Is this an example of De-evolution?

[et pet]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia

https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html

At worst it appears that any inherent fear is debatable.

 I would suggest that asking for a citation may mean that you find the statement doubtful or questionable at best, wouldn't you agree?

 

Yep certainly and thanks for the info.

I had only heard of the phenomenon called de-evolution, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I certainly accept the view of yourself and others..something I have learnt today gladly. 

 

   https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia

   " As for how such a hypothetical mechanism could exist, the researchers don't know for sure, but the idea is that somehow, over countless generations in ancient times, our human ancestors evolved a trait "that ensures special attention and facilitated fear-learning for ancestral threats in early human ontogeny", the team explains in their paper.

   In other words, even though our sheltered, modern lives mean most of us rarely come into contact with dangerous snakes or spiders, our long-forgotten forebears weren't so lucky – and the fear and disgust some of us feel today when we encounter these critters could actually be a hangover from a survival instinct that evolved in ancient times. "

   A "hypothetical that could exist" does not support your claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

   https://www.livescience.com/9808-fear-spiders-develop-birth.html 

   "Scientists figure humans may be born with a fear of spiders and snakes, healthy phobias that up the odds of survival in the wild. It's not known how such an inborn fear might develop, however.

  Scientists aren't sure how the fear is passed down, but they speculate that stressful events like predator attacks trigger the release of a hormone in the mother that influences the development of the embryo. "

   Again, a "may be born with" and what "Scientists...speculate" does not support your statement : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

   https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html 

   " A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity.

  The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history." "

   Once again, a "theory" or "hypothesis" does nothing to very little to support your claim  " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

 

    beecee, I would NOT AGREE that asking for a citation may mean that I find the statement doubtful or questionable.

   I asked for a citation simply because in all my years I had never read or heard it stated that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

    I have actually been taught and learned that any fear of predators is a Taught or Learned behaviour.

    I have not been Taught or Learned every possible or conceivable bit of information on the subject, so I merely asked for a Citation to support your statement or claim.

[Moontanman]

This something we are born with to some extent, and it's quite easy to see why fear of this would be a positive survival trait. In some people it's a problem beyond any advantage. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypophobia

Quote

Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins of the University of Essex's Centre for Brain Science were the first scientists to publish on the phenomenon. They believe the reaction is based on a biological revulsion, rather than a learned cultural fear. In a 2013 article in Psychological Science, Cole and Wilkins write that the reaction is based on "the primitive portion of the brain" that associates the shapes with danger, and that it is an "unconscious reflex reaction".[10][11] Imagery of various venomous animals (for example, certain types of snakes, insects, and spiders) have the same visual characteristics. Because of this, Cole and Wilkins hypothesized that trypophobia has an evolutionary basis meant to alert humans of dangerous organisms.[1] They believed this to be an evolutionary advantage, although it also causes people to fear harmless objects.[2]

 

Yes boogie boy, now the truth can be revealed... we're all Devo! 

[et pet]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I merely asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." 

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You  asked for evidence and I have provided a link for it...

And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, et pet said:

The two Links you provided were NOT ignored - they were simply not supportive of beecee's claim

I didn't say they were.

     So...I asked for cited supporting evidence for the stated claim that : "Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." 

   StringJunky replied "You  asked for evidence and I have provided a link for it..."

   Then, in reply to StringJunky, you stated "And I provided two. Which were ignored. Bu there you go."

   ? 

   Edit to add - my first quote attributed what I had Posted to StringJunky - I was not able and I am still not able to change that.

    My most humblest apologies to StringJunky...please accept my apology.

Edited June 7, 2018 by et pet
doubled quote and wrongly attributed quote

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, et pet said:

    beecee, I would NOT AGREE that asking for a citation may mean that I find the statement doubtful or questionable.

That's your perogative and opinion. I disagree. 

Quote

 

 I asked for a citation simply because in all my years I had never read or heard it stated that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

    I have actually been taught and learned that any fear of predators is a Taught or Learned behaviour.

    I have not been Taught or Learned every possible or conceivable bit of information on the subject, so I merely asked for a Citation to support your statement or claim.

 

From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know?

 

Here's some more to illustrate my point......

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html

A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity.

extract:

The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html#jCp

https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00103-2/fulltext

Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness

 

Abstract

The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time. We hypothesized that one such ancestral hazard, spiders, should be inherently prioritized for visual attention and awareness irrespective of their visual or personal salience. This hypothesis was tested using the inattentional blindness paradigm in which an unexpected and peripheral stimulus is presented coincidentally with a central task-relevant display. Despite their highly marginalized presentation, iconic spiders were nonetheless detected, localized, and identified by a very large proportion of observers. Observers were considerably less likely to perceive 1) different configurations of the same visual features which diverged from a spider prototype, or “template”, 2) a modern threatening stimulus (hypodermic needle) comparable in emotional salience, or 3) a different fear-irrelevant animal (housefly). Spiders may be one of a very few evolutionarily-persistent threats that are inherently specified for visual detection and uniquely “prepared” to capture attention and awareness irrespective of any foreknowledge, personal importance, or task-relevance.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

29 minutes ago, et pet said:

     A "hypothetical that could exist" does not support your claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators." 

