"In other words, octopuses and humans solve the same problem in two very different ways: octopuses by having multiple hearts, and humans by having a heart with multiple chambers.

***

"Another way in which the octopus circulatory system differs from that of humans is how their blood is blue. This is because octopuses and their cephalopod relatives use copper-based proteins called hemocyanins to carry oxygen in their blood, instead of the iron-based protein called hemoglobin that humans do.

"Hemocyanins are less effective than hemoglobin at binding to oxygen at room temperature. One might then naively think this might be a reason why the octopus needs three hearts. However, hemocyanins carry more oxygen than hemoglobin in low-oxygen environments and at low temperatures, which make them more useful at sea, Onthank said."

Comment: the octopus remains as strange as ever a contingent form of evolution.

Natures wonders: bumble bee social trends

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 02:20 (377 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 02:31

Patterns of behaviour quickly copied by colony:

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-bumblebees-trends-behavior.html

"A new study has shown that bumblebees pick up new "trends" in their behavior by watching and learning from other bees, and that one form of a behavior can spread rapidly through a colony even when a different version gets discovered.

***

"'Demonstrator" bees were trained to use either the red or blue tabs, with "observer" bees watching. When it was the observers' turn to tackle the puzzle, they overwhelmingly and repeatedly chose to use the same method that they had seen, even after discovering the alternative option. This preference for the taught option was maintained by whole colonies of bees, with a mean of 98.6% of box openings made using the taught method.

***

"In an additional experiment, the researchers put both "blue" and "red" demonstrators into the same populations of bees. In the first population, 97.3% of the 263 incidences of box-opening by observers by day 12 used the red method. In the second population, observers preferred the blue method over the red on all days except one. In both cases, this demonstrated how a behavioral trend might emerge in a population in the first place—for the most part, due to experienced bees retiring from foraging and new learners arising, rather than any bees changing their preferred behavior.

"Similar results from similar experiments have been used in species such as primates and birds to suggest that they, like humans, are capable of culture. If bumblebees are capable of this, too, this could potentially explain the evolutionary origin of many of the complex behaviors seen among social insects. It might be possible that what now appears instinctive could have been socially learnt, at least originally.

"Dr. Alice Bridges, the lead author from Queen Mary University of London, said, "Bumblebees—and, indeed, invertebrates in general—aren't known to show culture-like phenomena in the wild. However, in our experiments, we saw the spread and maintenance of a behavioral 'trend' in groups of bumblebees—similar to what has been seen in primates and birds. The behavioral repertoires of social insects like these bumblebees are some of the most intricate on the planet, yet most of this is still thought to be instinctive. Our research suggests that social learning may have had a greater influence on the evolution of this behavior than previously imagined."

"Professor Lars Chittka, Professor of Sensory and Behavioral Ecology at Queen Mary University of London and author of the book "The Mind of a Bee," said, "The fact that bees can watch and learn, and then make a habit of that behavior, adds to the ever-growing body of evidence that they are far smarter creatures than a lot of people give them credit for.

"'We tend to overlook the 'alien civilizations' formed by bees, ants and wasps on our planet—because they are small-bodied and their societies and architectural constructions seem governed by instinct at first glance. Our research shows, however, that new innovations can spread like social media memes through insect colonies, indicating that they can respond to wholly new environmental challenges much faster than by evolutionary changes, which would take many generations to manifest.'"

Comment: no question, social insects copy each other rather quickly. The last paragraph is right on. Can major instincts develop this way? I did a literature search. Ant societies don't do this. Castes and actions are rigid and fixed.

Natures wonders: poisonous birds

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2023, 18:35 (354 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like poisonous frogs:

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-birds-neurotoxin-laden-feathers-guinea.html

"An expedition into the jungle of New Guinea has resulted in the discovery of two new species of poisonous birds by researchers from the University of Copenhagen. Genetic changes in these bird species have allowed them to carry a powerful neurotoxin.

***

"'We managed to identify two new species of poisonous birds on our most recent trip. These birds contain a neurotoxin that they can both tolerate and store in their feathers," says Knud Jønsson of the Natural History Museum of Denmark.

***

"The two birds that the researchers discovered to be poisonous are the regent whistler (Pachycephala schlegelii), a species that belongs to a family of birds with a wide distribution and easily recognizable song well-known from across the Indo-Pacific region, and the rufous-naped bellbird (Aleadryas rufinucha).

"'We were really surprised to find these birds to be poisonous as no new poisonous bird species has been discovered in over two decades. Particularly, because these two bird species are so common in this part of the world," says Knud Jønsson.

"Most people are familiar with South and Central America's iconic poison dart frogs—especially the golden poison frog. These small, brightly colored amphibians can kill a human at the slightest touch. The discovery of the two new poisonous bird species in New Guinea, which carry the same type of toxin in their skin and feathers, demonstrates that the frog toxin is more widespread than once believed.

"The poison in these birds' bodies and plumage is called Batrachotoxin. It is an incredibly potent neurotoxin that, in higher concentrations, such as those found in the skin of golden poison frogs, leads to muscle cramps and cardiac arrest nearly immediately after contact.

"'The bird's toxin is the same type as that found in frogs, which is a neurotoxin that, by forcing sodium channels in skeletal muscle tissue to remain open, can cause violent convulsions and ultimately death," explains Kasun Bodawatta.

***

"There is a distinction in biology between the two ways that animals deploy poisons. There are poisonous animals that produce toxins in their bodies and others that absorb toxins from their surroundings. Like the frogs, the birds belong to the latter category. Both are believed to acquire toxins from what they eat. Beetles containing the toxin have been found in the stomachs of some of the birds. But the source of the toxin itself has yet to be determined.

***

"'So, it was natural to investigate whether the birds had mutations in the same genes. Interestingly enough, the answer is yes and no. The birds have mutations in the area that regulates sodium channels, and which we expect gives them this ability to tolerate the toxin, but not in the exact same places as the frogs," says Kasun Bodawatta.

"He adds, "Finding these mutations that can reduce the binding affinity of Batrathotoxin in poisonous birds in similar places as in poison dart frogs, is quite cool. And it showed that in order to adapt to this Batrachotoxin lifestyle, you need some sort of adaptation in these sodium channels".

"Therefore, these studies of the birds establish that while their neurotoxin is similar to that of the South American poison dart frogs, the birds developed their resistance and ability to carry it in the bodies independently of the frogs. This is an example of what biologists refer to as convergent evolution."

Comment: dhw will ask why these birds exist. Answer, just part of an ecosystem.

Natures wonders: dragonfly wings flight control

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 05, 2023, 17:29 (349 days ago) @ David Turell

Amazing design:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/dragon-fly-wings-also-hav...

"Fabian et all, Cell Press, “Systematic characterization of wing mechanosensors that monitor airflow and wing deformations” April 15, 2022
As Fabian et al summarise:

"Animal wings deform during flight in ways that can enhance lift, facilitate flight
control, and mitigate damage. Monitoring the structural and aerodynamic state
of the wing is challenging because deformations are passive, and the flow fields
are unsteady; it requires distributed mechanosensors that respond to local
airflow and strain on the wing. Without a complete map of the sensor arrays, it
is impossible to model control strategies underpinned by them. Here, we present
the first systematic characterization of mechanosensors on the dragonfly’s wings:
morphology, distribution, and wiring. By combining a cross-species survey of
sensor distribution with quantitative neuroanatomy and a high-fidelity finite
element analysis, we show that the mechanosensors are well placed to perceive
features of the wing dynamics relevant to flight. This work describes the wing
sensory apparatus in its entirety and advances our understanding of the sensori-
motor loop that facilitates exquisite flight control in animals with highly deform-
able wings.

"This, of course, continues to scream, sophisticated, fine tuned, integrated systems engineering driven design.

"The Dragonfly is a sophisticated ornithopter class flying machine capable of hovering, sideways and reverse flight [comparable to helicopters], with capability as a living animal, to reproduce itself.

"Just the pterostigma alone, which enables up to 25% increase in flight speed by reducing wing flutter (a problem seen by the Spitfire’s designers) is already a case in point of fine tuning and islands of function in large configuration spaces dominated by non functional gibberish and with failure modes nearby. Now, we add a sensor array driven control loop, where such loops, notoriously, require Goldilocks Zone just right tuning. Worse, the wing is highly deformable and acts in an unstable flow field. That is, the required servo control is highly sophisticated and adaptive.

"The Dragonfly is a case in point of sophisticated, systems level fine tuned island of function design. A further point for why we need to declare intellectual independence."

Comment: An ID article declares there must be an intelligent designer. See the explanatory illustration.

Natures wonders: these ants play possum

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 13, 2023, 19:10 (311 days ago) @ David Turell

They avoid trouble by playing dead:

https://www.sciencealert.com/mouse-study-reveals-unlikely-connection-between-menthol-an...

"Accidentally discovered as researchers were checking pygmy-possum and bat nest boxes on Kangaroo Island, a colony of Polyrhachis femorata ants appeared to be dead… until one moved.

"Researchers believe the ants were 'playing dead' as a defensive strategy to avoid potential danger.

"Published by CSIRO, this is the first time that a whole colony of ants has been recorded feigning death, and the first record of the Polyrhachis femorata ant species for South Australia.

"Wildlife ecologist, UniSA's Associate Professor S. 'Topa' Petit, says she was surprised to discover a colony of what appeared to be dead ants in one of the nest boxes.

"'The mimicry was perfect," Assoc Professor Petit says. "When we opened the box, we saw all these dead ants…and then one moved slightly.

"'This sort of defensive immobility is known among only a few ant species -- in individuals or specific casts -- but we don't know of other instances when it's been observed for entire colonies.

"'In some of the boxes containing colonies of Polyrhachis femorata, some individuals took a while to stop moving, and others didn't stop. The triggers for the behaviour are difficult to understand."

"Assoc Prof Petit says that nest boxes may present an opportunity to study the ants' death-feigning behaviours, which are of great interest to many behavioural ecologists investigating a diversity of animal species.

"The discovery was made during the Kangaroo Island Nest Box Project, where 901 box cavities have been monitored across 13 diverse properties as part of wildlife recovery efforts following the devastating 2020 bushfires."

Comment: still not well studied, being so recent. Not surprising, since opossums are so well known.

Natures wonders: bird brain magnetic field sensing

by David Turell @, Friday, May 26, 2023, 00:55 (298 days ago) @ David Turell

A specific brain area:

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-bird-brains-flick-earth-magnetic.html

"A new study from researchers at Western's Advanced Facility for Avian Research (AFAR), home to the world's first hypobaric climatic wind tunnel for bird flight, explores a brain region called cluster N that migratory birds use to perceive Earth's magnetic field. The team has discovered the region is activated very flexibly, meaning these birds have an ability to process, or ignore, geomagnetic information, just as you may attend to music when you are interested or tune it out when you are not.

***

"Specifically, the research team led by psychology Ph.D. candidate Madeleine Brodbeck and AFAR co-director Scott MacDougall-Shackleton studied white-throated sparrows and found they were able to activate cluster N at night when they were motivated to migrate (to avoid prey and fly during cooler periods) and make it go dormant when they were resting at a stopover site.

***

"'This brain region is super important for activating the geomagnetic compass, especially for songbirds when they migrate at night," said Brodbeck. "Almost all previous work on this specific brain function was done at one lab in Europe, so it was great to replicate it in a North American bird like the white-throated sparrow."

"Earth's magnetic field, likely first investigated and identified by German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss in the 1830s, has long fascinated physicists, aerospace engineers.

***

"'Magnetic fields are really fun to think about because they're invisible to humans. We can't see them or sense them, but most animals perceive them in some way," said Brodbeck. "For birds, using Earth's magnetic field to know if they're going towards a pole or towards the equator is obviously really helpful for orientation and migration. It's incredible that they can activate their brain in this way, and we can't."

***

"'Birds don't just use their magnetic compass. We know they pay attention to the sun and the stars as cues too. And we also know that things like lights at night, or windows in buildings, and all these things that we put in the world disrupt their migrations," said MacDougall-Shackleton. "This type of basic research informs us and lets us know the full suite of ways that animals perceive the world when they're migrating and what we as humans need to do to minimize our impact.'"

Comment: any attribute of a physical facility of the Earth's environment is used by the evolutionary process to add in survival. lAl migrating animals use the magnetic field.

Natures wonders: bat magnetic field sensing

by David Turell @, Monday, May 29, 2023, 20:36 (294 days ago) @ David Turell

Orienting in the dark:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2375811-migrating-bats-use-earths-magnetic-field-t...

"Migratory bats use a magnetic sense to navigate long distances, calibrating their internal compass based on the position of the setting sun each evening.

***

"The researchers trapped 65 soprano pipistrelles on their migration route at Pape Ornithological Station in Latvia. Just before sunset, they manipulated the magnetic field around two groups of bats using a Helmholtz coil, a device that generates magnetic fields. One group had a horizontal shift in polarity 120o clockwise; the other had the same horizontal treatment and a completely reversed vertical shift in inclination, as if they were in the southern hemisphere. A third group had no magnetic manipulation.

"A few hours later, the researchers released the bats into the night and recorded the direction they went. Bats that weren’t subjected to altered magnetic fields unexpectedly flew in two directions, either to the north or to the south – a split possibly due to poor weather nearby.

"Those exposed to the horizontal shift only took off to the north, supporting the idea they can detect the magnetic field. The bats exposed to the horizontal and vertical shifts took off in all directions, indicating for the first time that they are sensitive to the field’s vertical inclination too – and that they were probably very confused.

"This extra information gives a more accurate position, like a GPS system tapping into a number of satellites, says Juan Tomás Alcalde at the Spanish Association for the Study and Conservation of Bats. “These abilities may allow bats not only to migrate confidently in the path they are flying, but also to adapt their magnetic compass to the Earth’s ever-changing magnetic field.'”

comment: this adds to the enormous list of animals using the field.

Natures wonders: a sometime plant carnivore

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 16:39 (290 days ago) @ David Turell

Traps insects at a time of phosphorous lack:

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-unique-plant-turns-carnivorous-when-the-mood-strikes?...

"Among the roughly 370,000 known species of flora sprouting on Earth's surface, a taste for blood is rare. But only one plant is known to be carnivorous on a part-time basis.

"Triphyophyllum peltatum is a rare plant from the tropical forests of Sierra Leone in West Africa known to trap insects from time to time. Until recently, researchers have had a hard time cultivating the plant successfully enough to determine just what triggers its sudden hunger for bug meat.

***

"In its juvenile stage, T. peltatum is surprisingly ordinary-looking. It soaks up sunshine and generates energy through photosynthesis, displaying no signs of its penchant to snare prey. Mature plants will start to unfurl leaves with two hooks at the tip that assist with their climb to the sun-filled canopy.

"As it develops, however, the growing vine can sometimes sprout glandular leaves that ooze fat blobs of sticky, blood-colored liquid capable of trapping unsuspecting beetles for digestion.

"Then, once satisfied, the plant might drop its carnivorous habit altogether.

"Unlike other carnivorous plants, such as the Venus flytrap, sundews, bladderworts, and butterworts, the insect-eating behavior of T. peltatum is not hardwired into its development. Some T. peltatum plants never become meat-eaters.

"Scientists have hypothesized T. peltatum, like similar species, turns carnivorous to survive in environments deprived of nutrients such as nitrogen. But, until now, scientists had not pinpointed exactly what triggered this metamorphosis, in large part because this is such a difficult plant to cultivate.

***

"Sixty shoots were grown in small plastic vessels that contained soil that was deficient in either nitrogen, potassium, or phosphorus, or a control medium. These plants were checked every week for six months to see whether they became carnivorous or not.

"The only plants that grew the distinct, red-dotted, glandular leaves were those deprived of phosphorus. This result was replicated in plants grown in glasshouses with low levels of phosphorus in the soil.

"Phosphorus is a critically important mineral for the growth and development of plants; it is used to make core components of DNA and membranes. (my bold)

"Plants invest significant energy towards growing in an extensive root system to soak up phosphorus in the soil. But towards the end of the dry season, plants can start to experience phosphorus starvation.

"This is the time of year when T. peltatum mostly grows its insect-catching leaves.

Carnivory is energy intensive as it requires the production of sticky glue and digestive enzymes to break down animal matter.

"'When the [phosphorous] concentration drops below a critical threshold, T. peltatum invests in the formation of carnivorous leaves to be able to complement their phosphorous stocks from captured animals," the researchers write.

"'After soil phosphorus content recovers to pre-stress levels, 'cheaper' photosynthesis leaves get produced.'"

Comment: An amazing type of carnivorous plant. Note my bold. Phosphorous is a vital support. These is no way this adaptation developed stepwise. Either this mechanism is in place or plants are dead. It requires a new series of biochemical reactions to make the new glue following new DNA coding. Design fits.

Natures wonders: insects protect plants

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 06, 2023, 18:09 (287 days ago) @ David Turell

Plants offer food and get protected:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolution-ants-plants-marjorie-weber-scientists-to-...

"A crack team of arthropod bodyguards may be defending that cherry tree in your backyard or the maple across the street.

"Mites protect plants by acting like herds of grazing sheep, munching the fungi that creep across leaves. And ants patrol branches, ready to bite or sting hungry caterpillars ­— or even elephants. In return for the protection, plants offer food and housing.

"This kind of cooperation has evolved over and over again, says Marjorie Weber, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Plant bodyguards are everywhere, she says, but most people don’t even notice.

***

"Since Darwin’s time, scientists studying what drives evolution have focused largely on antagonistic interactions between species, like finches competing for seeds and arms races between predators and prey. Cooperation’s role in evolution hasn’t always been taken seriously, “largely because it was viewed as a more feminine perspective,” Weber says.

"Weber’s lab focuses on how cooperation drives evolution and biodiversity. She spends her time in the field, greenhouse and the lab, documenting interactions between plants and arthropods, as well as using computational techniques to analyze evolutionary patterns.

"Weber may be best known for her work on extrafloral nectaries. These nectar-filled knuckles bulge from leaves and stems on some plants, leaking sugary snacks that entice ants to stick around and fend off attacks. Weber looked at extrafloral nectaries in modern vascular plants and then reconstructed the trait’s evolution across ancient plant species. The trait, she discovered, was a recipe for evolutionary success. Once the sweet structures evolved in a branch of the plant family tree, that branch quickly accumulated more species. That suggests that the opportunity to trade nectar for insect protection actually spurred plants to diversify.

“'That’s not what people expected,” says Judith Bronstein, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Scientists might assume such an adaptation would help a particular plant survive and its population to grow, but they don’t know why the number of plant species would multiply. “Somehow, possessing extrafloral nectaries leads to diversification,” she says. “And that’s a fantastic avenue for future research.'”

Comment: so its not all dog-eat-dog out there. Here we see another form of symbiosis.

Natures wonders: mathematical patterns

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 17, 2023, 15:46 (276 days ago) @ David Turell

In plants over time:

https://www.sciencealert.com/400-million-year-old-fossil-upends-our-understanding-of-fi...

"If your eyes have ever been drawn to the arrangement of leaves on a plant stem, the texture of a pineapple, or the scales of a pinecone, then you have unknowingly witnessed brilliant examples of mathematical patterns in nature.

"What ties all of these botanical features together is their shared characteristic of being arranged in spirals that adhere to a numerical sequence called the Fibonacci sequence.

