The Archer Fish. Design or Evolution?

[Micaiah]

The following notes are taken from the latest Creation magazine [Vol 25 No 2 March MAy 2003]. It contains an article on the archer fish. This fish is able to shoot down insects with a well aimed spit of water. The fish is also able to predict (calculate) with amazing accuracy where the prey will fall into the water. Researchers have found the fish start to sprint (swim) toward the spot within one hundered milliseconds of the prey being hit. The fish is apparently able to do some fairly high level mathematics to work out precisely where it needs to be the instant the target is hit.

How could a fish possibly evolve the ability to make these predictions. Many Christians believe that this skill was something that was provided by the Creator.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

So is the Archer Fis one of the original "kinds?"

 

[notto]

How could a fish evolve the ability?

Adaptation.

This fish found a new food source and by filling this niche, became a more successful breeder. The genes from fish that were bad at it were not passed on, the ones that were good at it had more kin. No mystery here. This is why we get faster leapords, faster gazelles, etc. This is a great example of evolution as it shows adaptation to derive food from a new niche that wasn't exploited by the competition. This shows a rather successful adaptation.

As far as mathematics, I don't think the fish does any calculation. Simple instinct and engrained action can account for a fish being able to successfully know were its food is going to be after it completes an action to obtain it. No different than hawks and eagles being able to successfully predict the path of their prey. The question would be, do ALL of these fish have the accuracy described? Do the ones that don't get less food and therefore die off before producing young. That would be the prediction of evolution.

 

[notto]

Looks like some Archer Fish jump to get their prey in order to beat out their competition (food snatchers). Based on their success at jumping, they may revert back to spitting if the success/fail ration is bad when they jump.

http://www.univie.ac.at/zoologie/theo/Archer.html

"A group of 17 subjects was presented with live flies serving as prey and the behaviour of the fish was filmed for later analysis. Jumping activity and success turned out to depend on the movement of the prey and the height in which it was located. Additionally, considerable inter-individual differences were found. The largest individual caused the other group members to reduce their jumping activity by reacting more quickly than the others. All archerfish were most likely to jump when this strategy appeared to be the most promising one. Jumping was found to be much more dependent on success than spitting. In situations in which the application of both strategies would have been possible the largest fish always decided for jumping, but soon switched to spitting in case of failure. More detailed investigation on this cognitive component, which is an interesting aspect of the hunting behaviour of Toxotes, must be left to future research."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 08:27 AM Micaiah said this in Post #1

The fish is apparently able to do some fairly high level mathematics to work out precisely where it needs to be the instant the target is hit.

Do you work out high-level mathematics when you throw or catch a ball?

 

[Micaiah]

From what I can gather, these fish employ a different strategy to determining where the prey will land than say a person fielding a ball in a game of cricket or baseball. In that case the fielder runs in a curved path as he tracks the ball it its flight. The fish is able to move straight to the correct position within a fraction of a second of a hit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:01 AM Micaiah said this in Post #6

From what I can gather, these fish employ a different strategy to determining where the prey will land than say a person fielding a ball in a game of cricket or baseball. In that case the fielder runs in a curved path as he tracks the ball it its flight. The fish is able to move straight to the correct position within a fraction of a second of a hit.

That's not the point. The point is, do you work out complex mathematics every time you do something analogous to what the fish does?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 10:04 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #7



That's not the point. The point is, do you work out complex mathematics every time you do something analogous to what the fish does?

No, I'm unaware of the processes used by my brain to make these judgements.

 

[notto]

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/refrn/u14l1f.html

"The secret to the Archer fish's success is that it lines up its sight with the prey from a position directly underneath the prey. From this vantage point, light from the prey travels directly to the fish's eye without undergoing a change in direction. Since the light is traveling along the normal to the surface, it does not refract; the light passes straight through the water to the fish's eyes. Normally, when light from an object changes medium on the way to the eye, there is a visual distortion of the image. But as the Archer fish sights along the normal, there is no refraction and no no visual distortion of the image. From this ideal position, the Archer fish is able to hit its prey time after time. The secret of the Archer fish is to use its understanding of the physics of refraction of light. The Archer fish knows that refraction is less when sighting along the normal. Now that's physics for better living. Like all fish, the Archer fish has spent its life living in schools; and there's no better place than a school to learn about the physics of refraction."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:20 AM notto said this in Post #9

Like all fish, the Archer fish has spent its life living in schools; and there's no better place than a school to learn about the physics of refraction."

 

[Micaiah]

Thankyou. I'll accept some of these skills may be refined through use, but I also wonder if this ability was programmed into the fish when it was first created.