Perhaps we need to do research on all species of animals?  

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/

A discussion of how fear and anxiety evolved in animals is found in my book.)

Some animals are genetically programmed to fear their predators. Mice naturally fear cats; fish naturally fear birds. But what about humans? Are we naturally disposed to fear certain dangerous animals?

It is certainly true that some things are feared more commonly than others, such as snakes, spiders, and rats, but this could be the result of conditioning, more than programming. Perhaps we learn to fear snakes and spiders because they bite and we fear rats because we were taught that they spread plague and pestilence.

Author: NathanHLents

Dr. Nathan H. Lents is a Professor of Molecular Biology at John Jay College of The City University of New York and author of "Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals," available in May 2016.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anxiety-files/200805/are-we-born-be-afraid

In one study, 77 % of mothers of children who were afraid of water said their children were frightened the very first time they were confronted with a pool or lake water. In fact, the farther away from the ocean you live, the more likely you are to fear water. In another study, they tested kids over and over for years to determine what kinds of fears they had and what happened to them later. They found that kids who had fears of heights when they were younger---were less likely to fall and get injured later. That’s because the fear that was built in protected the kids from falling.

Now this may not seem like news to you, but most psychologists have believed that fears are learned. Some might be learned---but many fears are built in and they protect us. Kids didn’t have a fear of heights because they had fallen. No---they didn’t fall because they had a fear of heights to begin with.

Edited June 7, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know?

 

  So, you cannot Cite any articles to support your statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

  Now you "Move the Goalposts" and state or claim " there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable." ?

   Then you choose to 'Muddy the Waters', so to speak, by making another statement or claim : "We are certain of many scientific theories..."?

   beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory?

    *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain

[Sensei]

Quote

Is this an example of De-evolution?

Evolution has no direction.. Who has the highest chance to survive is surviving..

If humans will accidentally, or on purpose, create rocket which will have microorganisms on the board... It will fly millions or billions of light years... and might end up in completely different galaxy.. Then they (microorganisms) will evolve to whatever they want, and what is able to survive in the new environment..

Will it be example of de-evolution? From macroscopic, multi-cellular life form, to microorganism single-cell life form.. ? And then go back to multi-cellular life-form somewhere else... on the other end of galaxy.. on the other end of the Universe...

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Sensei

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, et pet said:

  So, you cannot Cite any articles to support your statement or claim : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

  Now you "Move the Goalposts" and state or claim " there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable." ?

   Then you choose to 'Muddy the Waters', so to speak, by making another statement or claim : "We are certain of many scientific theories..."?

   beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory?

    *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain

Let me answer your last query first....scientific theories do gain in certainty over time andas they are continually making correct predictions. Do you doubt evolution? Do you doubt Abiogenesis? No, I'm not muddying the waters as you suggest, I'm simply showing that this "inherent fear" is just not as certain as evolution and Abiogenesis. So yes, the certainty of evolution and Abiogenesis remain as theories, simply because the "possibility" can exist that they maybe falsified. Do you believe they will be?

For all intents and purposes, they are certain.

I've sited articles that agree with my statement..others do not. I'm prepared to agree that there is some debate on it. I'm siding with the positive, you seem to be siding with the negative. So no, no moving of any goal posts and certainly statements I have supplied support my opinion.

•  

Posted 21 minutes ago (edited)

  37 minutes ago, et pet said:

    beecee, I would NOT AGREE that asking for a citation may mean that I find the statement doubtful or questionable.

That's your perogative and opinion. I disagree. 

  Quote

 

 I asked for a citation simply because in all my years I had never read or heard it stated that : " Many animals are born with an inherent fear of known predators."

    I have actually been taught and learned that any fear of predators is a Taught or Learned behaviour.

    I have not been Taught or Learned every possible or conceivable bit of information on the subject, so I merely asked for a Citation to support your statement or claim.

 

From the articles I find there is still an unknown factor and that the situation involving "inherent fear" is at best still debatable. We are certain of many scientific theories as I'm sure you will agree, evolution, Universal Abiogenesis are of course two prominent ones. In other words perhaps you are wrong? or alternatively, perhaps I am wrong? Will we ever know?

 

Here's some more to illustrate my point......

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html

A fear of spiders, arachnophobia, is in our DNA. You don't learn to freeze at the site of these creatures; you're born with the fear. Even the sight of hypodermic needles and houseflies does not trigger a similar response. Scientists pin that fear on survival instinct. The theory goes like this: Humans evolved in Africa where being able to spot a spider was of necessity.

extract:

The results, they said, supported the hypothesis that humans "may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-04-human-spiders-scientific-focus.html#jCp

https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00103-2/fulltext

Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness

 

Abstract

The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time. We hypothesized that one such ancestral hazard, spiders, should be inherently prioritized for visual attention and awareness irrespective of their visual or personal salience. This hypothesis was tested using the inattentional blindness paradigm in which an unexpected and peripheral stimulus is presented coincidentally with a central task-relevant display. Despite their highly marginalized presentation, iconic spiders were nonetheless detected, localized, and identified by a very large proportion of observers. Observers were considerably less likely to perceive 1) different configurations of the same visual features which diverged from a spider prototype, or “template”, 2) a modern threatening stimulus (hypodermic needle) comparable in emotional salience, or 3) a different fear-irrelevant animal (housefly). Spiders may be one of a very few evolutionarily-persistent threats that are inherently specified for visual detection and uniquely “prepared” to capture attention and awareness irrespective of any foreknowledge, personal importance, or task-relevance.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/10/08/are-humans-predisposed-to-fear-snakes/

Some animals are genetically programmed to fear their predators. Mice naturally fear cats; fish naturally fear birds. But what about humans? Are we naturally disposed to fear certain dangerous animals?