***

"Such is the prevalence of Fibonacci spirals in plants today that they are believed to represent an ancient and highly conserved feature, dating back to the earliest stages of plant evolution and persisting in their present forms.

"However, our new study challenges this viewpoint. We examined the spirals in the leaves and reproductive structures of a fossilized plant dating back 407 million years.

"Surprisingly, we discovered that all of the spirals observed in this particular species did not follow this same rule. Today, only a very few plants don't follow a Fibonacci pattern.

"Spirals occur frequently in nature and can be seen in plant leaves, animal shells, and even in the double helix of our DNA. In most cases, these spirals relate to the Fibonacci sequence – a set of numbers where each is the sum of the two numbers that precede it (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and so on).

***

"If you look at the tip of a leafy shoot, such as that of a monkey puzzle tree, you can see the leaves are arranged in spirals that start at the tip and gradually wind their way round the stem. A study of 12,000 spirals from over 650 plant species found that Fibonacci spirals occur in over 90 percent of cases.

"Due to their frequency in living plant species, it has long been thought that Fibonacci spirals were ancient and highly conserved in all plants. We set out to test this hypothesis with an investigation of early plant fossils.

***

"Specifically, we studied plant fossils of the extinct clubmoss species Asteroxylon mackiei. The fossils we studied are now housed in museum collections in the UK and Germany but were originally collected from the Rhynie chert – a fossil site in northern Scotland.

***

"...we discovered that leaf arrangement was highly variable in A. mackiei. In fact, non-Fibonacci spirals were the most common arrangement. The discovery of non-Fibonacci spirals in such an early fossil is surprising as they are very rare in living plant species today.

"These findings change our understanding of Fibonacci spirals in land plants. They suggest that non-Fibonacci spirals were ancient in clubmosses, overturning the view that all leafy plants started out growing leaves that followed the Fibonacci pattern.

"Furthermore, it suggests that leaf evolution and Fibonacci spirals in clubmosses had an evolutionary history distinct from other groups of living plants today, such as ferns, conifers, and flowering plants. It suggests that Fibonacci spirals emerged separately multiple times throughout plant evolution.

"The work also adds another piece to the puzzle of a major evolutionary question – why are Fibonacci spirals so common in plants today?

"This question continues to generate debate among scientists. Various hypotheses have been proposed, including to maximize the amount of light that each leaf receives or to pack seeds efficiently. But our findings highlight how insights from fossils and plants like clubmosses may provide vital clues in finding an answer."

Comment: the use of mathematical patterns in nature is strongly suggestive of design.

Natures wonders: scallop eyes

by David Turell @, Friday, June 23, 2023, 01:04 (270 days ago) @ David Turell

They have lots of them:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-scallops-many-eyes-can-teach-us-abou...

"A new study published in Current Biology reveals that scallop eyes have pupils that dilate and contract in response to light, making them far more dynamic than previously believed.

***

"The optics of scallop eyes are set up very differently than our own ocular organs. As light enters into the scallop eye, it passes through the pupil, a lens, two retinas (distal and proximal), and then reaches a mirror made of crystals of guanine at the back of the eye. The curved mirror reflects the light onto the interior surface of the retinas, where neural signals are generated and sent to a small visceral ganglion, or a cluster of nerve cells, whose main job is to control the scallop's gut and adductor muscle. The structure of a scallop's eye is similar to the optics systems found in advanced telescopes. (my bold)
***

"The researchers found that the scallop pupils are able to open and contract, though their pupillary responses aren’t as quick as our own. A scallop pupil's diameter changes by about 50 percent at most, and the dilation or contraction can take several minutes. Their eyes don’t have irises like our eyes do, and instead, the cells in the cornea change shape by going from thin and flat to tall and long. These contractions can change the curvature of the cornea itself, opening the possibility that the scallop eye might change shape and respond to light in a way that makes it possible to form crisper images on the proximal retina.

“'It really changes the ability of that eye and ultimately the organism to be able to have the type of resolution to see its environment,” says Jeanne Serb, a vision scientist at Iowa State University.


"Now, Speiser is working to understand if the scallops are able to change the curvature of the mirror and the eye as a whole, which would enable it to adjust the focus of the image even further. "The eyes' dynamic structures open up some new possibilities for what you can do with a mirror-based eye like this," Speiser says.

"Adaptive mirrors aren’t the scallop eye’s only mystery. “It turns out that scallop eyes have three times as many opsins as we do,” Serb says. Opsins are light-sensitive proteins found in the photoreceptor cells of the retina that mediate the conversion of light into electrochemical signals. Scientists don’t know whether all 12 scallop opsins are expressed in every single scallop eye or if the eyes subspecialize in different channels of the visual spectrum. Some opsins may be expressed in the proximal retina while others are in the distal retina.

***

"Eyes have probably evolved at least 50 or 60 times across all animals, and in many cases, the molecular underpinnings of vision—the proteins that translate light signals to electrical signals—vary quite a bit. “The big evolutionary question for me is, how do these proteins evolve to sample light? And then, how does it become specified to the different types of light environments that the animals can occur in?” Serb asks. She believes that the opsins, in most cases, are being repurposed from some other function within the animal to be used in the eyes.

"Although there is a diversity of eye morphologies and of photoreceptors across animals, the building blocks—the genes that control eye development—are remarkably similar. For example, Pax6 is a developmental gene that is critical for eye development in mammals, and it plays a similar role in the development of scallop eyes. In a recent study preprint, Andrew Swafford and Oakley argue that these similarities belie the fact that many types of eyes might have evolved in response to light-induced stress. Ultraviolet damage causes specific molecular changes that an organism must protect against.


“'It was so surprising that time and time again, all these components that are used to build eyes, and also are used in vision, have these protective functions,” Oakley says. In the deep history of these components are genetic traits that trigger responses to light-induced stress, such as repairing damage from UV radiation or detecting the byproducts of UV damage. Once the suite of genes involved in detecting and responding to UV damaged are expressed together, then it may be just a matter of combining those parts in a new way that gives you an eye, the researchers suggest."

Comment: any type of eye is an amazing development in evolution. Too complex to be developed by chance mutations. And these are equal to advanced telescopes!!

Natures wonders: instinctual eating

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 28, 2023, 18:52 (265 days ago) @ David Turell

The squash bug larvae eat parent poop purposely:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/young-squash-bugs-adult-poop-microbe

"Squash bugs (Anasa tristis) are a major agricultural pest, and a bacterial partner called Caballeronia is essential for their survival. To pick up the bacteria, fledgling squash bugs home in on adult poop in the environment, researchers report in the July 10 Current Biology.

"If the nymphs don’t find the microbe, they die, says evolutionary biologist and behavioral ecologist Scott Villa of Davidson College in North Carolina. And Caballeronia is not plentiful in the environment. So having to fend for themselves is a risky strategy, Villa says. “If it’s so important, why in the heck did they not just put them on a platter for their kids?”

***

"The serendipitous discovery came when Villa and colleagues caught an adult squash bug pooping on camera while working on a different study. Nymphs flocked to the feces and started feeding. When the team then gave nymphs a choice of a mouthful of saline or poop spiked with the bacteria, the bugs were intensely attracted to the feces. Of 229 recorded events, all but three involved bacteria-containing poop.

"Nymphs also preferred bacteria-free poop or the bacteria alone to saline.

"What’s more, the attraction may be species-specific. The insects were less successful at picking up Caballeronia from feces belonging to their close relative A. andresii, another squash bug.

"Why Caballeronia is key for squash bugs is unclear, says coauthor Jason Chen, a microbial ecologist and entomologist at Emory University in Atlanta. But the bacteria probably help ensure the insects get the nutrients they need from their diet."

Comment: if death follows not having the bug, it appears this must be a designed instinct, not one developed by chance.

Natures wonders: birds follow ants to food

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 25, 2023, 17:23 (238 days ago) @ David Turell

In the tropics:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/birds-driver-ants-africa-ecology

"COIMBATORE, India — To better understand Equatorial Guinea’s tropical birds, ornithologists Luke L. Powell and Patricia Rodrigues scan the ground rather than the trees. They are searching for nests of driver ants (Dorylus spp.). These voracious predators will march out of their underground nests and fan out into a meters-wide swarm, flushing out insects and worms from undergrowth. From the trees, birds swoop down to catch the fleeing insects. And where the ant swarms go, the birds follow.

***

"Since 2020, Rodrigues has spent weeks at a time scrutinizing the ground for ants in a forest near Ciudad de la Paz. When she finds them, she knows to keep her distance. “They’re super-duper aggressive and they have giant mandibles that can pierce your skin,” Rodrigues says. Despite her caution, ant bites “inevitably happen”— sometimes the ants fall out of trees onto her and her colleagues.

***

"For their latest study, Rodrigues, Powell and colleagues placed cameras at the entrances of seven driver ant nests and recorded about 80 hours of footage. “Birds come up to a nest entrance and check it out,” says Powell, leaning his body forward and turning his head left and right, imitating a bird, “and fly into the direction of where the ants are raiding that day.”

"When the team played calls of ant-following birds like the white-tailed ant thrush (Neocossyphus poensis) and fire-crested alethe (Alethe castanea), it attracted about 30 other bird species. Many of these birds eat insects and could be homing in on the calls of specialized ant-following birds for food, the researchers say. In contrast, only seven bird species responded to calls of the African green pigeon (Treron calvus), which does not follow ants.

***

"These newly documented behaviors in African tropical birds show they are more specialized on driver ants than researchers had expected, Rodrigues says. The team now wants to examine how this specialization affects the birds when forest degradation changes the numbers and distribution of driver ants."

Comment: we know birds are smart.

Natures wonders: drongos spot cuckoo eggs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 15:46 (237 days ago) @ David Turell

94% of the time:

https://www.science.org/content/article/two-these-eggs-are-impostors-can-you-spot-them?...

"The African cuckoo (Cuculus gularis) is infamous in the bird world. Mothers of this common parasitic species lay their eggs in the nests of a variety of other birds, camouflaging them so they can dupe unsuspecting moms into raising their hatchlings.

"But the fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis)—a glossy, red-eyed bird native to southern Africa—isn’t so easily fooled. According to a study published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy B, drongo moms can spot the counterfeits with 94% accuracy, despite cuckoo eggs being an almost perfect visual match for their own.

"The secret to the drongos’ success? Homing in on subtle variations in color and speckled patterning on the surface of their highly diverse eggs. Each female has a unique egg type, helping her spot impostors with accuracy that outstrips both humans and computer models."

From the original study:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2023.1125

"We show, using a combination of image analysis, field experiments and simulations, that: egg colour and pattern mimicry of fork-tailed drongo eggs by African cuckoos is near-perfect on average; drongos show fine-tuned rejection of foreign eggs, exploiting unpredictable pattern differences between parasitic eggs and their own; and the high degree of interclutch variation (polymorphic egg ‘signatures’) exhibited by drongos gives them the upper hand in the arms race, with 93.7% of cuckoo eggs predicted to be rejected, despite cuckoos mimicking the full range of drongo egg phenotypes. These results demonstrate that model diversification is a highly effective defence against mimics, even when mimicry is highly accurate."

Comment: one should know one's own egg.

Natures wonders: insect brain metamorphosis

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 18:37 (237 days ago) @ David Turell

A magnificent study:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/insect-brains-melt-and-rewire-during-metamorphosis-20230...

"Metamorphosis is not an exception in the animal kingdom; it’s almost a rule. More than 80% of the known animal species today, mainly insects, amphibians and marine invertebrates, undergo some form of metamorphosis or have complex, multistage life cycles.

"The process of metamorphosis presents many mysteries, but some of the most deeply puzzling ones center on the nervous system. At the center of this phenomenon is the brain, which must code for not one but multiple different identities. After all, the life of a flying, mate-seeking insect is very different from the life of a hungry caterpillar. For the past half-century, researchers have probed the question of how a network of neurons that encodes one identity — that of a hungry caterpillar or a murderous lacewing larva — shifts to encode an adult identity that encompasses a completely different set of behaviors and needs.

"Truman and his team have now learned how much metamorphosis reshuffles parts of the brain. In a recent study published in the journal eLife, they traced dozens of neurons in the brains of fruit flies going through metamorphosis. They found that,...adult insects likely can’t remember much of their larval life. Although many of the larval neurons in the study endured, the part of the insect brain that Truman’s group examined was dramatically rewired. That overhaul of neural connections mirrored a similarly dramatic shift in the behavior of the insects as they changed from crawling, hungry larvae to flying, mate-seeking adults.

***

"The earliest insects 480 million years ago emerged from eggs looking much like smaller versions of their adult selves, or else they continued their “direct development” to get steadily closer to their adult form, just as grasshoppers, crickets and some other insects do today. Complete metamorphosis seems to have arisen in insects only around 350 million years ago, before the dinosaurs.

***

“'The nervous system has never been able to change the way it makes neurons,” Truman said. That’s partly because the nervous system in all insects arises from an array of stem cells called neuroblasts that mature into neurons. That process is older than metamorphosis itself and not easily modified after a certain stage of development. So even as nearly all the other cells in the fruit fly’s larval body are eliminated, most of the original neurons are recycled to function anew in the adult."

***

"The researchers zoned in on the mushroom body, a region of the brain critical for learning and memory in fruit fly larvae and adults.

***

"Truman and his team found that when the larvae undergo metamorphosis, only seven of their 10 neural compartments are incorporated into the adult mushroom body. Within those seven, some neurons die, and some are remodeled to perform new adult functions. All the connections between the neurons in the mushroom body and their input and output neurons are dissolved. At this transformation stage, “it’s kind of this ultimate Buddhistic situation where you have no inputs, you have no outputs,” Gerber said. “It’s just me, myself and I.”

"The input and output neurons in the three larval compartments that don’t get incorporated into the adult mushroom body completely shed their old identities. They leave the mushroom body and integrate into new brain circuits elsewhere in the adult brain. “You wouldn’t know that they were the same neurons, except that we’ve been able to both genetically and anatomically follow them through,” Truman said.

"The researchers suggest that these relocating neurons are only temporary guests in the larval mushroom body, taking on necessary larval functions for a while but then returning to their ancestral tasks in the adult brain.

***

"In addition to the remodeled larval neurons, many new neurons are born as the larva grows. These neurons are not used by the larva, but at metamorphosis they mature to become input and output neurons for nine new computational compartments that are adult specific.

The mushroom body in the larva looks very similar to the adult version, Thum said, but “the rewiring is really intense.” It’s as if the inputs and outputs of a computational machine all got disrupted but still somehow maintained their wireless functionality, Gerber said. “It’s almost as if you would deliberately unplug and replug” the machine.

"As a result, the adult brain’s mushroom body is “fundamentally … a completely new structure,” said K. VijayRaghavan, an emeritus professor and former director of India’s National Center for Biological Sciences who was the main editor of the paper and was not involved in the study. There is no anatomical indication that memories could have survived, he added.
(my bold)

"Researchers have been excited by this question of whether a larva’s memories can carry through to the adult insect, Williams said, but the answer hasn’t been clear-cut."
(my bold)

Comment: a master work of unmasking how metamorphosis affects the brain's neurons. The memory problem is solved if you accept God designed the DNA to handle all of it, including all instinctual behavior in the larvae and the adults.

Natures wonders: Mothers passing microbiomes

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 19:05 (237 days ago) @ David Turell

Present in all species, but method different in one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230724122702.htm

"Caecilians are an elusive type of amphibian that primarily live underground and look like a cross between a worm and a snake. One of the few things that is known about caecilians is their unique method for feeding their young. Mothers produce a special layer of fatty skin tissue, which juvenile caecilians tear off with baby teeth that evolved specifically for that purpose.

"A new study shows that skin-feeding does more than provide nutrients for young caecilians. It also helps the mother pass microbes from her skin and gut down to her young, inoculating them to jump-start a healthy microbiome. This is the first direct evidence that parental care in an amphibian plays a role in passing microbes from one generation to the next.

***

"Across the animal kingdom, there are many different strategies for parental care. Human mothers give their babies breastmilk, emperor penguins regurgitate food for their chicks, and female koalas feed their young a special form of feces.

"Among amphibians, caecilians are unique for feeding their young at all. Previous efforts to understand amphibian microbiomes focused on frogs and salamanders, the more well-known orders of the Amphibia class. Those studies, however, came back inconclusive largely because there are few frog and salamander species that care for their young after they're born or hatched -- most simply lay eggs and leave them to develop on their own.

"Not so with caecilians.

"When you find the eggs, you always find the mother," said Marcel Talla Kouete, first author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the University of Florida School of Natural Resources and Environment. "I've never seen a juvenile without an attending mother."

"Kouete said this is why he became fascinated by caecilians as he began working on them. Since this parenting behavior first came to light in 2006, scientists have noticed that even once skin-feeding ends, mother and babies stay together, with the former coiling her body around the latter. Kouete wondered whether the behavior served another function in addition to providing nutrients, reasoning that there was likely some transfer of the microbes from the surface of the mother's skin, similar to bacterial transmission in other animals.

"In humans, microbes move onto the skin as babies pass through the mother's birth canal and into the body via breastmilk. These microbes help keep the human body alive and well, forming a microscopic community known as the microbiome, and perform essential tasks like breaking down complex carbohydrates, training the immune system and producing vitamins. A growing body of research seeks to better understand the relationship between disease and microbiome health.

***

"Samples taken from the surrounding soil, water and leaves showed that the immediate environment was the least important source for juvenile microbiomes."

Comment: a new way to offer a microbiome. This article shows that almost all bacteria are here for good purposes. It answers theodicy complaints about terrible bacteria which are good unless entering the wrong places.

Natures wonders: whale series true amphibian

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 02, 2023, 17:24 (230 days ago) @ David Turell

New from Peru:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/peru-fossils-four-legged-otter-whale-hooves

"An ancient four-legged whale walked across land on hooved toes and swam in the sea like an otter.

"The newly discovered species turned up in 2011 in a cache of fossilized bones in Playa Media Luna, a dry coastal area of Peru. Jawbones and teeth pegged it as an ancient cetacean, a member of the whale family. And more bones followed.

***

"Jaw, tooth and spine features, described April 4 in Current Biology, don’t quite match anything else in the fossil record, setting the skeleton apart as a new species, dubbed Peregocetus pacificus (meaning “the traveling whale that reached the Pacific Ocean”). At 42.6 million years old, it’s the oldest whale skeleton found in the New World, though some fossilized whale teeth from North America may be even older.

"Big, possibly webbed feet and long toes would have allowed P. pacificus to dog-paddle or swim freestyle. And like modern otters and beavers, this whale’s vertebrae suggest that its tail also functioned as a paddle. With tiny hooves and strong legs and hips, the animal could walk on land. But “it was definitely a better swimmer than walker,” Lambert says.

"Whales got their start on land and gradually adapted to a water-dwelling lifestyle. The first amphibious whales emerged more than 50 million years ago near what’s now India and Pakistan. The new species shares some similar features with Maiacetus and Rodhocetus, two early whales from that area. P. pacificus’ age supports the idea that whales migrated across the South Atlantic and around South America to the Pacific Ocean in their first 10 million years of existence."

Comment: this shows the developing whale series had intermediate forms. We can assume many branches had intermediate forms not yet discovered to show more gradual transitions from legs to flippers. These were minor adaptations compared to the many physiological and phenotypical changes required for full aquatic life.

Natures wonders: immortal animals

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 06, 2023, 16:23 (226 days ago) @ David Turell

Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus can regenerate constantly:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/tube-like-animals-live-forever-by-flippin...

"...a small tube-shaped animal that grows on the shells of hermit crabs, is a wonder of regeneration. Cut off its head and mouth, and it grows new ones. Cut off its body, and it regrows that, too.

"How does it accomplish such feats? A new paper provides a rough outline and comes to a surprising conclusion, that the cellular aging process, known as senescence, plays a pivotal role by working in reverse. What’s more, the paper says that while the aging process first evolved to serve bodily regeneration, it later became damaging when animals such as ourselves became vastly more complex.

"When a cell becomes stressed or damaged, or has simply grown old, it may enter a period of senescence – a downward spiral. This process limits the cell’s normal functioning and causes it to release a chemical cocktail that affects the surrounding cells. Inflammation, senescence and malignancy spread throughout the surrounding tissue.

"This sounds detrimental. But the new paper found that senescence is pivotal to triggering regeneration in H. symbiolongicarpus.

"Past research has found that in most cases, the small animal relies on stem cells stored in its lower body to regenerate. So the new study sliced off just the upper mouth and set it aside to see if it would recover on its own.

"When the tube regrew to its original size, the researchers checked to see what role senescence had played in creating new stem cells.

"They found a surprising correlation. Turning off a key senescence gene also turned off the production of stem cells and tissue regeneration. Senescent cells no longer programmed other cells to become stem cells.

"This ability to regrow and harness the process of aging makes the little animals practically ageless. It also calls into question the role of senescence and why more complex species suffer so greatly from its effects. Humans last shared a common ancestor with H. symbiolongicarpus some 600 million years ago, and since then, our senescence process seems to have only gotten worse.

"'Typically, in humans, senescent cells stay senescent, and these cells cause chronic inflammation and induce aging in adjacent cells,” said Andy Baxevanis, a senior scientist at the National Human Genome Research Institute, in a statement. “Most studies on senescence are related to chronic inflammation, cancer and age-related diseases.”

"The key to regeneration may not be what the organism can create but what it can get rid of. The tube-shaped animals can shed unneeded senescent and stem cells, making it safer for them to undergo changes.

"Mammals, on the other hand, rely on many complex structures and can’t afford to play fast and loose with their cellular structures. That may be why we can’t grow a new kidney or limb."
Comment: we may have lost this ability, but our organs can still enlarge when necessary. Donate a kidney and the other enlarges. Also true in liver donations. Teh bold above is a key comment.

Natures wonders: poisonous birds

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2023, 21:41 (214 days ago) @ David Turell

Use same poison as poisonous frogs:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-new-toxic-birds-discovered/

"In a paper in Molecular Ecology, Bodawatta, ecologist Knud Jønsson of the Natural History Museum of Denmark and their colleagues identify two new species of toxic birds and show that each independently evolved resistance to batrachotoxins' effects via mutations that change the proteins where they bind. Like how fish and whales separately evolved fins, these birds have “arrived at the same way of dealing with” the toxins, Jønsson says.

"California Academy of Sciences ornithologist Jack Dumbacher first pinned batrachotoxins as the source of birds' toxicity three decades ago. At the time batrachotoxins had been found only in poison dart frogs, half a world away. Researchers now hypothesize that the birds acquire batrachotoxins by eating poisonous beetles of the genus Choresine, like the frogs do—but no one is certain.

"Whatever the source, storing the toxin in skin and feathers may help protect the birds against parasites, Jønsson says. Of course, for this strategy to work, the birds must avoid poisoning themselves. And just as toxins are common in biology, so is resistance to them, says University of California, Berkeley, ecologist Rebecca Tarvin.

"Using computer simulations, the researchers studied how each species had evolved different variations in the neuron binding site—the same part of the protein altered in poison dart frogs—to thwart the toxin. But Tarvin isn't convinced yet. She pointed to a 2021 study in frogs in which sodium-channel mutations did not demonstrate protection from batrachotoxins in some species, although Jønsson notes that the species tested had lower than average levels of the toxins among Papua New Guinean birds. Tarvin says the new study highlights the variation among sodium channels, but there remains much to learn about toxin resistance in general."

Comment: that very potent toxin had to pop up somehow. In my theory God put it into the beetles with immunity to it. Tolerating it step by step through natural Darwinian evolution is literally impossible to accomplish. But frogs and birds had to develop tolerance also as the article discusses. God might help at this point also.

Natures wonders: another amazing bird migration

by David Turell @, Friday, September 01, 2023, 18:00 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

Olive-sided flycatcher travels from Alaska to South America each year:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqQdxxPLwXLBlVwblmFsrRpq

"For an olive-sided flycatcher, migration can be a marathon. Some of the soot-colored songbirds travel more than 15,000 miles a year, winging their way from South America to Alaska and then back again. It’s a dizzyingly long journey for a bird that weighs just over an ounce.

***

"To survive the long trip, the birds need safe places to rest and refuel. But the locations of these “little utopias” were a mystery, Dr. Hagelin said. So in 2013, she and her colleagues set out to unravel it by tracking the birds. They hoped that identifying the critical stopover sites might provide clues about why olive-sided flycatcher populations were declining and what might be needed to save them, including where experts should target their conservation efforts.

"The research proved to be more difficult than they had bargained for. Olive-sided flycatchers often breed in buggy bogs. They perch at the tops of trees. And they are elusive, sparse on the landscape and difficult to catch. “After the first year of struggling with this project, it became really, really clear why nobody in their right mind would want to try and study this bird,” Dr. Hagelin said.

***

"When the birds flew south for the winter, the geolocator tags regularly recorded the light levels and the time, allowing the scientists to estimate each bird’s approximate latitude and longitude. In later years of the study, they transitioned to using GPS tags, which can provide more precise location data.

***

"Over the course of the five-year study, the researchers managed to deploy 95 tags. They recovered 17 geolocator tags but just five GPS tags — and three of the GPS tags failed, providing no data at all for reasons the scientists still do not understand. “That was really devastating,” Dr. Hagelin said.

“'But all was not lost,” she added. The geolocator data pointed to 13 important stopover sites, from Washington to southern Peru, plus three main wintering areas in South America, the researchers reported in 2021. Tagging technology has improved, so scientists with an appetite for flycatcher catching could now focus on collecting more detailed data on those locations. “Am I the person to do it?” Dr. Hagelin said. “Maybe if I had the funding.”

Comment: another amazing yearly migration of an amazing distance. I wonder why so far when the Monarchs have a nice spot in the mountains of Mexico at one-third the distance. The flycatchers eat flying insects which are abundant in all warm climates so that is not an issue. They tend to nest in coniferous fir trees, again a non-issue. So why southern Peru? Better tasting insects? Like all known extended migratory routes, I think God may have guided them.

Natures wonders: low cancer rates

by David Turell @, Friday, September 01, 2023, 18:27 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

In whales and elephants with different mechanisms:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqQdpjfGvpFVPlsHHvXCGNWT

"The existence of whales is a paradox—Peto’s paradox, to be specific. Here's the conundrum: How is it that large, long-lived creatures like whales don’t have a higher risk of developing cancer than we do? Theoretically at least, the risk of developing cancer should increase with both the number of cells an organism has and how long that organism lives. That’s because mutations have a chance of occurring every time cells divide and cells accumulate DNA damage as they age—so the more of them there are and the older they are, the higher the odds should be that some are cancerous. (my bold)

"But big baleen whales have unimaginable numbers of cells and can live into their 100s or even 200s, and yet, they aren’t riddled with tumors. Researchers have long sought to understand how these animals pull that off, in hopes of pointing oncologists towards new ways of preventing or treating human cancers.

"One popular idea is that these species have really, really, really slow mutation rates. This could solve the paradox: If changes to whales' cells happen at a glacial pace, then you’d expect fewer potentially cancer-causing mutations with each division and over a cell’s lifespan. But according to a study published in this week’s issue of Science, that’s simply not the case.

***

"Elephants appear to have solved the cancer problem by having tons of tumor-suppressing genes, but whales don’t. Instead, in a preprint recently posted to bioRxiv, a team of researchers from the University of Rochester provide evidence that one of the four species studied in the Science paper, the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus), is remarkably good at repairing total breaks in its DNA . So even though the overall mutation rate in the species isn’t lower, the animals’ cells are able to fix one kind of catastrophic damage that can lead to cancerous mutations.

"The Rochester team found that two proteins were particularly associated with this efficient genomic healing: CIRBP and RPA2. And when they modified mouse and human cells to produce more CIRBP, the cells ended up twice as good at repairing DNA breaks. “If we can regulate, somehow, our own CIRBP protein, that could absolutely be a strategy to reduce DNA damage in humans,” University of Bologna’s Antonello Lorenzini, who was not involved in the preprint, tells New Scientist.

"Even if this particular discovery doesn’t pan out in terms of treating human cancers, further research on whales and other species with unexpectedly healthy, long lives could. “We probably have the solution to cancer medicine out there in nature already,” evolutionary oncologist Orsolya Vincze tells Science News. “We just have to find it.'”

Comment: Note the bold. Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome. This should be noted in the theodicy thread for dhw's edification.

Natures wonders: wasp intelligence studies

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 10, 2023, 19:01 (191 days ago) @ David Turell

Learning by repetition:

https://phys.org/news/2023-09-people-wasps-theyre-smarter-ecologically.html

It has a reputation for aggression, stinging multiple times and contributing little to society. But that's just one of more than 100,000 known wasp species with a wide range of appearances, many of which don't even sting.

In our work with wasps, we have found these innocent insects have done little to deserve our scorn. In fact, they have surprisingly complex minds and can play important ecological roles.

Our latest study, published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, shows European wasps have impressive abilities to learn visual tasks in different ways depending on how we train them. It adds to a growing body of research about what wasp's minds can do—including recognizing human faces and learning other complex tasks.

European wasps are central-place foragers, which means they will remember and return to a profitable food source—be that sugar, meat or your soft drink at a BBQ. This behavior allows us to train individual wasps to return to our experiment throughout a day. (my bold)

***

The wasps in our study were enthusiastic volunteers who would fly some distance to participate. In our experiments, wasps needed to undergo ten trials to learn a visual task, and then a further ten trials without reward to test if they had learnt.

***

we used absolute conditioning to train the wasps to discriminate between the colors. In this method, wasps were given sugar on the card of the correct color without seeing the other color. We introduced cards of the other color as well to test whether the wasps could discriminate between the two.

The second training method was appetitive differential conditioning. In this approach, both colors of card were present during training. Wasps were rewarded for landing on the correct color and received no outcome if they landed on the incorrect color.

The third training framework was appetitive-aversive differential conditioning, where wasps were provided with a sugar reward for landing on the correct color and tasted a bitter liquid when they landed on the incorrect color. Again, both colors were present during learning.

With absolute conditioning, the wasps failed to successfully identify the correct color in tests. However, when trained with either the appetitive or appetitive-aversive differential conditioning, they did pass the color test.

***

One recent study showed two species of hornets (a kind of wasp) could learn to discriminate between two colors when one color was associated with sugar water. The hornets could then reverse that learning when the rewarding color was switched. This reverse learning task is challenging for small brains to solve.

Other studies have shown paper wasps have evolved specialized abilities for learning faces. One species of paper wasp can differentiate among normal wasp face images more rapidly and accurately than non-face images or manipulated faces. This allows for a comparison between how facial recognition may have evolved in small insect brains compared to larger primate brains.

Researchers have also shown that wasps (and bees) can learn to discriminate between images of human faces.

***

Wasps play an important role in many ecosystems by controlling pests and pollinating flowers. Many Australian orchids, for example, rely on wasps for pollination—as do hundreds of other plant species.

***

Many wasps eat critters we consider pests, such as bugs, spiders, cockroaches and flies. Indeed, some species of wasp are sold commercially as pest control agents.

Comment: note my bold. The study is a simple extension of the wasp's innate abilities. Note the bold.

Natures wonders: early antifreeze development:

by David Turell @, Monday, September 11, 2023, 19:20 (190 days ago) @ David Turell

In an arctic insect:

https://phys.org/news/2023-09-super-antifreeze-cells-ability-survive.html

"That was what the Earth looked like about 450 million years ago at the end of the Ordovicium period.

"The warm water created the perfect living conditions for wildlife. But this would soon change. Shortly after, the land masses would began to freeze and an ice cap start to spread.

"The water, which had previously been warm and accommodating to wildlife, became cold and inhospitable. One species after another succumbed. In a short period of time, half of all life had been wiped as part of the second-worst mass extinction in the history of the planet.

"One of the animals that survived, however, was the springtail. A small, insect-like animal that had developed a special strategy to combat the cold. The animal's cells had begun to produce proteins that could protect the cell from freezing.

"The springtail might have been the first animal to ever develop antifreeze proteins. Scientists had previously believed that animals didn't begin to do this until much later. This is shown by research from Aarhus University and Queen's University in Canada.

"'We knew that antifreeze proteins had developed independently of each other several times during evolutionary history. Fish have them. Insects have them. Some spiders have them. But until we saw these results, we didn't know that they'd developed so early in the animal world," says Martin Holmstrup.

***

"The springtail is a small animal, and the largest species of springtail are only six millimeters long. It has six legs and two antennae in front. It looks like an insect at first glance, but it's not. In fact, it has its very own branch on the evolutionary tree.

"So far, researchers have found more than 9,000 different species of springtail, and they can be found almost everywhere—including in your garden. Springtails typically live in the upper layers of soil or in fallen foliage, where they feed on microscopic fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms.

"The animal takes its name from its forked tail that it holds under its body like the bar of a catapult. The tail is also known as a furcula and the animal can release it quickly and leap up to 10 centimeters into the air if attacked by an enemy e.g. a spider.

"Springtails are good for the health of soil because they help recirculate nutrients to plants.

***

"Because the researchers know the DNA sequence that enables cells to build the antifreeze protein, they can search for the same sequence across species, families and ranks. They can also calculate when the mutation that led to the genesis of the gene occurred: the Ordovician period.

"'The calculations show that springtails developed the antifreeze protein long before other animals. It didn't happen for fish and insects until a million years later. Although plants and microorganisms, such as bacteria and single-celled algae, might have developed a similar mechanism even earlier," he says.

***

"Because the researchers know the DNA sequence that enables cells to build the antifreeze protein, they can search for the same sequence across species, families and ranks. They can also calculate when the mutation that led to the genesis of the gene occurred: the Ordovician period.
'The calculations show that springtails developed the antifreeze protein long before other animals. It didn't happen for fish and insects until a million years later. Although plants and microorganisms, such as bacteria and single-celled algae, might have developed a similar mechanism even earlier," he says."

Comment: Finding an exactly needed protein by chance is not a probable event. Convergent development of the same chemicals strongly suggests design.

Natures wonders: the deepest fish

by David Turell @, Monday, September 11, 2023, 21:33 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

At crushing pressures:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwzrhTJGnKmwgLwDTWmQLRBKr

"The Deepest Fish

"Scientists exploring a marine trench near Japan were shocked to find a fish 8,336 meters (about five miles) below the surface. The tadpole-shaped, translucent snailfish is adapted to live in this particular trench, as is each of the roughly 400 other known snailfish species–they stay in their trenches and can never move to another.

"How this is possible: Fish can tolerate high pressures at extreme depths because of cellular compounds called osmolytes. Osmolyte concentrations increase at greater depths to ensure that fish cells can withstand bone-crushing pressures. These compounds reach their maximum concentration at around 8,400 meters, so that’s the hypothetical limit of fish physiology. Temperature is also key: osmolytes are less effective at low temperatures. The bottom of the trench where this fish was discovered had low temperatures of about 1.7 degrees Celsius.

"What the experts say: It’s pretty impressive that these fish can survive 800 times the surface water pressure. “At that depth everything from gas exchange for breathing to nearly every physiological function seems impossible,” says Alan Jamieson, a marine scientist at the University of Western Australia. “I can barely swim to the bottom of a swimming pool without my ears popping.'”

Comment: another form of extremophile. How did it happen? If it is very uncomfortable why try to go lower? Therefore, not step by step, but design fits.

Natures wonders: all animals have parasites

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 20:48 (188 days ago) @ David Turell

Most be accounted for in all studies of ecology:

https://phys.org/news/2023-09-crab-animals-parisitomes.html

"A herring in the North Sea, a crab in the Wadden Sea or an anemone fish on a coral reef… biologists like to think in terms of individual species that all have their own place within food webs in ecosystems across the world. "But that is surely too simplistic thinking," NIOZ researcher Ana Born-Torrijos and colleagues warn in this month's cover story of the journal Trends in Parasitology. (my bold)

"'If you ignore the different parasites that live in and on an animal, you might draw very wrong conclusions about its ecology," Born-Torrijos said. "Wild-caught animals should not be considered single individuals, but rather as entire ecosystems by themselves, hosting a variety of microbes and parasites which can be found in virtually every tissue." (my bold)

"Fish, crabs, snails and other animals can be infected by a multitude of parasites. These include nematodes, cestodes, trematodes, isopods or even copepods that spend part of their lives in the gills of fish. "Those parasites can affect the morphology, the behavior and also the metabolism of animals in many different ways," said Born-Torrijos. "That way, those parasites also influence where an animal fits in the local food chain."

"When Born-Torrijos depicts the food chain as a slowly ascending graph, algae and plants as so-called primary producers, which convert sunlight into "edible" energy are in the lower left corner. At the very top right of the graph are the top predators, such as seals in the Wadden Sea. "Where other animals lie along that line, we can determine by looking at the stable isotopes of nitrogen, for example," the researcher explains. "Because with every step along the food chain, the heavy isotopes in that animal's pool of nitrogen accumulate a little bit thereby indicating who is eating who in the environment."

'In the review article, the researchers describe how an animal's stable isotope values may differ depending on whether they are infected with parasites or not. "That's because parasites can change the behavior of a host, even without making that host really sick. For example, a coral fish infected by a specific species of isopod, appears to forage much less outside the reef than uninfected individuals of the same species. This is then reflected in the chemical composition of the animal."

***

"In biology, the study of microorganisms on the skin and in the intestines of animals, known as the microbiome, is already an important and accepted area of science. According to Born-Torrijos and colleagues, it is high time that the totality of parasites on an animal, so to speak, "the parasitome," also takes a center stage in research. "Biologists and ecologists might get the wrong picture of the food web if they ignore the influence of parasites," Born-Torrijos stresses."

Comment: the whole living world is simply an enormous interlocking series of ecosystems of who eats whom. It was created by an evolutionary system of massive proportions that brought into the present a huge bush of life for all to feast upon. It answers all of dhw's faulty premises feeding his obsession about humans and their food. His problem is not viewing God's works teleologically as Alfred Russel Wallace did when he broke with Darwin:

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/for-alfred-russel-wallace-natural-selection-opened-th...

A very long read explaining the break.

Natures wonders: complex life of liver fluke

by David Turell @, Monday, September 18, 2023, 18:23 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

Featuring zombie ants:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/09/230917181545.htm

"It takes over the brains of ants, causing them to cling to the tops of blades of grass where they can be eaten by cattle and deer. The common liver fluke has an exceptional life cycle as it moves through snails, ants and grass-grazing herbivores. And now, researchers from the University of Copenhagen know a bit more about the workings of this tiny parasite. The new knowledge adds to our understanding of parasites, which could be the most widespread life form on Earth.

