How smart are fish ?

Wayne Sallee wrote in
:

Follow-up pointed to talk.origins

Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:

In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds
in the evolutionary scale.

Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
acknowledge the reality of the Creator.


The small-minded are incapable of seeing that the two aren't mutually
exclusive. Congrats, Wayne, you're working hard to reduce the status of
the Almighty to that of a petty god of the gaps... I'm sure He's pleased
with your enthusiasm, if not your end result.

My computer evolved from a toaster oven.


A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of 'evolved'...

I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.


A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of both 'toaster oven' and
'computer'...

Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
working model of the theory of evolution.


No, you'd just have an inaccurate anecdote of your misunderstanding of
evolution, and perhaps the vague feeling that you're being clever.

Balance snipped, since it can be read here;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6afab43d63180d
0?dmode=source

How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...

Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver

Wayne Sallee wrote in news:44C4F60B.7010007
@WayneSallee.com:

The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.


Its telling that your example is at least as un-scientific as your own
Creationist view... Why would anyone associate this idea with
evolution?

Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver


Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 12:22 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...
One thing that I find interesting, is that people that believe in
evolution think that there is less similarities between people and
animals than people that believe in creation.

What are you talking about ? Where have you noticed this?
I find exactly opposite in my observations...

Christians believe only humans have souls - animals
are things you can kill and eat, people are "better"
than animals. Only people go to heaven, right ? :-)
The single thing Darvin said about similarities about
people to other primates created the most of his
enemies. People believing in God believe they are
special and significantly different from "beasts".

Scientists see much more similarities between humans
and other living beings than creationists.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:25:52 -0500, "Pszemol"
wrote:

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...

Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they
look pretty. You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.

Only people who do not know evolution enough could
make such a comment.


Actually, I think there is something to be said for his description.
Wayne clearly doesn't understand evolution, but I think he's stumbled
onto something.

The basic thing to understand is the part about "get a chain..." This
describes the fact of evolution - there IS a chain, and it does exist
in a specific sequence. (Actually, a "chain" is way too simplistic,
it's more of a gnarly viny bush or something, but the chain will
suffice for the simple conceptual model)

But the fossil record is incomplete. Fossils are extremely rare, and
for many organisms, they are never ever formed. For those organisms
that had bones and solid parts that would lend themselves to
fossilization, conditions must be JUST right for a fossil to be
formed. That's a very rare occurrence.

This is where the "cut every other link" comes in. We don't have
fossils of all the animals that ever existed (every link) - we only
have a few.

So we humans are left with what was obviously a chain of some sort,
and we have a certain number of links in that chain. This is where
the "arrange them" part comes in. We try to draw a view of that chain
as it actually existed, and place the links where they really go. It's
not Wayne's "so that they look pretty", but it's "so they make sense
and reflect the reality of evolutionary development."

atomweaver wrote on 7/24/2006 3:25 PM:
Balance snipped, since it can be read here;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6afab43d63180d
0?dmode=source

How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...


LOL what's that supposed to mean???

I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...
The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.

There are two kinds of an instinct, Wayne...
One - they are borned with, and the second one they can learn.
The second one is also called Pavlov instinct in the appreciation
of the work this scientists has done for the understanding animal behaviour.

Fish reaction to food is the first kind: they do not have to learn to eat.
Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~matto...lecture30.html
If you do a search on google with a keyword Pavlov and dog you
will find more interesting facts you could match with your fish...

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message ...
LOL what's that supposed to mean???

I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe

I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...

But anyway - is there any proof for evolution you would be willing
to accet as "convincing" you the theory works ? Or you just totaly reject
the theory on the basis of religion and your faith/believe in God ??
In the second case no proof, even the "in your face" one would change
your mind and the further discussion is simply mute.
Please let me know - we could then move on to more interesting stuff ;-)

Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 6:08 PM:

I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...

You are correct on that :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency
of an organism to make a complex and specific response to
environmental stimuli without involving reason.

So someone decided to redefine the word? hehehe

I find it interesting that you are arguing in this
direction after your earlier argument about the anemone
fish and it's anemone.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 5:48 PM:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...
The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with instinct" is one
example of what I am talking about.

There are two kinds of an instinct, Wayne...
One - they are borned with, and the second one they can learn.
The second one is also called Pavlov instinct in the appreciation
of the work this scientists has done for the understanding animal
behaviour.

Fish reaction to food is the first kind: they do not have to learn to eat.
Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~matto...lecture30.html

If you do a search on google with a keyword Pavlov and dog you
will find more interesting facts you could match with your fish...

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...
Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 6:08 PM:

I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...

You are correct on that :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


A 400 pound Marlin has a brain about 1/2 teaspoon in size, not a whole lot
of room for things like philosophy ( knowledge of death ) or creative
thinking. A fish has no knowledge of death, that should be obvious to
anyone.

Evolution is not a theory, or at least not a theory under much controversy
among the scientific community, the real theory that is kicked around is
natural selection as the primary method of evolution. The fact that drug
resistant bacteria evolve from a common source should be all anyone needs to
see to move evolution from theory to simple fact.

The fact that Chimps and Humans share about 98% of their DNA is a commonly
tossed about fact that can confuse people, the fact of the matter is that
almost all mammals share 98% of their DNA.

The topic is much more complicated than simple reading of headlines or blind
faith.

There is no real reason for evolution and "god theory" to be mutually
exclusive.

Jerry I.
- The Bible is my favorite work of fiction, hands down.

Wayne, Wayne...
When I was teaching biology in a CC, I knew better than to argue with lost
causes.
Just to give you an example of your lost cause here is a simple question;
When and where the fish told you all those things?
Now, here is a more complicated question;
Who told fish that they are going to die, God?
Fish are animals not humans like many people would like to think, you for
example.
They act as a response, they are able to learn a response to a stimuli, that
is not intelligence. As I type here and hit the X key, for example, the
computer writes that letter in a way that I can interpret it. Better yet,
if I combine the X with the CTRL key, it will perfom a different task.
Actually, if you use Word for example, it even completes the words for you
or correct your spelling if instructed...
Do you think my laptop is smart or just responding to a stimuli?
lets see!
iy
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
...


Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
Fish are not intelligent at all, they don't need to be, they have
instincts instead of handling difficult decisions.

Not true.
Fish are able to learn who feeds them, and who doesn't.
Able to learn what the fish food container looks like. Able to recognize
the fridge when someone opens the door, and they will beg for food every
time you open the fridge if they are used to getting frozen food.
Able to learn to come to you when you call them.
And able to learn many other things.

I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend
its domain to the death, literally.
You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same
way over and over and over again.
So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in
the evolutionary scale.
They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death
or that their wounds are not going to heal.

Not true.
Fish know when they are dying.

I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
trigger.
But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things.
Yes they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the
other hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt
after the hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
iy


Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets