Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Do a search -- in more than 4000 posts on this forum I'm not sure I've mentioned Lamarck even once until now, so I make no pronouncements. Darwinism vs Lamarckism is irrelevant, because the signatures of evolution lie at a molecular level and not a macroscopic morphologic level.

I don't think they've sequenced the giraffe genome. I may be wrong, I don't know. But presumably the giraffe's way of achieving a long neck is not so different than a dog's way of achieving a long nose, so the points from those papers can be easily translated. In other words, major morphologic variants can arise from tiny genetic changes, and to be selectively advantageous allows such genetic changes to become more frequent and eventually predominant in a population.

Nonrandom mating, as I've mentioned in numerous evolutionary biology threads here, is a major contributor to evolution. It's a variant on natural selection.

You know what I'm talking about though, whether you personally offer comment or not.

You do offer comment on individual level selection only . Correct ?

And so G. khan's learned behaviours had pretty clear evolutionary significance ? I mean, he didn't do all that without experience, eh ?

How about Northern Dancer ? without his learning to race, would his genes have become dominant forces in racehorse ?

That's quite a simplification of my point of view. Evolution, fundamentally, is population genetics.

Population genetics change over time in part because of differential selection of every individual genome.

So yes, selection happens person by person

organism by organism

germ line by germ line

-- but no, evolution is a population level event and not an individual level event.

Behaviour does things, Evolution-wise.

and it's about time for these scientists to stop the denials "

Natural selection works on behaviors as well as genes.

Darwin did not know anything (or very little) about genes or the genetic basis of evolution when he developed his theory. His theory was largely based on behavioral and structural variation and natural selection (not on genetic theory). So I am not sure how that argument works against evolution?

All thru this thread, symbiotic and parasitic relationships seem to be ignored.

There is the example of the tobacco plant, which produces a self protective toxin. Some of us smoke and inhale this toxin and those that do believe it has some medicinal properties. As a result, the tobacco plant is hugely successful, but how should this relationship be viewed?

Then you haven't been reading the thread exhaustively enough. How about my discussion of the parasitic relationship between Plasmodium parasites (malaria) and humans? This is a relationship in which both parties have been in a genetic race for 10,000 to 100,000 years. How about the commensal (or perhaps neutral) relationship between viceroy and monarch butterflies? Also discussed here.

This should be viewed no differently than our relationship with rice, with wheat, with poodles, or with Butterball turkeys.

Though the paddy farmer is.

But you're conflating two different threads of the conversation into one.

Bollocks. If we look at the brainworm, or Toxoplasma gondii, we see the parasite taking control of host behaviour. that's a different relationship than we have with rice.
I can eat rice and yet am not forced to certain specified odd behaviours.

Honestly memester, I've forgotten more about both of these pathogens and infections than you will ever know in your life. I've probably cared for at least a hundred patients with cerebral toxoplasmosis, and I've cared for not quite that many but a good number with neurocysticercosis (which is what I believe you mean by brainworm). I've also exhaustively read the literature about toxoplasma because it's a close relative of malaria.

And the fact of the matter is you're taking some elegant hypotheses WAY beyond where there is any evidence.

#1) In humans toxoplasma does not change behaviors. Primary toxoplasma is a mono-like illness, with fevers, big lymph nodes, sore throat. Cerebral toxoplasmosis presents as seizures, paralysis, delirium, headache, sometimes blindness.

Secondly, humans are not important hosts in the lifecycle of T. gondii. Wild animals, esp mice and cats, are FAR more important.

Finally, there is a HYPOTHESIS, which is not very strongly supported (though there was a recent paper about it), that cerebral toxo makes mice more docile and therefore more likely to be eaten by a cat. That is the ENTIRETY of this "changing behavior" nonsense of yours that you speak of as if it's established fact.

#2) Neurocysticercosis, which is a pork tapeworm (Taenia solium) infection of the brain, is a condition for which humans are an ACCIDENTAL host. In nature, the maintenance and fecundity of this tapeworm does not at all depend on humans.

Secondly, neurocysticercosis is NOT transmissible from infected humans unless something eats their brain. People can go decades with it without ever even becoming ill.

Thirdly, it very seldom has behavioral symptoms. By far the most frequent presentation is seizures.



Now I'll go along with you with ONE organism, and that is rabies virus. That's it. Bartonella may prove to be another, but that is difficult to prove.

Bracewell said:
All thru this thread, symbiotic and parasitic relationships seem to be ignored.
...
There is the example of the tobacco plant, which produces a self protective toxin. Some of us smoke and inhale this toxin and those that do believe it has some medicinal properties. As a result, the tobacco plant is hugely successful, but how should this relationship be viewed?

Originally Posted by Aedes
Then you haven't been reading the thread exhaustively enough. How about my discussion of the parasitic relationship between Plasmodium parasites (malaria) and humans? This is a relationship in which both parties have been in a genetic race for 10,000 to 100,000 years. How about the commensal (or perhaps neutral) relationship between viceroy and monarch butterflies? Also discussed here.

This should be viewed no differently than our relationship with rice, with wheat, with poodles, or with Butterball turkeys.

1. It modifies the ant's nesting behavior, so that when the temperature drops (e.g., at night) it does not return to its nest as usual, but instead climbs to the top of a blade of grass or other vegetation, and fastens itself there with its mandibles. Thus exposed, this greatly increases the likelihood of the ants to be eaten by grazing cattle or sheep, and therefore the likelihood of the trematode infecting a primary host.
   
2. The brainworm itself loses the ability to reproduce or infect the mammal host. Therefore, it is sacrificing itself for the benefit of the other cercariae in the infested ant. Carefully designed experiments show that always exactly one of the cercariae turns into a brainworm, even though all of them are capable of doing so.
   

C'mon now Dave Allen.

The paddy farmer is not forced into ANY particular odd behaviours by eating rice.

The demand for rice has certainly forced odd behaviours on farmers.

But - as I said - you're confusing two different things. Aedes response to Bracewell isn't exactly about forced odd behaviour - but could be.