***

"'Getting the ants high up in the grass for when cattle or deer graze during the cool morning and evening hours, and then down again to avoid the sun's deadly rays, is quite smart. Our discovery reveals a parasite that is more sophisticated than we originally believed it to be," explains Associate Professor Brian Lund Fredensborg, who conducted the study.

***


"They then observed the infected ants' behavior in relation to light, humidity, time of day and temperature. It was clear that temperature had an effect on ant behavior. When the temperature was low, the ants were more likely to be attached to the top of a blade of grass. When the temperature rose, the ants relinquished the grass and crawled back down.

"'We found a clear correlation between temperature and ant behavior. We joked about having found the ants' zombie switch," says Brian Lund Fredensborg.

"Once the liver fluke infects the ant, several hundred parasites invade the ant's body. But only one makes its way to the brain, where it can influence the ant's behavior. The rest of the liver flukes conceal themselves in the ant's abdomen.

"'Here, there can be hundreds of liver flukes waiting for the ant to get them into their next host. They are wrapped in a capsule which protects them from the consequent host's stomach acid, while the liver fluke that took control of the ant, dies. You could say that it sacrifices itself for the others," explains Brian Lund Fredensborg.

"Animals infected with many liver flukes can suffer liver damage as the parasite moves around the host's liver and bile ducts."

Comment: How did this complex lifestyle develop? Darwinism doesn't explain.

Natures wonders: seal hunting orca packs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 21:06 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

In the Antarctic as ice breaks up seals will be resting on icefloes:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/animals-up-close-wave-washing-killer...

The first time the Weddell seal notices the orcas, it’s already surrounded. Until moments before, it had been resting on an ice floe deep in an Antarctic channel. Then three killer whales’ heads appear, bobbing up and down. The orcas are hunting.

On this sheet of sea ice, the nearly thousand-pound seal would be unreachable for most marine predators. But these orcas—a matriarch with her daughter and granddaughter—are three of about a hundred known to have mastered a hunting technique called wave washing. The secret: working together to turn water into a weapon.

The orcas, having identified their target, form a battle line and start charging toward the floe. Just before reaching it, they rotate to their sides in a single, synchronized motion and plunge underwater. The momentum creates a wave so powerful that it floods the ice sheet, cracking the surface and whipping the flailing seal around. Slowly and methodically, they repeat the charge. The ice fractures more. On the third charge, the wave sends the seal flying into the sea. It scrambles to climb onto a piece of ice, then disappears from view, grabbed from below by a killer whale.

***

Only about a hundred of this special type of wave-washing killer whale are believed to exist. The population is known as B1. Using mind-blowing problem-solving and communication skills, they are able to locate seals resting on ice floes, and then using teamwork, they create waves to wash the seals into the water.

***

“It’s completely sinister to watch,” says wildlife filmmaker Bertie Gregory, who’s spent a decade tracking the orcas, known as B1, a population of pack ice killer whales. The level of intelligence that goes into making each wave “is staggering,” he says. “This isn’t subtle. They are problem solving using very complex teamwork. They’re using water as a tool.” Sometimes it’ll take one wave, about five minutes, before a seal is flung into the sea. Other times a pod can wave wash up to 30 times, about two to three hours, before getting the prey. Scientists rarely see failed hunts. “This behavior is not innate; it’s learned and mastered over decades,” says Gregory. “Every time they make waves, it almost feels like more of a teaching experience than hunting.”

Comment: I have a subscription which allows me to watch the video, so I can't offer the video here. The animal intelligence involved is staggering. In Alaska I've seen humpbacks in a circle produce bubble-net feeding, trapping millions of krill in a bubble circle and ingesting them by coming up to the surface upen-mouthed in the middle of the bubble. Also a learned technique.

Natures wonders: importance of soil bacteria

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 18:03 (153 days ago) @ David Turell

First life still around importantly:

https://ecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/life-history-strategies-of-soil-bacterial-comm...

"In this study now published in Nature Microbiology, we decided to focus on bacteria that dominate the soil metagenomes. Our first goal was to define and calculate metagenomic metrics that we expected to capture the trait dimensions associated with the life history strategies of soil bacteria. We compiled this list of traits, based on previous syntheses7,10,11 and other studies relating these traits to specific genomic features.

***

"As metabolic capacities expanded, we observed that bacterial communities became increasingly differentiated along a second dimension, which seems to reflect a trade-off between increasing capacities for environmental responsiveness or efficient nutrient recycling. Finally, we assessed how the position of bacterial communities along these trait dimensions was related to global environmental gradients. Our results showed that soil pH, C:N as well as precipitation level and seasonality were key drivers of bacterial life history strategy, consistent with the theory that resource acquisition constraints, as well as stress intensity and variability play a key role in shaping life history strategy. Bacteria with small genomes were favoured in neutral soils exposed to high water stress intensity and seasonality confirming recent evidence that genome and metabolic streamlining may be a central aspect of the stress-tolerant strategy of soil bacteria.

***

"Overall, our studies have used metagenomes to describe the dominant trait dimensions associated with life history strategies of soil bacteria. This provides a new framework for studying and comparing soil bacterial communities, but does not close the case on soil bacterial life history strategies."

Comment: From the beginning of life until now bacteria have served an important role in the overall ecosystem of the bush of life. Soil bacteria play a very important role in the quality of soils and maintaining that quality. The theodicy discussion we are having revolves about this issue. Vastly good work by soil bacteria is necessary. But there are bad bugs in the group. Infections by Leptospira kill by attacking liver and/or kidneys. Not God's fault.

Natures wonders: wood-penetrating wasp ovipositor

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 19, 2023, 15:38 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

Better than our needles:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHLgVxKlcWRjcDxXdfkWlHDnB

"Megarhyssa pracellens isn’t the kind of insect you’d want to run into in a dark alley. These enormous parasitic wasps are roughly the size of a human finger, and their reproduction strategy resembles something out of the Alien franchise. The female Megarhyssa possesses a long ovipositor, which she uses to drill into the woody homes of larval wood wasps and deposit her eggs inside their bodies. When her larvae hatch, they eat the wood wasps from the inside out.

"Macabre as that is, what intrigued researchers is the ovipositor itself: It’s incredibly thin, only slightly wider than a human hair, which makes its ability to penetrate wood remarkable. Long, slender objects are usually only able to withstand a certain amount of force—known in mathematics as Euler’s critical load—before bending or buckling. As a result, these types of elements are rarely used in engineering.

"Now, scientists have discovered how the female Megarhyssa wasp is able to tolerate forces many times greater than Euler’s critical load. It turns out that flexible structures within the insect’s abdomen stabilize different parts of the ovipositor as they alternately retract and protract, increasing the amount of pressure the overall structure can withstand.

"The researchers replicated this mechanism by crafting a multipart flexible microneedle, which successfully penetrated solid silicone without buckling. This discovery, they say, could one day aid in the design of technologies for medical applications, like more robust needles."

Comment: more evidence nature is smarter than human inventers. What interest me here is how this evolved and why this wasp decided to cannibalize another form of wasp. Not explained by Darwinism. Why try to reach wasps protected in wood? Direct design is a much better explanation.

Natures wonders: open sesami

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 21, 2023, 17:05 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

How it spreads seeds:

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/5ROSrjoB1ANAAUM9mSdR-WSJNewsPaper-10-21-...

The sesame seeds are neatly lined up inside each compart ment, protected from the world as
they grow.

***

In the case of sesame, the plant needs to disperse the fully grown seeds by opening each capsule in a way that will let the seeds blow away on the wind. So the structure of the
capsule has a very specific pattern. Each of its four compartments is made up of a long C-shaped trough, with the seeds on the inside. A compartment wall has three layers: The first two are made of stiff cells full of cellulose microfibrils, but the outer one is quite different, made from a much more open and disorganized collection of soft cells with no stiff microfibrils.

The two inner layers hardly change when they dry out or get wet, but the outer layer is like a soft but strong sponge. When the capsule is growing, that layer is thick and plump because it’s full of water, but as the seeds ripen it starts to dry out. It loses so much water that it shrinks to 30% of its original thickness; it also shrinks asymmetrically. This leaves the whole outer layer in tension, a bowstring primed to fire.

When the tension gets too much— pop!—each compartment pulls away from the others by breaking at the line of weakness where the compartments join, snapping back and outward, away from the center. At the same time, the C-shapes open up, flattening the compartment walls. Seeds can come flying out at this point, or they can wait until the wind picks them up and carries them off. It’s thought that this sudden reveal is the origin of the phrase “Open sesame,” made famous in the story of Ali Baba in “One Thousand and One Nights.”

Comment: Viewed as a purposeful design, there is no way a Darwin theory can explain this irreducibly complex mechanism.

Natures wonders: plant fire defenses

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 22, 2023, 16:55 (149 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Sunday, October 22, 2023, 17:09

A Brazilian study:

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cerrado-combine-strategies-survive.html

"'Fire plays an important role in the history of the Cerrado's savanna-type vegetation. To survive fires, these plants have developed various strategies, which the different lineages have refined during a long evolutionary process," Chiminazzo said.

"'We've known since we began studying the biome that the Cerrado's plants have thick bark to protect their internal tissues. They also have a wide array of below-ground organs that enable them to resprout because they're protected by being under the surface. However, these two strategies require plants to deploy a lot of resources. Our key question was whether they could do both at the same time—whether typical species of the Cerrado with below-ground organs were also able to produce significant amounts of above-ground bark."

***

"By comparing below-ground organs and bark production rates, the authors of the study were able to show that plant species in the Cerrado can produce large amounts of bark (up to 0.9 millimeters per unit of growth) and at the same time develop below-ground organs that specialize in resprouting. In other words, they can protect themselves from fire by hiding a large proportion of their biomass below ground.

"'We also found a clear division between clonal species and species that occupy the same space throughout their life cycle [in a phenomenon termed on-spot persistence]. Specifically, clonal species with woody rhizomes tend to produce more bark, protect themselves better and grow taller than species with xylopodia and root crowns," he said.

"These differences suggest that the plants have evolved two distinct strategies for resprouting from underground buds: clonal growth associated with a considerable effort to protect aerial branches; and on-spot persistence, possibly linked to a stronger focus on protecting buds in organs below ground.

"'The findings show that plants in the Cerrado are capable of investing in different strategies to protect themselves against fire," Bombo said. "The usual view is that that they invest either in above- or below-ground strategies. The ability to invest in both reflects the extent to which woody plants have adapted to fire in the Cerrado. Having both aerial and underground fire-related strategies for regeneration and persistence enables these species to survive fire events of varying intensities.'"

Comment: wildfire plays a definite role in plant evolution. Our Western pines have a different mechanism for fire survival.

https://www.nationalforests.org/our-forests/your-national-forests-magazine/how-trees-su...

"Trees in fire-prone areas develop thicker bark, in part, because thick bark does not catch fire or burn easily. It also protects the inside of the trunk, the living tissues that transport water and nutrients, from heat damage during high-frequency, low-intensity fires. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa, also commonly known as the bull pine, blackjack pine or western yellow pine) is a great example.

***

"This fire-survival strategy allows for the complete destruction of above-ground growth. Typically, species that regenerate by re-sprouting after they’ve burned have an extensive root system. Dormant buds are protected underground, and nutrients stored in the root system allow quick sprouting after the fire.

***

"In environments where hot, fast moving fires are frequent, some pine species have developed very thick, hard cones that are literally glued shut with a strong resin. These “serotinous” cones can hang on a pine tree for years, long after the enclosed seeds mature. Only when a fire sweeps through, melting the resin, do these heat-dependent cones open up, releasing seeds that are then distributed by wind and gravity.

***

"As opposed to serotinous cones, which protect enclosed seeds during a fire, the actual seeds of many plants in fire-prone environments need fire, directly or indirectly, to germinate. These plants produce seeds with a tough coating that can lay dormant, awaiting a fire, for several years. Whether it is the intense heat of the fire, exposure to chemicals from smoke or exposure to nutrients in the ground after fire, these seeds depend on fire to break their dormancy."

Comment: how did these plants survive before developing these mechanisms? Wildfires are a constant natural event. Not by Darwinian theory. Design is required.

Natures wonders: sea anemones heavy metal defenses

by David Turell @, Monday, October 23, 2023, 21:49 (147 days ago) @ David Turell

New discovery:

https://www.vectorsjournal.org/how-sea-anemones-living-on-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents-a...

"In addition to crushing pressures, total darkness and scorching temperatures, poisonous plumes belch from beneath the Earth’s surface. Exhaust from these underwater chimneys contains particles of heavy metals like iron and manganese, which become toxic at high concentrations. But many animals cozy up next to these vents and form thriving communities, seemingly able to withstand the dangerous metals around them.

"The sea anemone Alvinactis idsseensis has a surprising abundance of genes geared toward producing proteins that move metals into a cellular area where they can’t cause harm, researchers report October 20 in Science Advances.

"Many organisms have a few of these MTP genes for normal metal metabolism. For instance, a related sea anemone that lives in shallow waters has one MTP gene. In comparison, A. idsseensis has 13 MTP genes, marine biologist Haibin Zhang and colleagues found.

***

"The proliferation of MTP genes is a metal detoxification strategy also found in plants. The mustard plant Arabidopsis halleri, for example, thrives in soils rich with zinc and has more MTP genes than its relatives, which can’t withstand too much metal.

"Zhang thinks the new finding is evidence of “convergent evolution” between anemones and plants, where similar environmental pressures lead to the development of the same solution in distantly related organisms.

“'I do believe that they actually found a good convergence, or at least a similar strategy to detoxify metals,” says Felipe Klein Ricachenevsky, a plant physiologist at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, who was not involved with the study.

"How exactly the anemone MTP genes work to prevent metal poisoning remains to be seen. In plants, MTPs sequester metals into large cellular compartments, or organelles, called vacuoles (SN: 6/4/19). But animal cells don’t have those kinds of vacuoles. “Which organelle is doing that in those animals?” Ricachenevsky asks. “I think that will be very interesting to address in the future.'”

Comment: In nature everything is well-adapted to its individual environment. How that happened is our primary discussion here. Growing elsewhere and gradually approaching the vents as hey adapt in steps is one possibility. The other is direct design.

Natures wonders: fern insect defenses

by David Turell @, Monday, October 23, 2023, 22:35 (147 days ago) @ David Turell

Similar to current insecticide chemicals;

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-ferns-crop-saving-insecticide.html

"'The structural analysis demonstrates that even though this protein is produced by plants, it has several features in common with known three-domain Cry proteins used extensively in agriculture for insect control," Professor Anderson said.

"'These proteins protect crops from damage by serious lepidopteran (caterpillar) pests."

"The discovery of these proteins by Corteva Agriscience holds promise for the development of new tools to combat insect pests that threaten food and fiber production.

***

"Pest control in the major global crops of corn, soybean and cotton use transgenes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to produce insecticidal proteins for protection against major insect pests. The search for alternative solutions has been motivated by concerns that pests could develop resistance to these proteins.

"This study introduces a novel family of insecticidal proteins, designated as IPD113, found in ferns like Pteris species, known as "brake," which are popular as houseplants.

"The proteins were very effective in artificial diet-based assays against six of the major lepidopteran (caterpillar) pests of maize and soybeans. Furthermore, maize and soybean plants producing IPD113 proteins were more resistant to insect damage to leaves, stems and ears, compared to control plants.

"The crystal structure analysis of one example of these proteins revealed a surprising similarity to the structure of certain Bt insecticidal proteins, even though they are derived from plants (not bacteria). Notably, these fern proteins lack one domain (or part) that is typically present in Bt proteins but maintain effectiveness.

"Remarkably, these fern proteins still affected fall armyworm that were resistant to conventional Bt proteins."

Comment: we constantly find nature is cleverer than we are. Due to God's designs?

Natures wonders: diving kingfishers' special genes

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 24, 2023, 21:15 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

How do they protect their brains from impacts:

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-genes-kingfishers-brains.html

"If you've ever belly-flopped into a pool, then you know: water can be surprisingly hard if you hit it at the wrong angle. But many species of kingfishers dive headfirst into water to catch their fishy prey. In a new study in the journal Communications Biology, researchers compared the DNA of 30 different kingfisher species to zero in on the genes that might help explain the birds' diet and ability to dive without sustaining brain damage.

"The type of diving that kingfishers do—what researchers call "plunge-diving"—is an aeronautic feat. "It's a high-speed dive from air to water, and it's done by very few bird species," says Chad Eliason, a research scientist at the Field Museum in Chicago and the study's first author. But it's a behavior that's potentially risky.

"'For kingfishers to dive headfirst the way they do, they must have evolved other traits to keep them from hurting their brains," says Shannon Hackett, associate curator of birds at the Field Museum and the study's senior author.

***

"Previously, co-authors Jenna McCollough and Michael Andersen, researchers from the University of New Mexico, led the team in using DNA to show that the groups of kingfishers that eat fish aren't each others' closest relatives within the kingfisher family tree. That means that kingfishers evolved their fishy diets—and the diving abilities to procure them—a number of separate times, rather than all evolving from one common fish-eating ancestor.

"'The fact that there are so many transitions to diving is what makes this group both fascinating and powerful, from a scientific research perspective," says Hackett. "If a trait evolves a multitude of different times independently, that means you have power to find an overarching explanation for why that is."

***

"The scientists found that the fish-eating birds had several modified genes associated with diet and brain structure. For instance, they found mutations in the birds' AGT gene, which has been associated with dietary flexibility in other species, and the MAPT gene, which codes for tau proteins that relate to feeding behavior.

"Tau proteins help stabilize tiny structures inside the brain, but the accumulation of too many tau proteins can be a bad thing. In humans, traumatic brain injuries and Alzheimer's disease are associated with a buildup of tau."

Comment: this study shows convergent evolution, evidence for God Simon Conway-Morris uses. What the authors miss is the comparison with human high diving hands-first approach, breaking the surface of the water to protect the brain. The kingfisher's beak has the same effect.

Natures wonders: heliotropism and phototropism

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 01, 2023, 20:51 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

In sunflowers:

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-sunflowers-sun-mechanism.html

"Sunflowers famously turn their faces to follow the sun as it crosses the sky. But how do sunflowers "see" the sun to follow it? New work from plant biologists at the University of California, Davis, published Oct. 31 in PLOS Biology, shows that they use a different, novel mechanism from that previously thought.

***

"Most plants show phototropism—the ability to grow toward a light source. Plant scientists had assumed that sunflowers' heliotropism, the ability to follow the sun, would be based on the same basic mechanism, which is governed by molecule called phototropin and responds to light at the blue end of the spectrum.

"Sunflowers swing their heads by growing a little more on the east side of the stem—pushing the head west—during the day and a little more on the west side at night, so the head swings back toward the east. Harmer's lab at the UC Davis College of Biological Sciences has previously shown how sunflowers use their internal circadian clock to anticipate the sunrise, and to coordinate the opening of florets with the appearance of pollinating insects in the morning.

***

"Indoors, sunflowers grew straight toward the light, activating genes associated with phototropin. But the plants grown outdoors, swinging their heads with the sun, showed a completely different pattern of gene expression. There was no apparent difference in phototropin between one side of the stem and another.

"The researchers have not yet identified the genes involved in heliotropism.