 

[notto]

Well, if it was designed and Genesis is literal, then God created predators on the fifth day. Of course there are various people who interpret Genesis as literal who would disagree with predators being created along with everything else. If this fish wasn't originally created as a "kind" it would seem that this fish adapted after its creation, maybe using the mechanisms described by evolution although at a much faster rate than even evolution predicts. And lets not even start with the "information" that would need to be added to its genes to give it this ability.

 

[Micaiah]

The ability to shoot could have been used to dislodge plant matter before the fall, and the Hebrew word for living creatures may not extend to insects, which would mean this was not a case of death before the fall.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 03:26 PM Micaiah said this in Post #13

The ability to shoot could have been used to dislodge plant matter before the fall, and the Hebrew word for living creatures may not extend to insects, which would mean this was not a case of death before the fall.

Do you actually think about this stuff before you say it.  I swear sometimes YEC's have their brain filters turned off when they get cornered.  Let this stand as a monument to the mental gymnastics required to reconcile a literal Genesis with reality.  sheesh.

-brett

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 05:26 AM euphoric said this in Post #14



Do you actually think about this stuff before you say it.  I swear sometimes YEC's have their brain filters turned off when they get cornered.  Let this stand as a monument to the mental gymnastics required to reconcile a literal Genesis with reality.  sheesh.

-brett

You should take your own advice. Christians who believe that death resulted from sin take this to infer that carnivores didn't kill prey for food. They believe that up until the time of Adam, these animals would have eaten only plant matter. Evidently there must be a line that is drawn on what lifeforms did and did not 'die' before the fall. We infer that palnts must have died. I agree the line is unclear.

There have been documented cases of animals such as lions which are normally meateaters living their whole lives happily on a meat free diet. Even today, the presence of teeth and claws in an animal doesn't imply it is a meateater.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 04:19 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15
You should take your own advice. Christians who believe that death resulted from sin take this to infer that carnivores didn't kill prey for food. They believe that up until the time of Adam, these animals would have eaten only plant matter. Evidently there must be a line that is drawn on what lifeforms did and did not 'die' before the fall. We infer that palnts must have died. I agree the line is unclear.

It's bloody nonsense is what it is.  This is what I mean by mental gymnastics, you actually had to toy with not including insects in the "no death" clause just to make your absurd assertions plausible.  You have nothing other than one interpretation of an ancient creation story and you're torturing the data to try to fit it.  It's silly and a complete waste of time.

Today at 04:19 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15There have been documented cases of animals such as lions which are normally meateaters living their whole lives happily on a meat free diet. Even today, the presence of teeth and claws in an animal doesn't imply it is a meateater.

Were any of these lions living in the wild?  See, singular cases of lions in captivity and the eating habits of lions in the wild have nothing to do with each other.  Until you can find something more than a few cases of vegetarian lions in zoos, you're herbivorous lion hypothesis remains nothing more than a tortured attempt to support a clearly ridiculous assertion. 

Having seen you waste the time of others in the Grand Canyon thread by playing this game of mental gymnastics to the point of absurdity, I'm not inclined to waste my time trying to play it with you here.  Suffice it to say that your hypothesis has no support and is directly contradicted by the overwhelming evidence.  Any attempt to suggest otherwise is baseless

-brett

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 03:26 PM Micaiah said this in Post #13

The ability to shoot could have been used to dislodge plant matter before the fall, and the Hebrew word for living creatures may not extend to insects, which would mean this was not a case of death before the fall.

Maybe they didn't need to eat at all! If we are going to use "could"s and "may"s, then anything is possible. You have demonstrated why the ad-hoc, God of the Gaps arguments of Creation Science is not science at all.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 02:36 PM euphoric said this in Post #16

Were any of these lions living in the wild?  See, singular cases of lions in captivity and the eating habits of lions in the wild have nothing to do with each other.  Until you can find something more than a few cases of vegetarian lions in zoos, you're herbivorous lion hypothesis remains nothing more than a tortured attempt to support a clearly ridiculous assertion. 

-brett

In fact the lion was apparently a pet. In spite of the repeated attempts by the owners to get it to feed on meat it refused.
AIG LINK ON LION

Your reaction is pretty typical of those who are confronted with something that goes against their prejudices. The evidence is there to be seen. Christians recognise this evidence complements the teaching of Scripture.

 

[chickenman]

his reaction is pretty typical of anyone with any common sense.

You have a pet lion as a refutation

perhaps you could find us some pet mosquitoes that prefer the taste of leaves

 

[Arikay]

Yep, this proves that animals are a product of their environment.

Take a dog and a cat. Enemies right? Have a puppy and a kitten grow up together and they will be friends and dont want to chase or attack each other, no matter how much you try to force them.

Adaptable animals, that are products of their environment, Who woulda thought.