Botfly Evolution

[Ouroboros]

But computers were intelligently designed. Now imagine that everything you talked about had to come about via random mutation separately in each of those individual parts. That gives you a taste of what I'm talking about.

They analogy I made wasn't about how they were created but how many parallel paths lead to a symbiotic effect.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nothing but read my question.

The larger question here is how instinct itself evolves and co-ordinates with physical processes. The botfly is just one of many examples where this needs to be explained.

Your question is puzzling. One really wonders what is there to be explained.

Maybe it is a general question along the lines of "how did parasitism develop"?

As a rule, insects are really much like robots that happen to be made of organical components. Having a bit of a IT background I find it perhaps a bit too easy to explain how come they act the way they do: it simply happens that their behavior patterns are functional enough to allow them to survive into another generation, and were therefore selected over other patterns that did not serve that purpose.

 

[LuisDantas]

I seriously doubt the brains of botflies are suited to learning any behavior. I think they are driven purely by instinct.

One has to wonder if even instinct is necessary to explain insect behavior.

 

[Jumi]

By "coincidence" I mean unintelligent random mutation that just happens to work out right.

It's not coincidence when there is a selection process.

 

[Parsimony]

From what I read it seemed a very specific adaptation.

I admit that I'm no expert on botflies. What was the adaptation in question?

By "coincidence" I mean unintelligent random mutation that just happens to work out right.

Selection too. Selection is what causes "good" mutations to prevail over "bad" mutations. Computers using genetic algorithms can and have produced good designs on their own. It's really quite amazing, but it works.

 

[George-ananda]

Before you do that you might experiment with learning a little biology and avoiding the trap of arguing from ignorance.

I understand there is a biological explanation for everything and I don't argue with those explanations. I am taking a step further back from the details and speculating about the bigger picture.

 

[nazz]

They analogy I made wasn't about how they were created but how many parallel paths lead to a symbiotic effect.

Understood but the distinction is critical.

 

[nazz]

It's not coincidence when there is a selection process.

I don't think you are getting my point.

 

[nazz]

I admit that I'm no expert on botflies. What was the adaptation in question?

I'm not really sure. That article did not make that clear.

Selection too. Selection is what causes "good" mutations to prevail over "bad" mutations. Computers using genetic algorithms can and have produced good designs on their own. It's really quite amazing, but it works.

I understand selection but that is putting the cart before the horse. The point is that what gets selected just happens to be just what the organism needs to survive and thrive.

 

[Sapiens]

I understand there is a biological explanation for everything and I don't argue with those explanations. I am taking a step further back from the details and speculating about the bigger picture.

There is no "bigger" picture. There is no indication of any need to look for invisible helpers hiding behind the next hill.

 

[Ouroboros]

Understood but the distinction is critical.

Not really. If you understood the intention with the analogy, the distinction has nothing to do with what the purpose of the analogy. The purpose was to show how independent parts can come together as a whole.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not really sure. That article did not make that clear.


I understand selection but that is putting the cart before the horse. The point is that what gets selected just happens to be just what the organism needs to survive and thrive.

There is likely a broad array of mutations, some kill the individual outright, some have little effect and some give the individual an advantage over other members of the same species.

Of course "what gets selected just happens to be just what the organism needs to survive and thrive" that's definitional.

 

[nazz]

Not really. If you understood the intention with the analogy, the distinction has nothing to do with what the purpose of the analogy. The purpose was to show how independent parts can come together as a whole.

Well I understand that

 

[nazz]

There is likely a broad array of mutations, some kill the individual outright, some have little effect and some give the individual an advantage over other members of the same species.

Of course "what gets selected just happens to be just what the organism needs to survive and thrive" that's definitional.

You're not getting it. Let's say you are in a knife fight and suddenly you reach in your pocket and find you have a gun. Now of course you will select the gun to survive--nothing amazing about that. What is amazing that the gun should appear exactly when you needed it.

 

[Ouroboros]

You're not getting it. Let's say you are in a knife fight and suddenly you reach in your pocket and find you have a gun. Now of course you will select the gun to survive--nothing amazing about that. What is amazing that the gun should appear exactly when you needed it.

Which part of the bot fly example is it that is compared to as the gun? Now it's my turn not to see the correlation.

The ancient bot flies, let's say you have had 1,000 different intermediate steps between the ancient bot fly and the modern. The old ones didn't do anything of the things the modern bot fly does, but was a fly. Perhaps the first generation start to put their larva on the surface of things, anything. Then a later generation put larva on mammal skins where they would thrive more than those put on plant leaves because the skin has proteins, salt, and such the larva could eat to get strong. And it could distinguish between mammal skin and leaves because of smell (pheromones). Then it started to burrow. Then a generation came that specialized on the smell of humans or other specific mammals. Is this a reasonable chain of small evolutionary steps?

 

[nazz]

Which part of the bot fly example is it that is compared to as the gun? Now it's my turn not to see the correlation.

The mutation that leads it to deposit its eggs on the underside of an intermediate vector. The fact that the eggs have a glue that makes them adhere to the vector and melt when the vector is on a host. And the burrowing instinct of the larvae which also have barbs which developed to hold them under the skin.

 

[Ouroboros]

The mutation that leads it to deposit its eggs on the underside of an intermediate vector.

Yeah? So there was a parallel series of steps of evolution of a compatible fly that evolved to plant the eggs on mosquitos instead, and then they intermixed into a hybrid. It happens. We've evidence of that happening even today.

The fact that the eggs have a glue that makes them adhere to the vector and melt when the vector is on a host.

I don't see that as strange. The heat from the host melts the glue or the humidity from sweat. Proteins like that has evolved in other species. Termites use some glue too if I remember it correct.

And the burrowing instinct of the larvae which also have barbs which developed to hold them under the skin.

The first larva had some hooks to attach to the skin. Then a later generation had stronger and more advanced hooks. Then a later generation start to dig a little deeper into the skin to keep safe from falling off. Then a later generation dug a pit or hole it stayed in. I don't see why this is a problem? Just break down the problem into intermediate steps. Top-down. It's like working on design, software, construction, engineering, start from the top, divide-and-conquer the problem into smaller and smaller steps.

 

[Sapiens]

You're not getting it. Let's say you are in a knife fight and suddenly you reach in your pocket and find you have a gun. Now of course you will select the gun to survive--nothing amazing about that. What is amazing that the gun should appear exactly when you needed it.

No, it is not amazing. It is an artifact of your observation of too few incidents, not of how nature works. What you are missing is that nature has been (I'm trying to stick to your analogy, which has some basic flaws) filling that pocket, on many people, with a broad array of weapons for a long time.

There were thousands of times when they came up with an ineffective weapon.

There were a few times when they came up with an effective one.

You only happen to note the one occurrence that you cite, because that was the only one that you observed.

 

[Sapiens]

You're not getting it. Let's say you are in a knife fight and suddenly you reach in your pocket and find you have a gun. Now of course you will select the gun to survive--nothing amazing about that. What is amazing that the gun should appear exactly when you needed it.

No, it is not amazing. What you are missing is that nature has been (I'm trying to stick to your analogy, which has some basic flaws) filling that pocket, on many people, with a broad array of weapons for a long time.

There were thousands of times when they came up with an ineffective weapon.

There were a few times when they came up with an effective one.

You only happen to note the one occurrence that you cite, because that was the only one that you observed.

 

[nazz]

Yeah? So there was a parallel series of steps of evolution of a compatible fly that evolved to plant the eggs on mosquitos instead, and then they intermixed into a hybrid. It happens. We've evidence of that happening even today.


I don't see that as strange. The heat from the host melts the glue or the humidity from sweat. Proteins like that has evolved in other species. Termites use some glue too if I remember it correct.


The first larva had some hooks to attach to the skin. Then a later generation had stronger and more advanced hooks. Then a later generation start to dig a little deeper into the skin to keep safe from falling off. Then a later generation dug a pit or hole it stayed in. I don't see why this is a problem? Just break down the problem into intermediate steps. Top-down. It's like working on design, software, construction, engineering, start from the top, divide-and-conquer the problem into smaller and smaller steps.

I'm sorry but you are not getting my point and I don't know how else to explain it.