"'We seem to have ruled out the phototropin pathway, but we did not find a clear smoking gun," Harmer said.

"Blocking blue, ultraviolet, red or far-red light with shade boxes had no effect on the heliotropism response. This shows that there are likely multiple pathways, responding to different wavelengths of light, to achieve the same goal. Upcoming work will look at protein regulation in the plants.

"Sunflowers are quick learners. When plants grown in the lab were moved outdoors, they started tracking the sun on the first day, Harmer said. That behavior was accompanied by a burst of gene expression on the shaded side of the plant that did not recur on subsequent days. That suggests some kind of "rewiring" is going on, she said.

"Apart from revealing previously unknown pathways for light-sensing and growth in plants, the discovery has broad relevance, Harmer said.

"'Things that you define in a controlled environment like a growth chamber may not work out in the real world," she said."

Comment: since photosynthesis is a vital process, the plant's actively following the sun makes perfect sense. I think the plant came designed this way.

Natures wonders: elephantnose fish electrolocation

by David Turell @, Monday, November 06, 2023, 23:18 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

A new way to navigate in murky water:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/elephantnose-fish-sees-by-doing-an-electric-...

"Bats and dolphins are deservedly famous for their echolocation, but the elephantnose fish has a different superpower sense—electrolocation. And now new research suggests this bizarre-looking creature has to do an underwater jig to create the three-dimensional electric map it uses to “see” its surroundings.

"Eyesight alone wouldn’t get the elephantnose very far in the murky rivers of western and central Africa where the nocturnal fish makes its home. So a specialized organ in its tail emits a weak electric field that radiates outward from its body in pulses, and tiny receptors on its skin detect distortions to the field caused by objects or creatures nearby.

"These distortions create an “electric image”—a two-dimensional representation of the object being detected like a shadow cast on the fish’s skin. But researchers weren’t sure how the fish used that 2-D map to perceive a 3-D world.

"The answer, according to a new study published in Animal Behaviour, is that the elephantnose fish does a little aquatic dance. By wiggling around, it perceives objects from slightly different angles; stacked together, the various electric images it gets are enough for it to distinguish among 3-D objects.

“Fish are a lot more intelligent than people initially believe,” says the study’s first author Sarah Skeels, a postdoctoral researcher of animal cognition and behavior at the University of Oxford.

"Skeels has been thoroughly charmed by the elephantnose fish, and it’s easy to see why. It’s got a face like Gonzo the Muppet because of what is technically called its schnauzenorgan—a fleshy protrusion from its chin that’s functionally a cross between an elephant’s trunk and an antenna. The schnauzenorgan is chock-full of electroreceptors and can also be used to manipulate objects as the fish roots around in riverbed silt for its dinner.

***

"After each fish went through several hundred training trials, it could pick the door that led to the sausage shape it associated with a treat in a matter of seconds, with an accuracy rate of 93 percent.

***

[she limited their space] "With no room for their more flamboyant dance moves, the fish resorted to a lot of head bobbing and scanning with their schnauzenorgan. Their accuracy in locating the sausage-shaped object dipped to 71 percent, and they took longer to reach a decision—sometimes on the order of minutes. There was “a level of hesitancy you don’t see in the other trials,” Skeels says.

"Stefan Mucha, a postdoc studying weakly electric fish at the Humboldt University of Berlin, says Skeels’s paper was “very cleverly designed” and demonstrated the importance of movement to electrolocation—a small but meaningful piece in the complex puzzle of how the fish integrate electrical information into a usable map.

***

"...computer engineers in Turkey have designed what they call the “electric fish optimization,” an algorithm based on the electrolocation and electrocommunication of weakly electric fish such as the elephantnose.

"It’s no wonder the elephantnose fish has the highest brain-to-body weight ratio of any vertebrate, the researchers say. “It’s just so complex, what they do, that we can’t really model it with our greatest computers,” Mucha says. “But it’s just a small fish!'”

Comment: great name for the nose organ! This has to be an irreducibly complex mechanism. It obviously cannot be made stepwise. The electric signal is not the problem but the varying signal produced. It is the brain's ability to interpret the bounce back signals as in radar and then the fish must learn to wiggle properly to produce the correct amplitude of signal.

Natures wonders: how an ant's behavior is chosen

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 09, 2023, 19:59 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

The place in the colony is under hormonal control in the blood-brain barrier:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-brain-s-barrier-controls-ant-behavior-71470

"Despite having identical genes, carpenter worker ants vary wildly in their behaviors and appearances. Major workers fight off predators and are bulkier than minor workers that gather food and tend to youngsters. These differences depend on the action of juvenile hormone (JH3), a crucial regulator of insect development.

"The amount of JH3 that leaks into the brain is tightly controlled by the blood-brain barrier, a study published in Cell suggests. The findings point to the brain’s barrier as a contributor to key aspects of animal behavior.

"A team led by biologist Shelley Berger of the University of Pennsylvania used single-cell RNA sequencing to compare gene expression in Florida carpenter ants. Compared to their foraging counterparts, major workers expressed higher levels of an enzyme that degrades JH3. That enzyme, juvenile hormone esterase (Jhe), is trapped inside perineurial glial cells, which form the insect equivalent of the blood-brain barrier.

"When the researchers ratcheted up levels of the hormone either by injecting JH3 into the brain or by repressing the enzyme with siRNA, major ants neglected their soldierly duties in favor of foraging.

"These findings hint that the brain’s barrier, often downplayed as a passive membrane or an obstacle to treating neurological conditions, mediates the interaction between hormones and neurons, according to entomologist Naoki Yamanaka of the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the study. “[It] changes our view of the blood-brain barrier.”

***

“'Ants provide this amazing system to help understand some of the determinants of behavior because of this remarkably stereotypic social structure,” said Berger. Now, her team is investigating whether the blood-brain barrier performs a similar role in mammals.

"Initial evidence suggests that it might. By scouring publicly available data, Berger and her colleagues found other hormone-degrading enzymes, including one that breaks down testosterone, in the mouse brain’s endothelial layer. This hints that the blood-brain barrier may regulate aspects of mammalian reproduction. “That’s pretty fascinating,” said Berger."

Comment: This possibly means the difference in male and female human brains is also mediated at the blood-brain barrier.

Natures wonders: anemones are heliotropic

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 16, 2023, 18:20 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

With symbiotic photosynthetic algae onboard:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2402990-anemones-are-first-known-animals-to-follow...

"Photosynthetic anemones do something that was thought to be limited to plants until now: they orient themselves towards the sun, following its daily movement across the sky. These are the first known “heliotropic” animals.

"Vengamanaidu Modepalli at the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, UK, noticed that the snakelocks anemones (Anemonia viridis) in an aquarium at his institute were all pointing their tentacles towards the sun streaming in through a nearby window. When Modepalli closed the shutter, the anemones’ tentacles promptly fell into a disordered tangle. They perked up again within minutes once the shutter was reopened.

"Snakelocks anemones host symbiotic algae (Symbiodinium) in their tissues, much like coral do. These algae use photosynthesis to supply food to their animal partner.

***

"... over the course of a day and found that the anemones tracked the sun’s position with their tentacles. The animals also did the same thing with a slowly moving light source in a laboratory tank.

"Further experiments subjecting the anemones to different colours of light revealed that, just like sun-tracking plants, the anemones’ movements are primarily influenced by blue light wavelengths, which are highly absorbed in photosynthesis. When the team bleached the anemones, removing their algal partners, the number of tentacles pointing towards blue light fell from about 61 per cent to nearly none at all.

***

"Some other anemones, jellies and other animals were known to exhibit phototaxis, where they move their bodies closer to a source of light. But the snakelocks anemones are the first to show stationary sun-tracking behaviour. Modepalli thinks it may be a useful adaptation in the cramped rock pool habitat, where it is difficult to move to get more or less sun exposure for optimising photosynthesis. Lacking the ability to move, plants also evolved to do this.

***

"Snakelocks anemones probably aren’t alone in this ability, says Claudia Pogoreutz at the University of Perpignan Via Domitia in France, who wasn’t involved in the research.

“'I would expect that heliotropism is likely universal to the photosymbiotic lifestyle rather than the species of sea anemone targeted,” she says. Conducting similar experiments in other anemone species could potentially reveal more sun-tracking behaviour."

Comment: This is the result of purposeful behavior. How did the anemones ingulf algae into their tissues and accept them as foreign bodies. They had to adjust their immune system to avoid any conflict. How did the anemones live before this event since they are dependent on the algae for food energy?? This number of required steps is irreducibly complex and requires design to exist and create tis result.

Natures wonders:new phototropism mechanism

by David Turell @, Monday, November 27, 2023, 18:22 (113 days ago) @ David Turell

Air spaces in stems interpret light:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2394?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=emai...

"Plants sense and respond to light through photoreceptors—for example, by using directional growth to bend toward strong light (phototropism). Decades of work has identified the molecular mechanisms that underlie phototropism, but whether plants also physically alter beams of light to enhance their ability to respond was not known. Nawkar et al. report that plants can use intercellular air spaces to actively modify the path of light and perform accurate phototropism. This finding highlights the importance of physical organ structure in environmental sensing and opens new avenues to understand the role of air spaces in other contexts.

"Nawkar et al. show that intercellular air spaces in the hypocotyl (embryonic stem) of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana scatter light and are necessary for phototropism. To do this, they identified a mutant line of the plant with a transparent hypocotyl that does not bend toward light. In this mutant, imaging methods including transmission electron microscopy revealed that the intercellular spaces in the hypocotyl and roots that are normally filled with air are instead full of water. These water-filled spaces allowed light to pass through the stem without scattering, making the stem appear transparent. Mutant plants responded normally in response to gravity, which shows that this is a specific response to light rather than a more general defect in environmental sensing or directional growth.

***

"Previous work has identified the abcg5 mutant, has shown that hypocotyls contain intercellular air spaces, and has shown that water infiltration enhances light transmission in several plant species. Nawkar et al. have linked these three observations to identify the molecular basis of tissue-level optical properties and to show that these properties confer the ability to respond to environmental cues.

***

"The identification of ABCG5 as a regulator of air space formation is also an avenue to understand the broader role of air spaces in other tissues and species. If other ABCG family members control air space formation in organs, such as leaves or flowers, then plants with mutations in these genes would allow the function of air spaces throughout the plant to be investigated. Questions include whether air spaces affect light scattering in petals to make them more attractive to pollinators and whether there are cell type–specific roles for air spaces in the leaf. It would also be interesting to establish whether ABCG proteins evolved to maintain the enlarged air spaces that allow many aquatic plants to float.

"Such a clear function for air spaces in the stem may pose an answer to the questions of how and why plants evolved to have these spaces. It has long been appreciated that air spaces function in leaves to promote gas exchange and light scattering (10), but intercellular spaces can be observed in the stems of 400-million-year-old fossil plants in early Devonian rocks of the Rhynie Chert in Scotland—which is long before plants evolved to have leaves (11). The function of these stem intercellular spaces is not clear, but it may be that, as in the A. thaliana hypocotyl, they are air-filled channels that allow effective phototropism. This interpretation suggests that plants evolved to have air spaces in stems, at least in part, to regulate light sensing and that these spaces were co-opted to perform secondary functions in leaves.

"Overall, the study by Nawkar et al. demonstrates the importance of looking in unexpected places to answer long-standing questions and is a reminder to look beyond molecular mechanisms and consider the physical structure of an organism when thinking about function. It is also a reminder that, like animals, plants actively modify their sensory inputs to better respond to their environment. (my bold)

Comment: note the bold. Work by a designer, who understands how to bend light, or adaptation by the plants themselves?

Natures wonders: humans and birds hunt honey

by David Turell @, Monday, December 11, 2023, 16:10 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

In parts of Africa:

https://www.science.org/content/article/birds-lead-people-honey-recognize-local-calls-t...

"When people in the Niassa Special Reserve of northern Mozambique hanker for something sweet, they don’t call DoorDash or Uber Eats. They call a bird. The aptly named honeyguide will lead them to a bee nest so they can harvest the honey. The bird obtains a treat, too—scrumptious wax and bee larvae. A new study suggests this partnership, which occurs in several places in Africa, is even more intricate than scientists thought. People in different regions make unique sounds to summon the birds, and the birds recognize and respond to calls from their local area, researchers report today in Science. The authors say the results suggest humans and honeyguides shape each other’s cultural traditions.

***

"Scientists have documented just a handful of cases in which humans cooperate with wild animals. For example, in Brazil, Myanmar, and India, people and dolphins work together to catch fish. But the alliance between honey-seeking people and honeyguides in Africa takes collaboration to a higher level. The small, brown-and-white birds are adept at finding bee nests and remembering their locations. “They learn the landscape intimately,” says behavioral ecologist Claire Spottiswoode of the University of Cambridge, a co-author on the new paper. Humans, in turn, chop open the trees where the nests are located and smoke out the furious bees. The two species often split the spoils, but honey hunters sometimes stiff their assistants, destroying the wax so the birds are motivated to look for more nests.

"Honeyguides sometimes solicit people to follow them, but honey hunters can also invite the birds to help. The Yao people who live in the Niassa Special Reserve, for instance, make a distinctive “brrrr” sound, followed by a “huh” that rises in pitch.

"The sounds people use to draw the birds differ from place to place. Can the birds tell the difference? To find out, Spottiswoode teamed up with anthropologist Brian Wood of the University of California, Los Angeles, who has been studying the Hadza community of northern Tanzania for almost 20 years. The Hadza rely on complex whistles that are, as Wood puts it, “almost like an orchestra of melodies” to notify the birds they are ready to look for honey.

***

"The DNA of the birds doesn’t differ from place to place, but the calls can change over relatively short distances, which suggests the honeyguides don’t inherit their preference, Spottiswoode says. A more likely explanation is that “the birds learn to respond to the signals of their local human partners.” (my bold)

"Like humans, birds can have their own cultures, often passed down through their songs. The new findings suggest honeyguides and humans reinforce each other’s traditions. Yao and Hadza honey hunters told the researchers that they stick with the calls they learned from their forebears because changing them reduces the odds of attracting honeyguides. The birds apparently figure out that the call of their area means an opportunity for food, and they are drawn to people making it. But they don’t respond the same way to an unfamiliar call, which discourages honey hunters from innovating.

***

"Humans cooperate and communicate with domesticated animals all the time, “but this is a wild animal. To see the complexity of communication that can occur—that’s really unusual.” As the authors note, fewer people are hunting for honey because they can now buy sugar. That decline could affect the birds, notes ornithologist John Marzluff of the University of Washington. “If you are a species cooperating with us, you have to be on your game because we change rapidly.”

"Humans are making massive changes to the planet and threatening biodiversity, but the birds provide a positive example of an animal that can live alongside people, Wood says. Their “ability to learn opens up possibilities for cooperation and coexistence.'”

Comment: this is an example of humans and birds developing an instinct learned on both sides.

Natures wonders: a new member to human gut microbiome

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 14, 2023, 23:33 (95 days ago) @ David Turell

Recognizing protists are contributors:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03990-8?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_cam...


"Alongside the bacteria, fungi and other organisms living in our guts are single-celled, nucleus-bearing microorganisms called protists. A study in mice — whose protists are related to some found in humans — now shows how these under-studied organisms’ food preferences shape competition with other organisms in the microbiome and affect their host’s immune responses.

"The work, published on 13 December in Cell1, illuminates differences between the species of protist living in the gut and highlights a growing appreciation for their impact on health.

"Protists are often considered “fourth-class citizens amongst microbes, and they shouldn’t be”, says microbiome researcher Seth Rakoff-Nahoum at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts. The research “really, really shines a light on their importance”, he says.

"Past research has shown that gut protists can activate immune responses. In mice, for example, the single-celled organism Tritrichomonas musculis excretes the molecule succinate, which kicks off an immune response in the small intestine called type 2 immunity2. The protist also boosts the number of immune cells called T helper 1 (TH1)3 and T helper 17 (TH17)4 — which send signals to other immune cells — in the colon. But little is known about gut-protist diversity, their metabolism or how they interact with other microbes.

***

"Experiments comparing the species showed that, like T. musculis, T. casperi triggers the production of TH1 and TH17 cells in the gut. But the newly described species doesn’t excrete succinate and is the only mouse gut protist in the genus Howitt has ever encountered that doesn’t activate type 2 immunity in the small intestine. “That was the first thing that really got me to sit up and take notice,” he says.

"This finding led the researchers to explore other differences between the species. Gut microbes often rely on foods eaten by the host — such as plant fibre — but can also consume other resources in the gut, including the mucus secreted by intestinal cells. Feeding mice different foods suggested that T. musculis prefers dietary food sources, whereas T. casperi likes intestinal mucus.

"Mice with just T. musculis in their guts also had fewer fibre-eating bacteria in their guts than did control mice with neither protist species, and mice with only T. casperi had low levels of mucus-consuming bacteria. This suggests that in each niche, protists compete with bacteria — and usually win. Furthermore, the researchers found that the availability of different food sources, including mucus, can influence some of T. musculis’s effects on type 2 immunity.

***

“'There has been a tendency to pigeonhole these protists as little swimming bags of succinate,” he says. But “there are clearly a lot of other things that they’re doing and other ways that they can influence the gut ecosystem and gut health'”.

Comment: every organism on Earth has a reason for existing. Full understanding requires a teleological approach.

Natures wonders: gut microbiome pathogen controls

by David Turell @, Friday, December 15, 2023, 16:14 (95 days ago) @ David Turell

Starve them:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/15_december_2023/41...

"A vital role of the gut microbiota is to defend the host from infection with pathogens through a process called colonization resistance. For example, mice raised without a microbiota are viable in their sterile isolators but rapidly succumb to infection when exposed to the outside world...the authors integrate decades of descriptive studies into a mechanistic understanding of how microbe-microbe interactions influence human health. This could guide the rational design of probiotic communities that confer protection against opportunistic infection.

***

"Studies have long hinted at a correlation between microbial community diversity and host health, without a clear explanation as to why (2). Spragge et al. sought to identify the underlying ecological principles behind these observations, rather than focusing on specific bacterial species, which may differ among individuals. Through in silico and in vitro analysis of carbon sources used by individual members of defined microbial consortia, they determined that complex communities confer colonization resistance by depleting all the resources required for growth of an opportunistic pathogen, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, or a pathogen, such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. The overlap of nutritional requirements was greatest between these pathogens and related species within the microbial consortia, such as Escherichia coli, thus making the latter a keystone species for colonization resistance. However, this keystone species was only important in the context of a diverse community. This suggests that colonization resistance results from complex, “higherorder” effects that occur when interspecies interactions are influenced by the larger microbial community. (my bold)

***

"Spragge et al. show that the nutritional requirements for pathogens and probiotic species are often very different, and in cases where competitors share similar nutritional niches, probiotic-pathogen competition is only protective in the context of a diverse community. The authors mined existing repositories of human-derived microbial genomic sequences to identify communities with sequence overlap to relevant pathogens (such as E. coli) and accurately predict species that curb pathogen growth. This suggests that probiotic communities can be tailored to protect patients at high risk of certain infections, for instance, after completing antibiotic therapy in a hospital."

Comment: an amazingly clear study to show how good bacteria work together cooperatively to control pathogenic forms. Note my bold: E. coli, a potential pathogen, is a good guy in this context. I am sure a designing God knew it would all work out in this way.

Natures wonders: fish schools save energy

by David Turell @, Monday, December 18, 2023, 16:17 (92 days ago) @ David Turell

Swimming together does save energy:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2407338-swimming-together-lets-fish-move-faster-wh...

Swimming in schools has massive energy-saving benefits for fish. A study in “water tunnels” has found that fish use half as much energy swimming at high speeds if they are in a school rather than alone, and they also recover in nearly half the time.

***

It has long been thought that swimming in schools reduces energy use in addition to various other benefits such as protection from predators. But measuring energy use in free-swimming fish is tricky, not least because as fish swim faster they can no longer generate enough energy using only the oxygen they take in via their gills – aerobic respiration – and start using energy reserves stored in muscles – anaerobic respiration.

***

Crucially, the pair kept measuring oxygen consumption for at least 19 hours after the fish swam at a certain speed. The more energy reserves fish use for anaerobic respiration, the more oxygen they consume to replenish those reserves after exercise.

Previous studies have measured oxygen consumption only during swimming, which reflects only aerobic energy use. Post-exercise oxygen consumption provides a measure of anaerobic respiration as well, allowing the total energy used during swimming to be estimated.

Zhang and Lauder found that at low speeds – between 0 and 3 body lengths per second – there was little difference in energy use between shoals and single fish. But at higher speeds fish in schools used a lot less energy.

At 7 body lengths per second, for instance, on average each fish in a school used 53 per cent less energy than solitary fish. At this speed the schooling fish were still getting 50 per cent of their energy from aerobic respiration, whereas the solitary fish were getting just 20 per cent, relying on anaerobic sources for the other 80 per cent.

***

“I think they did a great job,” says Keith Tierney at the University of Alberta in Canada, whose team has measured lactate production in fish as an alternative way of estimating anaerobic respiration.

Overall the results are in line with his expectations. But what is surprising, says Tierney, is that Zhang and Lauder found that fish in schools beat their tails at the same frequencies as solitary fish swimming at the same speeds, but use half as much energy per beat. “Very cool.”

Comment: we see what they discovered, but no explanation as to why. My guess is a 'drafting' effect as in racing cars, which does save fuel. The lead car parts the air and the following car enjoys the vacuum in front of it. The fish must have easily recognized the advantage, so I think this is a learned instinct.

Natures wonders: poison dart frogs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 00:11 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

How they survive their own poison:

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-protein-poison-dart-frogs-accumulate.html

"Tiny poison dart frogs consume far more toxic alkaloids in their diets, but instead of breaking the toxins down, they accumulate them in their skin as a defense mechanism against predators.

***

"Alvarez-Buylla and her colleagues used a compound similar to the poison frog alkaloid as a kind of "molecular fishing hook" to attract and bind proteins in blood samples taken from the Diablito poison frog. The alkaloid-like compound was bioengineered to glow under fluorescent light, allowing the team to see the proteins as they bound to this decoy.

"Next, they separated the proteins to see how each one interacted with alkaloids in a solution. They discovered that a protein called alkaloid binding globulin (ABG) acts like a 'toxin sponge' that collects alkaloids. They also identified how the protein binds to alkaloids by systematically testing which parts of the protein were needed to bind it successfully.

"'The way that ABG binds alkaloids has similarities to the way proteins that transport hormones in human blood bind their targets," Alvarez-Buylla explains. "This discovery may suggest that the frog's hormone-handling proteins have evolved the ability to manage alkaloid toxins.'"

Comment: it is a neat way for frogs to be safe with poisons they ingested and then positioned in their skin. How did this evolve? Eating tiny amounts and bit by bit increasing the amount would work by the body learning to accommodate the poison. Or are frogs that smart they would think of the method? Or, simply designed that way by God.

Natures wonders: sharks close gills to stay warm

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 16:17 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

On dives into the cold:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hammerhead-shark-gills-thermoregulate

"Scalloped hammerhead sharks living near Hawaii spend their days basking in warm surface waters. But at night, these fish hunt for squid and other prey in the cold ocean depths hundreds of meters below the surface. The sharks may hold on to body heat in the frigid waters by suppressing the use of their gills while diving, essentially “holding their breath” for around an hour at a time, researchers report in the May 12 Science.

"Whales and other deep-diving mammals are known to hold their breath (SN: 9/23/20). But this is the first time the behavior has been spotted in diving fish, says Mark Royer, a shark physiology and behavior researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu.

"Sharks and other fish are ectotherms, meaning that their body temperature is largely controlled by the warmth of the water around them. Fish lose and gain a lot of body heat while breathing through their gills, which snag oxygen from water passing through the organ.

“'Gills are like giant radiators strapped to your head,” Royer says, explaining that they leak heat. Because of this, a lot of shark species in the tropics tend to stick to roughly the first 100 meters of sun-heated water near the ocean surface, where temperatures hover around 26° Celsius. But tags attached to scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) — a species found in coastal waters all over the tropics — revealed that these sharks take nightly, hour-long dives up to 1,000 meters below the surface.

***

"Sharks, the data show, went on V-shaped dives to the depths — plunging hundreds of meters before firing straight back up “like a missile,” says Royer. But strangely, the body temperature of diving sharks barely budged for the bulk of the dive. It was only when the sharks slowed their ascent at a depth of around 290 meters, where the water is a little cooler than at the surface, that their body temperature dropped by an average of 2.8 degrees C.

"The fish had to be shutting off their gills for most of the dive to hold on to their heat, the researchers concluded. It was only when the sharks had returned to a safer depth temperature-wise that they may have reactivated their gills — taking in oxygen for the first time in around an hour and sucking in cold water in the process.

***

"At least one video from a deep-sea dive hints that this is the case. The gills of a scalloped hammerhead roaming at a depth of 1,000 meters near Tanzania appeared to be closed in footage captured a few years ago, the researchers note in their paper. This, along with the new study’s find that hammerheads hold on to their body heat, makes Royer “very confident” that sharks are in fact holding their breath. “It just goes to highlight how extraordinary this species is,” he says."

Comment: this is an obvious adaptation. Of course, the shark feels cold in its gills, and I think would automatically shut them. Why are the human authors surprised? Shapiro's view applies, large-brained chauvinism.

Natures wonders: ants quickly avoid poisoned bait

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 17:47 (63 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 18:02

It appears to be a learned abandonment process:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05729-7

Abstract

"Invasive ants, such as the Argentine ant, pose a severe economic and ecological threat. Despite advancements in baiting techniques, effectively managing established ant populations remains a daunting challenge, often ending in failure. Ant colonies employ behavioural immunity against pathogens, raising the question of whether ants can collectively respond to toxic baits. This study investigates whether ant colonies actively abandon palatable but harmful food sources. We provided two sucrose feeders, each generating a new foraging trail, with one transitioning to offering toxic food. Six hours later, ant activity on that path decreases, while activity on the non-toxic food and the trunk trail remains unaffected, excluding factors like population decline or satiation as reasons for the activity decline. Laboratory experiments confirmed that ants remained alive six hours after ingesting toxic food. Ant presence remains low on the toxic food path for days, gradually decreasing along the nearest section of the trunk trail. This abandonment behaviour minimises the entry of harmful food into the nest, acting as a protective social mechanism. The evasion of toxic bait-treated areas likely contributes considerably to control failures. Understanding the behavioural response to toxic baits is essential for developing effective strategies to combat invasive ant species.

***

"modern control methods predominantly rely on toxic baits, with liquid sucrose baits being especially attractive to this species43,44. However, in spite of impressive technological innovations, such as the development of hydrogel beads to broadly deploy liquid baits42,45,46,47,48, eliminating established populations of Argentine ants has proven challenging, with only limited success reported41. In field studies, baits often fail to control Argentine ants for more than 60 days, and there is often a resurgence of ant populations thereafter, or reinvasion after treatment by ants from nearby untreated areas

***

"Here we ask: do invasive ants possess behavioural mechanisms, potentially similar to social immunity behaviours, which allow them to evade toxic baits? Specifically—can ants abandon otherwise palatable toxic bait?

***

"We demonstrated that the presence of a toxic bait led to active abandonment of the foraging trail. This abandonment was highly spatially localized and began approximately 3 h after bait placement, resulting in a 70-80% decrease in activity on the bridge after 6 hours. Regardless of the initial population of foraging ants, the percentage decrease was consistent and persisted for several days. Activity remained high on the control sucrose bridge, indicating that the abandonment was not due to satiety or lack of motivation to forage. The trunk trail adjacent to the toxic bridge initially maintained similar activity levels, thus excluding population decline as an explanation. The abandonment gradually spread to the trunk trail but only in the vicinity of the toxic bait, not extending to areas located approximately more than 5 meters away where the sucrose bridge was placed for the period studied. The observed decrease in activity on the toxicant bridge and within the trunk trail cannot be attributed to a population decline, as the employed toxicant does not induce mortality at such a rapid rate. Taken together, these results unequivocally demonstrate a targeted behavioural abandonment of a toxic bait by this invasive ant."

Comment: the authors admitted they did not know how the ants did it. My guess relates to the fact that ants groom each other to remove fungi and other dangerous items. They nurse ill ants and isolate very ill ants. They might well recognize a poisoned ant and the colony responds. From the research author:

"This abandonment behavior is an active response strategy that minimizes the entry of dangerous foods into the nest, acting as a protective social mechanism. Our findings offer a new perspective on ant baiting strategy paradigms and a complementary interpretation of their results, shedding new light on the intriguing and complex behavioral responses of these social insects."

https://communities.springernature.com/posts/ants-evade-harmful-foods-through-active-ab...

Natures wonders: navigating Albatross

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 22:06 (62 days ago) @ David Turell

Uses infrasound noise from ocean waves:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/how-does-the-worlds-largest-seabird-...

"According to a new finding in October’s Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences USA, this seabird navigates using sounds below our thresholds for hearing.

"The wandering albatross thrives in the circumpolar band of ocean north of Antarctica—a windswept region that the world’s best sailors say has the most inhospitable seas on the planet.

"On the Southern Ocean’s islands where they nest and brood, one wandering albatross parent tends the nest while its partner takes to the sea, traveling as much as 10,000 kilometers as it forages for scattered prey. The bird must eat enough to fuel its turn on the nest, which can be a long time ....Birds might go for, perhaps, a minimum of four or five days, up to 30 days.

"Wandering albatrosses actually gain weight on these long trips because they’re extremely efficient flyers.

"It almost never beats its wings. It’s quite fascinating to see them flying in the winds. When they’re flying, their heartbeat is the same as when they’re resting.

***

"With their long wingspan—the longest of any bird, maxing out at nearly 12 feet—wandering albatrosses use wind, air pressure gradients, and gravity above the swells and waves to soar for thousands of miles, reaching top speeds of 45 miles an hour.

"Basically, wandering albatrosses don’t fly. They soar.

"The more distance you cover, the more you may find food. The wandering albatross’s keen senses of sight and smell help it locate prey. But these senses are good for about 100 kilometers—a distance the bird can travel in as little as an hour and a half. So how does the albatross know where to soar toward?

***

"Infrasound is any sound below 20 hertz, where human hearing starts to drop off. At the very low end of the infrasound spectrum are microbaroms—very low-frequency sounds between 0.1 and 0.6 Hz that are detectable across thousands of miles.

"Microbaroms are generated by the collision of ocean waves.

***

"The constant hum of microbarom infrasound is called “the voice of the sea.” It’s present everywhere, all the time. But it’s unevenly distributed.

"Where you have more energy in the ocean system because you have wavier areas or windy areas, then you get louder microbarom regions.

"Ideal soaring conditions for wandering albatrosses.

"But it also gives them information about standing ocean waves, and this is often caused by things like storms. So it would enable birds to try and gauge where storms are, potentially. So this might be be cause they want to move toward windier areas that could be optimal, or they might want to move away from windy areas if they’re too strong, and they want to try and avoid storms.

***

"...using wind and infrasound data, create a sound map of the total flight area—a map of microbaroms across space and time. Send out another set of albatrosses equipped with sensors to field check the sound map. Finally, overlay the birds’ flight paths on the sound map.

***

"What the team found is that wandering albatrosses aren’t exactly wandering. Instead they seem to use microbaroms to head toward ideal wind conditions.

***

"We know that there is something about infrasound that they want to move toward, that they like, that is beneficial to them in some way.

"It was kind of a badly needed paper at this point because it sheds some new light into a fundamental question that is at the core of a lot of marine megafauna research in general but also at the core of seabird research, which is: “How do they manage to find food in such a vast area?”

"This reliance on infrasound may actually extend to other species, too." (my bold)

Comment: it is beyond our comprehension, but it works for them ans as my bold shows it might work for other flying organisms.

Natures wonders: navigating by using the magnetic field

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 18:51 (62 days ago) @ David Turell

Many animals use the field by similar mechanisms:

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/01/in-bats-and-other-animals-evidence-of-common-design-i...

"One bat species, the soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), migrates between northeast and southwest Europe. In this study researchers determined that the species calibrates their magnetic compass with the position of the sun at sunset. A compass based on the earth’s magnetic field is susceptible to various errors, including global drift over time and local anomalies. Therefore, a calibration mechanism improves its accuracy for traveling long distances.

"The bats do not just detect the direction of the magnetic field, but also the vertical inclination. Detecting the sun’s position is also not a simple mechanism. Research has found that bats can determine its location through the polarization pattern of sunlight. That enables the animal to determine the sun’s position even on cloudy days. This mechanism also involves a complex algorithm because the polarization pattern vectors change as the sun moves through the sky during the day.

"One bat species, the soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), migrates between northeast and southwest Europe. In this study researchers determined that the species calibrates their magnetic compass with the position of the sun at sunset.1 A compass based on the earth’s magnetic field is susceptible to various errors, including global drift over time and local anomalies. Therefore, a calibration mechanism improves its accuracy for traveling long distances.

"The bats do not just detect the direction of the magnetic field, but also the vertical inclination. Detecting the sun’s position is also not a simple mechanism. Research has found that bats can determine its location through the polarization pattern of sunlight. That enables the animal to determine the sun’s position even on cloudy days. This mechanism also involves a complex algorithm because the polarization pattern vectors change as the sun moves through the sky during the day.

"The magnetic compass calibration demonstrated in bats is very similar to the behavior observed in some migratory songbirds, who have long been known to navigate using a magnetic compass. This was the case in an experiment with Savannah sparrows. The birds calibrate their magnetic compass by detecting the sun’s position using polarized light. What is different about the mechanism in the sparrows is that they calibrate their compass based on information decoded at both sunrise and sunset. This more complex method enables a more accurate calibration as the two measurements are averaged. A more accurate navigation path reduces the distance travelled, saving both time and energy for the animals.

***

"Birds and bats are not conscious of these behaviors. Instead, they are programmed and involve neural networks and memory. There are physical organs that include mechanisms for detecting and encoding the magnetic field, and detection of the solar polarization pattern. An algorithm must perform the translation of the polarization pattern to the sun’s position, and an algorithm must compare the sensor data and calculate the required calibration. Finally, another algorithm must compute the corrected flight path based on the calibrated magnetic compass.

"The typical Darwinian explanation for common traits in species lacking a common ancestor is “convergent evolution.” Usually the specific mechanism invoked is developmental constraint. Paleontologist George McGhee explains, “The same forms have been produced by the repeated channeling of evolution along the same developmental trajectory…Natural selection has a limited repertoire of potential forms from which to choose, and convergent evolution is the result. (my bold)

"That explanation is inadequate for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that these behaviors do not involve forms that have developmental constraints. But the most significant problem in this instance is that these behaviors involve a number of complex physical and neural mechanisms and large numbers of genes. There is nothing deterministic that constrains all of these elements. A recent article here by Emily Reeves, “Convergent Evolution: An Argument that Comes at a Price,” explains other difficulties with the convergence explanation. The better explanation is common intelligent design. An intelligent agent, it seems, has chosen to design and optimize these complex mechanisms and applied them in unrelated animal species for purposes specific to those animals."
"
Comment: The appearance of convergence in evolution has been used as a signal for a designer. 'Limited designs' can certainly mean a clever designer.

Natures wonders: frozen alligators

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 24, 2024, 16:04 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

In Texas and North Carolina, a form of hibernation-like state:

https://www.livescience.com/animals/alligators-crocodiles/alligators-survive-cold-snap-...

"When temperatures drop below freezing, alligators can enter a state of torpor known as brumation, as the water around them solidifies and suspends them in a giant, pond-shaped ice cube.


"Alligators in North Carolina and Texas are surviving a cold snap by suspending their bodies in pond water and letting it freeze solid around them, videos show. Only their snouts and front teeth poke through the ice, allowing the alligators to breathe while they wait for the water to thaw.

"People keep asking how the swamp puppies are doing — I'm happy to report that they are frozen solid," a representative of the Swamp Park in southern North Carolina, said in a video on Facebook. "We literally have 'gatorcicles' right now."

"Several alligators were found frozen inside giant ice cubes at the Swamp Park, a tourist attraction and alligator sanctuary near Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. Another alligator was spotted suspended in an icy pond at the Gator Country rescue center in Beaumont, Texas.

***

"Alligators survive frigid temperatures by entering a state of torpor called brumation — the cold-blooded, reptilian equivalent to hibernation in mammals.

"When it gets so cold that water freezes, alligators "instinctively tilt their nose up" so it sticks out of the water to stop them suffocating, the Swamp Park representative said in the video.

"When ice crystals start to form, alligators' metabolism slows down and their lethargic bodies gradually become suspended in the frozen water with their eyes closed. Unlike mammals that hibernate, alligators and other reptiles don't fall into a deep sleep during brumation and still have periods of activity, so they can drink.

"During brumation, an alligator's heart can slow down to as few as three beats per minute, Saurage said in the Tiktok video. "Folks, that's amazing," he added. "That's how alligators survive in the ice.'"

Comment: 'cold-blooded' means their body temperature varies with the climate so one would expect this frozen state would be a natural part of their metabolism.

Natures wonders: new plant fungus symbiosis studied

by David Turell @, Friday, January 26, 2024, 02:10 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

A type of fungi known as arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi:

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-underground-network-decoding-dynamics-fungal.html

"AM fungi live within plant root cells, forming a unique alliance with their plant hosts. This relationship is more than a simple coexistence; it involves a complex and critical exchange of nutrients essential for fungal survival and highly beneficial for the plant.

"Researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) have uncovered the roles of two proteins, CKL1 and CKL2, which are active only in the root cells containing the AM fungi. These two proteins belong to a larger family of proteins known as CKLs, whose functions in the plant have yet to be fully understood.

"'The closest relatives of the CKL family are proteins, called CDKs, that control the plant cell cycle and are located in the nucleus of the cell. Surprisingly, the CKL1 and CKL2 proteins have evolved a different role than CDKs—they do not control the cell cycle. They are tethered to the membranes of the root cell, including a membrane that surrounds the fungus," said Dr. Sergey Ivanov, a post-doctoral researcher at BTI and first author of the study.

"The scientists found that these CKL proteins are critical for the fungi's survival within plant roots. They play a pivotal role in controlling the flow of lipids (fats) from the plant to the fungi, a process essential for the fungi's nourishment. Without these proteins, key genes that manage this lipid transfer are not activated, starving the fungi.