Edited June 7, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, et pet said:

beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory?

Yes. 

For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection is (in the general principles) "certain" (as in your definition). The important point is that it is in principle falsifiable and so it still counts as a theory. The fact that it would require something close to divine intervention to falsify it at this stage means we can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the theory is correct.

(Of course, "certainty" is not a binary property; it is a spectrum.)

Edited June 7, 2018 by Strange

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

     beecee, if a theory was certain (free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable:***), would it still be a theory?

    *** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/certain

'Theory' is the highest accolade of acceptance that an idea can be given in science. It has strong, repeatable evidence supporting it. Everything else is called a  'hypothesis'. The scientific method always leaves room for doubt even in the face of high confidence.The degree of confidence is expressed as a confidence interval and the lower limit for general acceptance is 95%.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But you don't use deceleration as physicist, do you? I know people use it in everyday life.

No, I don't.

[SamCogar]

The above two (2) pages of comments made for an  interesting read.

 

Bout the only example of De-evolution that I can think of would be a few of the dastardly effects of rheumatoid arthritis.

 

 And “no”, animals, human or otherwise, are NOT born with an inherent fear of known predators simply because newborns DON’T KNOW what a predator is ……. and “evolution” does not know, nor can it predict, the different types of predators that might be resident in the locale where the birth occurs.

 

Most all newborn(s) of the higher animal species are born with “survival instincts” that are encoded in their DNA. And, IMLO, one of the more important of said instincts is the instinctual drive of the maturing “newborn(s)” is to pay close attention to the environmentally sensed “actions” of their parent or guardian and if the parent/guardian displays signs or sounds of fear, fright, anger or pain ….. then the maturing “newborn(s)” will react accordingly and are also likely to remember (nurture) said “causes and reactions”.

 

Inherited survival instincts are not the same as ….. environmentally nurtured actions and/or reactions.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Bout the only example of De-evolution that I can think of would be a few of the dastardly effects of rheumatoid arthritis.

How is that an example?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

 

Bout the only example of De-evolution that I can think of would be a few of the dastardly effects of rheumatoid arthritis.  

 

The one thing I did learn from this thread was that "de-evolution"  is a fallacy.

[SamCogar]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

How is that an example?

Because RA is noted for slowly de-evolving the bone joints and cartilage from what they originally evolved to be, thus rendering the effected areas with up to 100% loss of use.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, SamCogar said:

Because RA is noted for slowly de-evolving the bone joints and cartilage from what they originally evolved to be, thus rendering the effected areas with up to 100% loss of use.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[swansont]

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

Because RA is noted for slowly de-evolving the bone joints and cartilage from what they originally evolved to be, thus rendering the effected areas with up to 100% loss of use.

That's not evolution, which is a change in genetic makeup of a population over generations. So, it's not a genetic change and it's not occurring in a population, and not over generations.

We've already discussed why "de-evolution" is not a thing.

[SamCogar]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:51 AM, swansont said:

That's not evolution, which is a change in genetic makeup of a population over generations. 

Since someone coined a new word, …… "de-evolution", …… without defining what it meant, then I was at liberty for opting for definition #2, ……. to wit:

• 2.

  the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

And the effects of RA is a development of something complex to a more simple non-functioning form, …….. right?

There is no rules or laws that prohibits one from coining a new word, or a new definition for an old word, ……. but they definitely should define or specify what their intended meaning/definition is for said newly coined verbiage.

Cheers, Sam C

[swansont]

3 hours ago, SamCogar said:

Since someone coined a new word, …… "de-evolution", …… without defining what it meant, then I was at liberty for opting for definition #2, ……. to wit:

• 2.

  the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

That's not the definition of evolution, from a scientific standpoint. The dictionary is not a technical resource.

De-evolution would have to be the opposite of evolution, but since evolution has no direction, how can it have an opposite?

 

It's like the definitions of ravel and unravel, or bone and debone, or famous and infamous, only in this case it makes even less sense.

 

Quote

 

And the effects of RA is a development of something complex to a more simple non-functioning form, …….. right?

There is no rules or laws that prohibits one from coining a new word, or a new definition for an old word, ……. but they definitely should define or specify what their intended meaning/definition is for said newly coined verbiage.

Cheers, Sam C

 

But we already covered that there was an intended definition, but it incorporates a gross misunderstanding of the science.

[Itoero]

Evolution = change over time

There are several forms evolution defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

Biological evolution is Darwinism .