"The research also uncovered a complex web of interactions involving several receptor kinase proteins. One of these kinases is known for its role in allowing the AM fungus to penetrate the root's outer layer. The researchers discovered that this same kinase adopts a new role deeper within the root, where it partners with CKL proteins, potentially to initiate the flow of lipids to the fungus.

"Surprisingly, while CKL proteins are vital for controlling lipid flow, they don't manage the entire symbiotic lipid pathway. Instead, they control genes responsible for the start and end of this pathway. Meanwhile, a key protein operating in the middle of this pathway, RAM2, is activated by a different regulator, RAM1. For full-scale lipid production to occur, both the CKL and RAM1 pathways must be active."

Comment: fungi are so important to plant life. Here again, as with bacteria, fungi can cause severe infections. The balance of great good to occasional mistakes is part of the life we are given. Balance that with no life at all.

Natures wonders: smart plant phototropism

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 01, 2024, 00:02 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

They do see light by a tricky way:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/plants-find-light-using-gaps-between-their-cells-20240131/

"Plants, biologists have established, possess a powerful suite of molecular tools for measuring illumination. But in the absence of obvious physical sensing organs like lenses, how do plants work out the precise direction from which light is coming?

"Now, a team of European researchers has hit upon an answer. In a recent paper published in Science, they report that a roadside weed — Arabidopsis, a favorite of plant geneticists — uses the air spaces between its cells to scatter light, modifying the path of light passing through its tissues. In this way, the air channels create a light gradient that helps seedlings accurately determine where light is coming from.

"By taking advantage of air channels to scatter light, plants sidestep the need for discrete organs like eyes in favor of a neater trick: the ability in effect to “see” with their whole bodies.

***

"...simple sensors aren’t enough on their own to give plants the ability to determine light’s direction. To best pinpoint the direction of strong illumination, a plant needs to be able to compare signals between different photoreceptors so that they can orient their growth toward the most intense light. And for that they need incoming light to fall onto their sensors in a gradient from brightest to dimmest.

***

"The researchers deduced that the plant orients itself to light through a mechanism based on the phenomenon of refraction — the tendency of light to change direction as it passes through different media. Because of refraction, Legris explained, light passing through a normal Arabidopsis will scatter under the surface of the stem: Every time it moves through a plant cell, which is mostly water, and then through an air channel, it changes direction. Since some of the light is redirected in the process, the air channels establish a steep light gradient across different cells, which the plant can use to assess the light’s direction and then grow toward it.

"In contrast, when these air channels are filled with water, the scattering of light is reduced. Plant cells refract light in a similar way as a flooded channel, since they both contain water. Instead of scattering, the light passes almost straight through the cells and the flooded channels to deeper within the tissue, decreasing the light gradient and depriving the seedling of differences in light intensity.

***

“'It was always baffling to us how these little, tiny — almost transparent — [embryonic plants] could detect a gradient,” Hangarter said. “We never really gave much credence to the air-space thing because we were distracted looking for molecules that were involved. You get on a certain research path, and you get blinders on.”

"The air-channel mechanism joins other ingenious devices that plants have evolved to control how light moves through them. For example, research by Hangarter helped establish that chloroplasts — the cellular organelles that perform photosynthesis — actively dance inside leaf cells to move light around. Chloroplasts can cluster greedily in the center of the cell to soak up weak light or flee to the margins to let stronger light pass deeper into plant tissues.

"For now, the new findings about air channels extend only to seedlings. While these air channels also appear in adult leaves, where they’ve been shown to play a role in light scattering and distribution, nobody’s yet tested whether they play a role in phototropism, Legris said.

***

“'Many people have the feeling that plants are very passive organisms — they can’t anticipate anything; they just do what happens to them.”

"But that idea is based in our expectations of what eyes should look like. Plants, it turns out, have evolved a way of seeing with their whole bodies, one woven into the gaps between their cells. They don’t need anything so clumsy as a pair of eyes to follow the light."

Comment: phototropism is very useful, and plants have it. It is a neat trick using plant, liquid refraction variations, but a property of water is to bend light, showing another useful attribute of water in life.

Natures wonders: how a pit viper hunts

by David Turell @, Friday, February 02, 2024, 22:35 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

It is all in the nose:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-mathematical-reveals-pit-viper-dinner.html

"An eagle soaring above the ground spies a river fish down below, about to swallow a bug; a hungry black bear smells a morsel of food two miles away in a dense thicket; a duck-billed platypus, swimming in a freshwater creek, closes its eyes and detects the electric impulses of a tasty tadpole nearby.

"Then there are the pit vipers.

"Found in a wide variety of habitats, from jungles to deserts, these snakes use powerful infrared sensors located near their nostrils to hunt for prey in the darkness by sensing even the tiniest temperature change—and they accomplish this with thermally-sensitive ion channels that are only on par with the sensory apparatus of humans.

***

"'To locate their prey, pit vipers need to detect milli-Kelvin changes in temperature with their sensory organ, requiring the whole organ to be 1,000 times more sensitive than their underlying molecular sensors," said Isabella Graf, a postdoctoral fellow in physics in Yale's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS).

"A Kelvin is the internationally accepted base unit for measuring temperature.

"'What is more, these snakes sometimes live in deserts where the ambient temperature changes dramatically between day and night," Graf added. "How is it possible that milli-Kelvin changes in temperature can be robustly detected by vastly less-sensitive sensors in widely varying environments?"

***

"Graf and Benjamin Machta, an assistant professor of physics at FAS and a member of the Yale Quantitative Biology Institute, say the explanation may be a biological mechanism that enables pit vipers to amplify small signals and transmit them to their brain with high fidelity.

"For the study, the researchers created a mathematical model that uses concepts from statistical physics and information theory to understand how the incoming temperature signal from a pit viper's individual ion channels collectively affects the neuronal response. Within the mathematical model, there is a "bifurcation"—a point where the neuronal response qualitatively changes and the individual, less-sensitive temperature sensors exhibit a high degree of cooperation.

"'Near this bifurcation point, we show that the snake's brain can get almost as much information about temperature as if it could read out the measurement from each individual sensor and then average them together perfectly to get one, optimally accurate measurement," Machta said.

"This is how a pit viper finds its dinner in the dead of night.

"The new study also accounts for the way pit vipers maintain their thermal sensitivity amid sweeping shifts in temperature between day and night. The researchers said their mathematical model includes a "feedback" feature that automatically protects the overall sensitivity of the system throughout temperature swings.

***

"'Similar feedback and design principles might be found in other sensory systems which also need to detect tiny signals in a varying environment," Graf said."

Comment: Graf is right on point. Feedback controls are all throughout biochemistry. I cannot imagine this as a naturally evolved trait. The vipers would never have eaten without it.

Natures wonders: whitefly pest with horizontal transfer

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 06, 2024, 15:59 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

Using bacterial genes to feed:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGxRdtjZxNbRhvmpSkhsddFrpsw

"All living things need nitrogen to make proteins and other essential molecules. Most organisms have different ways of processing the nitrogen they obtain, which can limit their ability to eat either high- or low-nitrogen foods. However, that’s not an issue for the whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), a global agricultural pest—and it turns out it can thank a pair of genes it snagged from bacteria for that.

"With nitrogen, it’s all about balance: You need enough to make everything you need, but not too much. Many of the molecules created in the process of converting dietary nitrogen into cellular building material are toxic (we excrete excess nitrogen as urea, for instance). This means that most animals have a somewhat narrow window of what foods hit the nitrogen sweet spot. But whiteflies can consume a stunning diversity of plants which vary greatly in their nitrogen content. This is because the insects can not only efficiently create waste compounds to rid themselves of excess nitrogen, but they can also store this waste and pull nitrogen from it when their meals come up short. They owe this ability to two bacterial enzymes that became incorporated into their genome, a new study finds.

***

"When the researchers shut down the production of these enzymes, the whiteflies struggled on high-nitrogen foods—a potential new avenue for pest control."

The original article:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi3105?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email...

"Nitrogen is an essential element for all life on earth. Nitrogen metabolism, including excretion, is essential for growth, development, and survival of plants and animals alike. Several nitrogen metabolic processes have been described, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are unclear. Here, we reveal a unique process of nitrogen metabolism in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, a global pest. We show that it has acquired two bacterial uricolytic enzyme genes, B. tabaci urea carboxylase (BtUCA) and B. tabaci allophanate hydrolase (BtAtzF), through horizontal gene transfer. These genes operate in conjunction to not only coordinate an efficient way of metabolizing nitrogenous waste but also control B. tabaci’s exceptionally flexible nitrogen recycling capacity. Its efficient nitrogen processing explains how this important pest can feed on a vast spectrum of plants. This finding provides insight into how the hijacking of microbial genes has allowed whiteflies to develop a highly economic and stable nitrogen metabolism network and offers clues for pest management strategies."

Comment: horizontal gene transfer remains a major evolutionary mechanism.

Natures wonders: a scorpion lives with ants

by David Turell @, Friday, February 09, 2024, 18:51 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

And has hitchhikers on its back:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-scorpion-live-ants-carries-hitchhikers-animals

"The light passes over the brilliant blue-green fluorescence of a scorpion clambering alongside the ant trail. Peering closer, Zvik — a scorpiologist at the University of Haifa — sees black specks on the scorpion’s glowing back. But they aren’t dirt or sand. They’re alive, and unlike their venom-tailed transport, the stowaways don’t fluoresce under UV light, which betrays their location.

"The millimeter-long creatures (about one-twentieth the length of the scorpions) are pseudoscorpions. They have eight legs and claws like their much larger arachnid relatives but lack a stinging tail. Pseudoscorpions commonly get around by hitching rides on much larger animals such as bats, birds and beetles. Zvik’s nighttime discovery reveals for the first time that scorpions can act as the transport too.

"The finding, reported in December in Arachnologische Mitteilungen: Arachnology Letters, is just the latest illustration of how ant nests are miniature ecosystems. Well-defended by ant armies and loaded with food, no wonder the scorpions and their hangers-on want to move in. (my bold)

***

"Zvik first got an inkling of this network of tiny tenants in 2016. Searching for Birulatus israelensis scorpions in the wild, he found them walking along trails made by foraging Messor harvester ants. Zvik and colleagues suspected that the scorpions were living within the ant colonies. Ants in the colony don’t seem to recognize the scorpions as threats, and the sting-bearing sojourners skitter in and out of the nest freely. B. israelensis appears to be the only known scorpion myrmecophile — a creature that lives in close association with ants.

"Lab experiments between 2019 and 2022 revealed that the scorpions have an appetite for ant larvae. “So, they probably exploit [the ants],” Zvik says.

"Then came the pseudoscorpion piece of the puzzle. One B. israelensis collected in 2018 had two pseudoscorpions gripping its back and hanging on for dear life. Over the next five years, the researchers collected many more scorpions — all without pseudoscorpions in tow. It was unclear whether that one observation was a fluke. But that spring night in 2023 in the Jordan Valley, Zvik found seven scorpions, each with at least two pseudoscorpions along for a ride. One of those scorpions carried six wee passengers.

***

"The pseudoscorpion, identified as Nannowithius wahrmani, probably uses the scorpion as a shuttle to disperse among ant colonies, the team suspects. That may help the pseudoscorpion infiltrate the nest where it can feed on mites and other small prey within.

"Paula Cushing, an evolutionary biologist at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, agrees this strategic taxiing is likely. Scientists have documented a similar situation in a myrmecophilous spider, she says. Attacobius attarum lives with leaf-cutter ants (Atta sexdens) and uses them as taxis to move between colonies.

***

“'The ant goes out, collects some food and goes back to the same colony,” Zvik says. “The scorpion probably moves to another colony” because, like the pseudoscorpion, it too may be looking for the next feast. In other words, a perfect match of motivations."

Comment: undoubtedly a learned behavior. The description as an ant ecosystem is apt.

Natures wonders: ants navigate by magnetic field

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 00:33 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

Just like other animals in a recent post:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240213130503.htm

They are only a few centimeters tall and their brains have a comparatively simple structure with less than one million neurons. Nevertheless, desert ants of the Cataglyphis genus possess abilities that distinguish them from many other creatures: The animals are able to orient themselves to the Earth's magnetic field.

***

In a new study published in the journal PNAS -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team shows that information about the Earth's magnetic field is primarily processed in the ants' internal compass, the so-called central complex, and in the mushroom bodies, the animals' learning and memory centers.

***

"Before an ant leaves its underground nest for the first time and goes in search of food, it has to calibrate its navigation system," says Pauline Fleischmann, explaining the background to the work. During so-called learning walks, the animals then explore the immediate surroundings around the nest entrance and repeatedly pirouette around their own body axis with short stops in between. During these pauses, they always look exactly back in the direction of the nest entrance, even though they cannot see it -- a tiny hole in the ground.

Thanks to their field studies in southern Greece, where Cataglyphis ants are native, Fleischmann and her colleagues were able to prove that desert ants orient themselves to the Earth's magnetic field during the learning walk phase. Pauline Fleischmann and Robin Grob were once again on site in Greece. This time, however, they not only investigated the ants' orientation behavior while the magnetic field was being manipulated, but also looked for changes in the nervous system of Cataglyphis as an expression of the newly acquired experience.

***

Desert ants that were allowed to make their first excursions under natural conditions were clearly different. Their sensory experiences, a combination of information about the magnetic field, the position of the sun and the visual environment, triggered a learning process that was accompanied by structural changes in the neurons and an increase in synaptic connections in the aforementioned brain regions.

According to the scientists, this leads to the conclusion that magnetic information not only serves as a compass for navigation, but also as a global reference system that is crucial for the formation of spatial memory.

Comment: other animals using the magnetic field are shown in 2024-01-17, 18:51 entry. It is interesting that the researchers did not mention any iron related molecules/minerals as in other animals. As for creation of this ability one would have to know the field existed, only a designer would know that fact. Intelligent cells, no way!

Natures wonders: ant geopolitics

by David Turell @, Friday, February 16, 2024, 16:14 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

Ants have invaded the whole Earth:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-strange-and-turbulent-global-world-of-ant-geopolitics?utm_so...

"...it is the story of a group of ant species, living in Central and South America a few hundred years ago, who spread across the planet by weaving themselves into European networks of exploration, trade, colonisation and war – some even stowed away on the 16th-century Spanish galleons. During the past four centuries, these animals have globalised their societies alongside our own.

***

"Global ant societies... are something new in the world, existing at a scale we can measure but struggle to grasp: there are roughly 200,000 times more ants on our planet than the 100 billion stars in the Milky Way.

***

"Ants, however, operate differently by forming ...‘anonymous societies’ in which individuals from the same species or group can be expected to accept and cooperate with each other even when they have never met before. What these societies depend on, Moffett writes, are ‘shared cues recognised by all its members’.

***

"Social insects – ants, wasps, bees and termites – rely on chemical badges of identity. In ants, this badge is a blend of waxy compounds that coat the body, keeping the exoskeleton watertight and clean. The chemicals in this waxy blend, and their relative strengths, are genetically determined and variable. This means that a newborn ant can quickly learn to distinguish between nest mates and outsiders as it becomes sensitive to its colony’s unique scent. Insects carrying the right scent are fed, groomed and defended; those with the wrong one are rejected or fought.

"The most successful invasive ants, including the tropical fire ant (Solenopsis geminata) and red fire ant (S invicta), share this quality. They also share social and reproductive traits. Individual nests can contain many queens (in contrast to species with one queen per nest) who mate inside their home burrows. In single-queen species, newborn queens leave the nest before mating, but in unicolonial species, mated queens will sometimes leave their nest on foot with a group of workers to set up a new nest nearby. Through this budding, a network of allied and interconnected colonies begins to grow.

"In their native ranges, these multi-nest colonies can grow to a few hundred metres across, limited by physical barriers or other ant colonies. This turns the landscape to a patchwork of separate groups, with each chemically distinct society fighting or avoiding others at their borders. Species and colonies coexist, without any prevailing over the others... As new nests are created, colonies bud and spread without ever drawing boundaries because workers treat all others of their own kind as allies. What was once a patchwork of complex relationships becomes a simplified, and unified, social system.

***

"All five of the ants included in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) list of 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species are unicolonial. Three of these species – are originally from Central and/or South America...
***

"Unicolonial ants are superb and unfussy scavengers that can hunt animal prey, eat fruit or nectar, and tend insects such as aphids for the sugary honeydew they excrete.

***

"Nowadays, targeted insecticides can be effective for clearing relatively small areas. This has proved useful in orchards and vineyards (where the ants’ protection of sap-sucking insects makes them a hazard to crops). Large-scale eradications are a different matter, and few places have tried. New Zealand, the world leader in controlling invasive species, is the only country to have prevented the spread of the red fire ant, mostly by eradicating nests on goods arriving at airports and ports.

***

"Unlike many ant species, in which a worker who finds a new food source returns to the nest to recruit other foragers, the Argentine ant enlists other workers already outside the nest, thus recruiting foragers more quickly. However, the decisive advantage of unicolonial ant species lies in their sheer force of numbers, which is usually what decides ant conflicts. They often become the only ant species in invaded areas.

***

"Expanding in parallel with the world-spanning supercolony are separate groups of the Argentine ant that bear different chemical badges – the legacy of other journeys from the homeland. Same species, different ‘smells’. In places where these distinct colonies come into contact, hostilities resume.

***

"Unicolonial ants can turn a patchwork of colonies created by different ant species into a landscape dominated by a single group. As a result, textured and complex ecological communities become simpler, less diverse and, crucially, less different to each other. This is not just a process; it is an era.

***

"...a colony’s ability to take bits of information from thousands of tiny brains and turn it into a distributed, constantly updated picture of their world. Even ‘smell’ seems a feeble word to describe the ability of ants’ antennae to read chemicals on the air and on each other."

Comment: An enormous essay I trimmed down by skipping the examples of invasion. I need not comment on the last paragraph which is my thought.

Natures wonders: nursing amphibians

by David Turell @, Friday, March 08, 2024, 17:46 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

The mother excretes a nourshing fluid:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGxRxMdzcSKZMPfKLRFJBjpHVbb

"Nestled snug in their burrow, the young ones cuddle close to their mom. Here, she will care for her babies for months. When they’re hungry, they’ll grunt and suckle on her to alert her of their needs—and she will provide them with the nourishing, fatty fluid that fuels their growth. Life sure is rich and sweet for these young amphibians.

"Yes, you read that right: amphibians. The mom and babies referred to above are not mammals. They’re ringed caecilians (Siphonops annulatus): snake-like salamander relatives that independently evolved to excrete a milk-like substance to feed their young.

"Other amphibians, including a number of frogs, provide a lipid-packed, nutrient-rich fluid to their young while they’re still developing inside of them. But to date, no other amphibian species has been observed feeding already-birthed babies with such secretions.

“'This previously unobserved form of maternal provisioning challenges existing understanding of the evolution of parental care modes,” writes Marvalee Wake in a related Perspective. Many questions remain unanswered, like how is “milk” production triggered? What stimulates “lactation”? And what drove these animals to produce this milky substance in the first place? But integrative studies like this are inherently valuable, she says, as they deepen our understanding of evolution."

The original article:
https://www.science.org/content/article/watch-snakelike-creature-feed-milk-its-young?ut...

"Scientists studying the feeding behavior of caecilians—a group of limbless, egg-laying creatures—observed their offspring making a peculiar and rarely heard sound. They were clicking and chittering through their nasal cavities multiple times a day, seemingly begging for milk from their mothers (as seen in the video above). They even nibbled on her on occasion.

"As the researchers report today in Science, mom released a white substance from her cloaca, which her young immediately gobbled up.

"This “milk” comes from glands in caecilians’ fallopian tubes and is rich in fatty acids—three times richer, in fact, than cattle milk.

"Although only mammals produce true milk, the new study suggests this type of nursing is perhaps more common in the animal kingdom than previously thought."

Comment: just another example of convergence in evolution. Simon Conway Morris feels this is evidence of a designer.

Natures wonders: slimy hagfish; Bechly on early vertebrates

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 16:51 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

The messy state of understanding the origin of vertebrates:

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/03/fossil-friday-hagfish-and-lampreys-overturn-establish...

"Hagfish or slime eel are a poorly known group of very primitive jawless marine vertebrates, which lack a vertebral column and lens eyes, but possess a remarkable strategy to escape predators: they can tie themselves in a knot and work through a slippery slime cover that is quickly produced by their skin glands. This slime contains packets of tightly coiled keratin fibres that expand explosively 10,000 times in less than half a second, which is certainly a marvel of biotechnological engineering...For a long time the poor state of knowledge on hagfish embryology represented a significant obstacle for evolutionary biologists, but finally new data “revealed that some apparently primitive morphological traits can be regarded as artifacts deriving mainly from fixation conditions.” Oops!

***

"Just a few years ago a seminal study by Miyashita et al. (2021) described new fossil evidence that complete overturned previous well-established views on the phylogeny and evolution of vertebrates (also see Miyashita 2021a, 2021b). This traditional view was based on the striking similarity between invertebrate lancelets (Branchiostoma or Amphioxus) and lamprey ammocoete larvae, which are both functionally blind, eel-like filter-feeders that burrow in sand. The obvious assumption was that this represents the ancestral condition for vertebrates, which was modified in adult cyclostomes into a sucking mouth disk with spikes and modified in gnathostomes into biting jaws. Another implicit assumption is that the filter feeding larvae would be only retained in lampreys, but secondarily reduced in the evolution of hagfish and gnathostomes. This was the textbook scenario that generations of biology students, including myself, learned at university. Miyashita (2021a) admitted that “once fortified with historical inertia, just-so stories are difficult to interrogate. In this case any ammocoete-driven narrative hinges on one prediction: ammocoetes must extend deep into the vertebrate tree. Though seemingly straightforward, this prediction is hard to test.'“(my bold)

***

The most recent study by Marlétaz et al. (2024) rather dated the cyclostome-gnathostome split in the Early Cambrian, thus right within the main pulse of the Cambrian Explosion.

As we have seen, hagfish and lampreys present various challenges to mainstream evolutionary biology. Their fossil record as well as their incongruent pattern of anatomical similarities is better explained by intelligent design. This is especially true for the very unique and highly complex feeding apparatus of cyclostomes or the hagfish slime glands, which represent a genuine marvel of engineering.

Comment: Hagfish and lampreys are our origin as the first vertebrates back in the Cambrian. What I have skipped over is Bechly's minute analysis of the battle in the current fossil literature as illustrated in the paragraph with my bold. How critical Bechly is pf his fellow paleontologists is shown in this snippet:

"Thus, the most parsimonious interpretation of the Cyp26A1 evidence would rather favor cyclostome paraphyly, while the other gene families were ambiguous or not informative. That the authors still endorse cyclostome monophyly in spite of their own conflicting data, without even bothering to discuss the issue, shows how much theory and consensus thinking trump data in evolutionary biology nowadays." (my bold)

And this:

"The incongruence goes even further: jawless and jawed vertebrates are sister groups and both possess hemoglobin as an oxygen transport protein. This would suggest that hagfish, lampreys, and gnathostomes inherited this trait from their common craniate ancestor. However, the study by Hoffman et al. (2010) found that that hemoglobin was independently invented in both lineages by cooption of paralogous genes. The press release says “that red-blooded vertebrates evolved twice” (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010). The authors concluded that “this example of convergent evolution of protein function provides an impressive demonstration of the ability of natural selection to cobble together complex design solutions by tinkering with different variations of the same basic protein scaffold.” God forbid to consider the obvious alternative of intelligent design." (my bold)

Published to calm down dhw. This explains who Bechly is.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 23, 2018, 19:09 (2035 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Getting food and such is far, far, far different that "understanding the need for a change and how to best meet that need, understanding oneself enough to know what needs to change at a genetic level, applying that change, and keeping track of which changes didn't work so as not to repeat mistakes. […]

Amazingly, you have just described precisely what bacteria are able to do, as you will see from the list of examples I gave you on Saturday 11 August under “An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon”, which you appear to have missed.

DAVID (referring to Tony’s comment above): A beautifully expressed paragraph which describes the need for foresight and planning before a complexly changed organism can arrive! No itty-bitty steps, suggested by the dhw proposal, exist in the fossil record.

dhw: I keep repeating that in my proposal evolution progresses through responses to environmental changes – e.g. the pre-whale entered the water before its legs changed to fins – as opposed to divine dabbling or preprogramming in advance of environmental changes - e.g. pre-whales lying on the shore while your God changes their legs to fins. Your proposal also raises the never answered question of the extent to which your God controls the environment.

You have, as usual, skipped over Tony's point and mine about the need for foresight and planning. Your obviously step-wise approach doesn't fit the fossil record or logic concerning design of massive changes. Leg to flipper is a huge anatomic alteration, but not anything like a blow hole on top of the skull. As for climate, we have a definite example of how God might have changed environmental conditions and alter evolution in Chixculub.

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by dhw, Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 12:02 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: You see dhw as rigid as I do.

TONY: Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

I’m delighted to find myself among Nature's Wonders, and flattered to be the subject of your psychoanalysis! Of course I may be slightly biased in my assessment of the data available, but for what it’s worth I truly believe that I started this website because ever since my student days I have been fascinated by the mysteries of our existence, unable to find any (for me) convincing solution to them, and appalled by the bigotry of some of the folk who are convinced that their solutions are correct, e.g. Dawkins calling God a “delusion”, and fundamentalists murdering people who don’t share their religious beliefs. In setting up the website I wanted to restore some kind of balance to the entrenched arguments that I found so offensive, and I hoped to gain some kind of enlightenment for myself. After more than ten years, I think I have become more rigid in my conviction that I will never find the answers to my questions unless there really is a God and an afterlife. I am as indecisive as ever on the question of his existence, and because I see both sides of the argument, I am UNABLE to make a choice. There is no “motive” behind this indecision.

However, I should add that I have learned an enormous amount from discussing the various subjects with people like yourselves, who are much more knowledgeable than I am about certain related fields. And it's been a genuine source of pleasure to find that despite all the disagreements, discussions have very rarely descended to the levels of aggressive bigotry that I so dislike. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases the disagreements have led to a very real bond of friendship.

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 13:09 (2037 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You see dhw as rigid as I do.

TONY: Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

DHW: I’m delighted to find myself among Nature's Wonders, and flattered to be the subject of your psychoanalysis! Of course I may be slightly biased in my assessment of the data available, but for what it’s worth I truly believe that I started this website because ever since my student days I have been fascinated by the mysteries of our existence, unable to find any (for me) convincing solution to them, and appalled by the bigotry of some of the folk who are convinced that their solutions are correct, e.g. Dawkins calling God a “delusion”, and fundamentalists murdering people who don’t share their religious beliefs. In setting up the website I wanted to restore some kind of balance to the entrenched arguments that I found so offensive, and I hoped to gain some kind of enlightenment for myself. After more than ten years, I think I have become more rigid in my conviction that I will never find the answers to my questions unless there really is a God and an afterlife. I am as indecisive as ever on the question of his existence, and because I see both sides of the argument, I am UNABLE to make a choice. There is no “motive” behind this indecision.

However, I should add that I have learned an enormous amount from discussing the various subjects with people like yourselves, who are much more knowledgeable than I am about certain related fields. And it's been a genuine source of pleasure to find that despite all the disagreements, discussions have very rarely descended to the levels of aggressive bigotry that I so dislike. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases the disagreements have led to a very real bond of friendship.

Oh, make no mistake, I consider you and David friends, and eagerly hop on here as often as I can to have conversations, debates, and arguments with my friends. So, thanks for not taking it as a criticism. Yet, I find it hard to swallow that you are unable to make a choice. Unable and unwilling are not the same things. If you made a choice, you have to face the prospect of being wrong. The question is, what's wrong with being wrong?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 17:03 (2037 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: You see dhw as rigid as I do.

TONY: Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

DHW: I’m delighted to find myself among Nature's Wonders, and flattered to be the subject of your psychoanalysis! Of course I may be slightly biased in my assessment of the data available, but for what it’s worth I truly believe that I started this website because ever since my student days I have been fascinated by the mysteries of our existence, unable to find any (for me) convincing solution to them, and appalled by the bigotry of some of the folk who are convinced that their solutions are correct, e.g. Dawkins calling God a “delusion”, and fundamentalists murdering people who don’t share their religious beliefs. In setting up the website I wanted to restore some kind of balance to the entrenched arguments that I found so offensive, and I hoped to gain some kind of enlightenment for myself. After more than ten years, I think I have become more rigid in my conviction that I will never find the answers to my questions unless there really is a God and an afterlife. I am as indecisive as ever on the question of his existence, and because I see both sides of the argument, I am UNABLE to make a choice. There is no “motive” behind this indecision.

However, I should add that I have learned an enormous amount from discussing the various subjects with people like yourselves, who are much more knowledgeable than I am about certain related fields. And it's been a genuine source of pleasure to find that despite all the disagreements, discussions have very rarely descended to the levels of aggressive bigotry that I so dislike. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases the disagreements have led to a very real bond of friendship.


Tony: Oh, make no mistake, I consider you and David friends, and eagerly hop on here as often as I can to have conversations, debates, and arguments with my friends. So, thanks for not taking it as a criticism. Yet, I find it hard to swallow that you are unable to make a choice. Unable and unwilling are not the same things. If you made a choice, you have to face the prospect of being wrong. The question is, what's wrong with being wrong?

I value our friendship so much. It has opened up my mind to new avenues of thought.

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by dhw, Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 11:14 (2036 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: However, I should add that I have learned an enormous amount from discussing the various subjects with people like yourselves, who are much more knowledgeable than I am about certain related fields. And it's been a genuine source of pleasure to find that despite all the disagreements, discussions have very rarely descended to the levels of aggressive bigotry that I so dislike. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases the disagreements have led to a very real bond of friendship.

DAVID: most humans want solutions to problematic issues. What drives science is that we want answers. Your position is a on-answer.

Presumably you mean a non-answer. Of course it is. The fact that science, philosophy, religion want and try to supply answers does not mean they’ve found them! Why should I pretend to know the answers when I don’t have them?

TONY: Oh, make no mistake, I consider you and David friends, and eagerly hop on here as often as I can to have conversations, debates, and arguments with my friends. So, thanks for not taking it as a criticism.

The feelings are mutual, and the thanks are reciprocated.

TONY: Yet, I find it hard to swallow that you are unable to make a choice. Unable and unwilling are not the same things. If you made a choice, you have to face the prospect of being wrong. The question is, what's wrong with being wrong?

That’s not the question at all! I referred a while ago to the situation of the logical ass who starved to death standing between two identical bags of hay. I cannot choose between two equally believable and unbelievable arguments, although one of them must be true. This means that in my agnosticism, I AM wrong. So as you rightly ask, what’s wrong with being wrong? Fortunately, however, I shan’t starve to death. I can wait and see, or not see, depending on whether God does or does not exist.

DAVID: I value our friendship so much. It has opened up my mind to new avenues of thought.

That was the purpose of setting up the website, and I echo both your statements to the full!

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 13:41 (2036 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Yet, I find it hard to swallow that you are unable to make a choice. Unable and unwilling are not the same things. If you made a choice, you have to face the prospect of being wrong. The question is, what's wrong with being wrong?

DHW: That’s not the question at all! I referred a while ago to the situation of the logical ass who starved to death standing between two identical bags of hay. I cannot choose between two equally believable and unbelievable arguments, although one of them must be true. This means that in my agnosticism, I AM wrong. So as you rightly ask, what’s wrong with being wrong? Fortunately, however, I shan’t starve to death. I can wait and see, or not see, depending on whether God does or does not exist.

Well, then, I shall just refer to you as a wrong, stubborn, logical ass and hope you don't choke on the hay when you get it.

DAVID: I value our friendship so much. It has opened up my mind to new avenues of thought.

That was the purpose of setting up the website, and I echo both your statements to the full!

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by dhw, Thursday, August 23, 2018, 12:25 (2035 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Yet, I find it hard to swallow that you are unable to make a choice. Unable and unwilling are not the same things. If you made a choice, you have to face the prospect of being wrong. The question is, what's wrong with being wrong?

DHW: That’s not the question at all! I referred a while ago to the situation of the logical ass who starved to death standing between two identical bags of hay. I cannot choose between two equally believable and unbelievable arguments, although one of them must be true. This means that in my agnosticism, I AM wrong. So as you rightly ask, what’s wrong with being wrong? Fortunately, however, I shan’t starve to death. I can wait and see, or not see, depending on whether God does or does not exist.

TONY: Well, then, I shall just refer to you as a wrong, stubborn, logical ass and hope you don't choke on the hay when you get it.

I agree with your description of me, but I’ll only choke if there is a soul which lives on in an afterlife. However, if my memory serves me correctly, you don’t believe in a soul that lives on in afterlife, in which case I shan’t choke at all!

Nature's wonders: land-dwelling macroorganism psychoanalysed

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 16:52 (2037 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You see dhw as rigid as I do.

TONY: Not rigid...indecisive, unwilling to make a choice, whether because he doesn't want to be wrong, is afraid he might be wrong, or whether in his own way he is trying to keep is mind open, afraid that making a choice means not being able to choose something different later. I don't know his motives, and these are just speculations based on observations.

dhw:I’m delighted to find myself among Nature's Wonders, and flattered to be the subject of your psychoanalysis! Of course I may be slightly biased in my assessment of the data available, but for what it’s worth I truly believe that I started this website because ever since my student days I have been fascinated by the mysteries of our existence, unable to find any (for me) convincing solution to them, and appalled by the bigotry of some of the folk who are convinced that their solutions are correct, e.g. Dawkins calling God a “delusion”, and fundamentalists murdering people who don’t share their religious beliefs. In setting up the website I wanted to restore some kind of balance to the entrenched arguments that I found so offensive, and I hoped to gain some kind of enlightenment for myself. After more than ten years, I think I have become more rigid in my conviction that I will never find the answers to my questions unless there really is a God and an afterlife. I am as indecisive as ever on the question of his existence, and because I see both sides of the argument, I am UNABLE to make a choice. There is no “motive” behind this indecision.

However, I should add that I have learned an enormous amount from discussing the various subjects with people like yourselves, who are much more knowledgeable than I am about certain related fields. And it's been a genuine source of pleasure to find that despite all the disagreements, discussions have very rarely descended to the levels of aggressive bigotry that I so dislike. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases the disagreements have led to a very real bond of friendship.

Of course a wonder of nature: most humans want solutions to problematic issues. What drives science is that we want answers. Your position is a on-answer.

Nature's wonders: pointy end eggs

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 23, 2018, 18:58 (2035 days ago) @ David Turell

They are used by shore birds who live on rock cliff coastlines without nests to keep the eggs from rolling off:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/for-cliff-dwelling-birds-pointy-eggs-are-best

"A study confirms that for cliff-nesting birds, pointy eggs are best.

"Common murres or guillemots (Uria aalge) are small seabirds in the auk family that nest in colonies on steep rocky cliffs. The birds lay their eggs directly on the cliff ledge, without a protective nest.

"The eggs have distinct pointed shape, which protects them from plunging into the ocean if they are laid on a sloping surface, or if a parent bird kicks them. Instead of travelling in a straight line, they roll in a circle, coming to rest where they began.

***

"The trademark pointiness and its very clear adaptive benefit to the survival of the murres and other members of the Uria genus have intrigued researchers since the 1980s. It was clear that the egg shape was keeping the eggs on the cliff, but the exact physics was hard to pin down.

***

"The findings, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, confirmed previous hypotheses – that conical eggs are more likely to stay put. The key measure, they found, was the relationship between the resting angle of the egg – determined by its shape – and the steepness of the slope on which it lies.

“'In general, an egg's conicality was the most reliable predictor of its likelihood of staying put on inclined surfaces," Hauber says. "This finding provides experimental support for natural selection shaping the unique form of murre eggs amongst all bird eggs.'”

Comment: These eggs cannot have been developed by chance attempts if the birds were to survive. Only design fits.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Monday, August 20, 2018, 15:13 (2038 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: If you look at DNA as a programming language, the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common decent so much as common functionality. Let me give you an example […]

dhw: Tony, thank you for the example, but to my shame I must confess that your computer language is totally foreign to me! It was you who kindly selected this lecture for us, but if you are satisfied that DNA is in the sort of programming language you are familiar with, I’m not going to argue with you! I listened to the opinion of a microbiologist, and was struck by what she said. However, I notice that your objection is that “the commonalities do not HAVE to represent common descent” (which certainly modifies her statement). At least that means, though, that you believe they CAN represent common descent. My point was that the cell is the basis of all life, and I find it perfectly conceivable that its design (which believers may attribute to their God) would render cells capable of combining with other cells to create every single organism, extant and extinct, throughout the history of life. This means common descent from the first living cells. Your post clearly doesn’t exclude this possibility, which is good enough for me.

DAVID: This has got to be a different branch than Archaea. It is not a candidate for origin of life since its reproductive rate is so long, it doesn't allow for evolution at the rate we see it out in the sunlight on the surface of Earth or at ocean bottom interface with salt water.

dhw: I don’t know why you have switched the subject from common descent to origin of life. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember Karen Lloyd even mentioning the origin of life, and she gave the same explanation for why the microbes couldn’t evolve.

DAVID: Thank you Tony. Great lecture. And further thank you for interpreting DNA as a program for processing life with functional coding. Easy to imagine a primary designer for the first living cells from which these sub-sea oganisms must have developed.

dhw: Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

You have never understood my view that the issue of common descent and evolution must include consideration of the first cells, not avoid it as you and Darwin do. If Archaea look like the first branch, I wondered where this group fit. They are later, based on the slow pace of their metabolism.

Tony's comment: "This code is nearly ubuiquitous in all c++ programming. You would be hard pressed to find a modern C++ program that does not contain this code. The start and end values may be different, and the 'do something' code may be different, but the iterator framework is identical.

This is exactly what we see in the LPL (living programming language). How can we both look at the same exact chart and see such totally different things? Because of which narrative we are using to describe what we see. To an evolutionist, it means common decent, even across species who obviously did not descend from each other. For me, it shows a programming language with reusable elements that does not care about descent."

All I see is Tony noting how DNA fits human coding technique.

Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 19, 2018, 18:54 (2039 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

tony: This videotalks about subsea biology. Most striking to me was her commentary on the cellular life spans. Particularly when she compares their life cycle and ours saying 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.'

This has got to be a different branch than Archaea. It is not a candidate for origin of life since its reproductive rate is so long, it doesn't allow for evolution at the rate we see it out in the sunlight on the surface of Earth or at ocean bottom interface with salt water.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum