Couple Questions...

[DBspecial]

This quote from Jasper Rine says nothing about a behavior being passed on through genetics it says that behavioral traits ARE INFLUENCED BY GENETICS two very different interpretations.............but there you go again proving why they are the hard sciences because you have to understand what you read.........and why I have continued this discussion with someone who doesnt read books, for this long, is beyond me!

[Duck-butt Chucker]

This quote from Jasper Rine says nothing about a behavior being passed on through genetics it says that behavioral traits ARE INFLUENCED BY GENETICS two very different interpretations.............but there you go again proving why they are the hard sciences because you have to understand what you read.........and why I have continued this discussion with someone who doesnt read books, for this long, is beyond me!

No...quote is

"it is quite clear that behavioral traits must also be influenced by inheritance."

...keyword here being *Must*....they use the term "influenced" only because there is ambiguity to the "degree" (which can be as high as 100%) that they are "influenced" because they don't formally understand yet *how* exactly this occurs. They do understand however that genetics again *must* facilitate this same behavior as it was *quite clear* that these behavioral traits were passed from one ancestor to another.

Underlying point here being certain "behavioral traits" that dogs/animals showcase are genetically inherent, not learned traits...the "hard sciences" just simply don't understand *how* that is the case, but again regardless of *how* it actually occurs, it is again *quite clear* that it does, in fact, occur therefore proving the point I made about dogs inheriting behavioral traits from their wolf ancestors. Behavioral traits, whether you understand why or how this actually occurs or not, are still, again, *quite clearly*, genetically heritable.

[Silver Creek]

D-bC,

I made the statement that I thought feeding was a population based behavior, meaning that there is variance in the population on how they will feed. I did not state whether it was genetic or learned behavior, or a combination. It was a simple observation that needed no causal reference to be valid.

That is why I asked you for proof when you said fear of overhead predators was totally genetic. You can cite no reference or offer no proof that it is genetic. And yet, one would think that it would be easier to prove than feeding behavior is totally genetic. If you cannot prove the easier proposition of fear, how can there be proof the more difficult proposition that feeding behavior is genetic?

My second point is that, whether either of these behaviors of fear or feeding is genetic, how does that disprove my statement that it is manifested differently in different members of the population? As DBC stated, identical genetically controlled factors can be manifested differently by different individuals and this leads to a variance in the population.

This phenomena is known as heterogeneity or variance in gene expression.

Trends in Genetics - Somatic mosaicism and variable expressivity

PLoS Genetics: Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis

Penetrance, Variable Expressivity, and Gene Modifiers | Learn Science at Scitable

http://lungtranscriptome.bwh.harvard...202/cheung.pdf

You have quoted Jasper Rine as saying, "it is quite clear that behavioral traits must also be influenced by inheritance." Unfortunately, that quote contradicts what you have been saying about feeding and fear, that there is no variance. It is quite a different statement to say that some part of behavior is influenced by genetics which is what Rine is saying, to your statement that all behavior in feeding and overhead predation fear is genetic.

You previously said that you had NEVER seen a fish feed exclusively on duns, and you implied that feeding was genetically based. You also implied by the your reference that all fish fear of overhead predation, and since feeding is genetically based, all fish must feed the same way. That was what I interpreted what you wrote. Yet you now state, "no they are not robots they are animals who possess (at least some) autonomy over their actions." Was I not the one who originally stated that fish are not automatons? I wrote, "My view is that when trout feed, they are not automatons. I've said this many times before. Feeding is a POPULATION based BEHAVIOR."

Like your quote of Jasper Rine that contradicts what you have written before, you now state the argument I made against you as if it proves your point. I believe that your ADHD has diminished your ability to logically connect your previous statements with your current statements. Hence, I find your logical progression of argument to be invalid.

So I am wondering what you object to specifically in my description that all the fish do not feed on the same stage of the hatch nor do they switch from one state to the other simultaneously.

Like DBC, I am frustrated by your lack of a logical system of argumentation. To put it politely, you are all over the map. Your writing is very, very hard to follow. You wrote this paragraph:

"Thirdly I explained human traits which are genetically inherent to simply showcase not only physical, but also behavioral traits are gentically inherent even in a species such as humans which are far, far cognitively superior to all other animals in the world however even we still possess genetically inherent traits which transcend our "active cognition" of *why* we value them on our ends (we just "do" value them and even though have significant autonomy over our actions are still emotionally driven to respond certain ways to those certain things)...therefore assuming an animal (such as a trout) that has far, far less cognitive capacity and in turn less autonomy over its actions does not function like that in regard to specific things is a serious flaw in my eyes."

Do you realize that that the entire paragraph is a single run on sentence without an organized coherent sentence structure? There is little if any logical connection from one thought to the other. There is no preliminary factual statement to connect human thought to fish. It is merely assumed. You may think that is a valid assumption but it is not. You speak of human values but really do fish have "values" as humans do, that is, do fish "value" as we do? How do you know?

The period is the most often used punctuation mark. You should use it. How about the following statement, "therefore assuming an animal (such as a trout) that has far, far less cognitive capacity and in turn less autonomy over its actions does not function like that in regard to specific things is a serious flaw in my eyes." I can't decipher what that means.

I am honestly unable to tell what you are saying above, nor am I able to tell the logical progression of your argument. I am plainly befuddled.

Now lets take another statement in the same post. You said, "2.) How they behave despite possessing the ability to inherently recognize and prefer states of increased vulnerability in minnows/mayflies would be relative to the environment they live in terms based on how rich it was in food relative to their dietary requirements and also relative to the fish itself in terms of their size, quality of holding/feeding lies they manage to stake for themselves, etc."

That is another run on sentence that seems to simply say "fish behave according to their environment." If that is what you mean, why not just say that without all the stuff that really does nothing except to confuse matters? Is all that other fluff there just to make it seem like you are making a profound statement?

[DBspecial]

This inheritance behavior of the genetics trout side is the forgoing statement of the quote that is what I was trying to disprove on the page previously posted yesterday by the Tierra Del Fuego *Birds Of Prey* which have population based instincts as passed on by the fact that trout live in their presence BUT even if the dont what will be the outcome of such a prerequisite for the trouts autonomy!!!! WHO AM I?

[Silver Creek]

No, i've never taken a single psychology class in 6 years of College...BA History minor Pol Sci and Classics (ie; Latin)...MA Liberal Studies concentration Political Science...Employment will be FDNY as of Spring 2012...not a single psycology class whatsoever and I don't read books as I already mentioned multiple times.

Since we are listing our education, here is my CV. I am a retired physician. I graduated as valedictorian in my high school class of over 900 students. I have an undergraduate and a medical degree from Stanford University. I grew up poor and attended Stanford on a trustees scholarship that paid for tuition, room and board and books

I had the highest grade in first year chemistry and the 4th highest grade in first year physics at Stanford. I was awarded the freshman chemistry award as the best chemistry student and was elected to the chemistry honor society after my freshman year.

My undergraduate major was chemistry. I graduated with "great distinction", Stanford's version of magna cum laude. I was the top graduate in chemistry and the only Phi Beta Kappa in chemistry in my graduating class.

I graduated from the Stanford University School of Medicine. I attended on a full scholarship that paid for tuition and books. I passed the National Board of Medical Examiners on my first try and this exam qualifies me for a medical license in every state in our union.

I was admitted to my first choice for internship as a surgical intern at Stanford University Medical Center and then as a Plastic Surgery Resident at the Stanford University Medical Center. I switched from Plastic Surgery at Stanford to Diagnostic Radiology Residency at the University of Utah Medical Center in Salt Lake City where my wife's family lived.

I was the Chief Resident for my radiology residency program in my final year. I passed all three radiology board exams on my first attempt - the radiation physics board exam, the written radiology board exam, and oral radiology board exam.

Before retiring I was the president of my radiology group and also Chairman of the Radiology Department at my hospital.

Let me state unequivocally that the degree of education does not necessarily mean a person is right or wrong. A highly educated person can be wrong and a less educated person correct. But let us also not ignore the fact that when there is a difference of opinion, the person that is more likely to be correct is the person with the most education and experience in the field of study that most closely applies to the discussion. Often the correct statement is also the view that makes the most sense to the people that are reading the contrasting statements.

[DBspecial]

Silver... Thats awesome. Im impressed by your curriculum vitae. I love biochemistry and will be applying to the U of Cinn. for a PhD in it. Im glad someone appreciates the progression of DNA--> mRNA--> polypeptide sequence and that only physically identifiable things can be passed on genetically. Of course, these physically identifiable things have influences on behavior (Jasper Rine qoute) as they move through the body acting as hormones and other signalling molecules. Signing out of this Thread. DB

[Duck-butt Chucker]

Exactly misinterpret what is said then respond to it.

First off, I don't care "where you went to school" or "what degree you hold"...a true reflection of intelligence is simply abstract reasoning based upon objective fact. Einstein is not "intelligent" because he went to X university or graduated X in his class, or his SAT score is X, the true reflection of Einstein being intelligence is things like his "Theory of Relativity" which is simply abstract reasoning based upon objective fact...so I have absolutely no value or interest for that matter what you or anyone else's educational accolades are. I simply care about the logic behind why you believe trout feed the way they do, nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, the only reason I stated anything in regard to my "education" is because DBS started going off about MA biochem this and stating I have something to do with the "psychology field", and insinutating that since "I can't read books" that therefore I am apparently an "idiot" which I simply then highlighted that I too also have a master degree, have never taken even a single psychology course, and the fact that I can't read books actually places a higher premium on developing the skill of abstract reasoning based upon objective fact which actually of significant benefit in the long run, that was the intent of the post. I also believe I stated that I only value myself from an aesthetic and athletic ability standponit and this is where I generate my self-worth from, "intelligence", in my case is simply just a tool used to help understand and function with efficacy within my given environment, nothing more, nothing less, so I personally can careless if I am ever wrong about anything. I simply wish to understand the reality of a situaion, regardless of who is the one conveying it, as this is all that has value to me personally. Lastly, this is a public internet forum, I do not care about using "correct grammar" or "sentence structure" and am fully aware of what is or is not a run on sentence, but thanks for pointing this out anyway.

Second, I "offered no evidence to support my case"...really..where have you been. A.) I highlighted numerous times that more than just "physical traits" are genetically inherent, behavioral traits, such as the points with male-to-female physical attraction, cats inherent ability to hunt, Dogs showing identical behavioral traits as their wolf ancestors without having ever been taught or witnessed such a behavior etc… were all provided to convey the general point that "behavioral traits" can, in fact, also be genetically inherent, not just physical ones, which is exactly what the Jasper Rine quote I cited also highlights. The Second piece of evidence in support of some (not all) trout behavior being genetically inherent was the Brown Trout in Tierra De Fuego, Chile example, an area where there are no over-head predators, yet the fish here still possess an inherent fear of over-head predators therefore, since there are no over-head predators in their environment to facilitate such a fear through subjective experience, then clearly there is a genetic basis for such a fear stemming from either, a physical or behavioral trait, that was passed on to the species from it's ancestors. On top of that Aaron also stated his experience steelhead fishing when these trout had been out at sea for two years and just returned about how they all collectively scattered when an eagle soared above which also would correlate with what I say as, and you can feel free to disprove it if you wish, I do not believe a trout's experience facilitated memory lasts a span of 2 years to where, even if they had such an experience when young, they would not still remember such an event 2 years after the fact. This is further, albeit circumstantial evidence, also directly aligning with what I state above about trout possessing an "inherent fear of over-head predators" so why don't you disprove that, as opposed to keep asking me to "prove" that when all the evidence I've mentioned in this paragraph directly aligns with my assertion.

Thirdly, I absolutely did not state *all* behavioral traits or *all* feeding traits are genetically inherent I stated that specifically *recognition* of minnow vulnerability and *recognition* of mayfly vulnerability are, like the inherent fear of over-head predators, heritable traits. Some behavioral traits are based on learned experiences relative to their individual environment/individual subjective interpretation of their environment, where as other behavioral traits are genetically inherent, not learned traits through subjective experience, that is what I said. My interpretation of what you are saying when you state that "trout feeding is a population based phenomena" is that every trout population and every individual trout within that same population behaves according to only learned behaviors via their subjective interpretation of their experiences within their environment. If this is a correct representation of what you assert then I disagree with that as *some* behavioral traits in trout are genetically inherent with those traits being, in my opinion, again: 1.) Fear of over-head predators, 2.) recognition of state of minnow vulnerability and 3.) recognition of state of mayfly vulnerability.

I would add to that list that Salmons ability to detect the pheromones of their home stream through the olfactory system in their brain (via sense of smell) and then all collectively return at a specific time of the year even from extremely long distances away in order to spawn along with their "precognition" of already knowing *how* to effectively spawn when never having been taught either of these things in advance are also both genetically inherent behavioral traits. That is why I believe clearly not all behavioral traits of Salmonoids in general are based on purely subjective experience within their environment, some are clearly genetically inherent which again the Jasper Rine quote doesn't "undermine", but actually directly aligns with.

...this is what I said, and that, in absolutely no way, shape, or form is me "asserting" that *feeding is entirely genetically based*, nor that trout are "robots" or any other mischaracterization you want to tack on along with that. Furthermore, simple common sense would dictate that trout also have far lower cognitive capacity than humans and therefore are accordingly, due to that lower cognitive capacity, would be much more inclined (in comparison to humans) to behave on just pure instinctive behavior as opposed to the consistent, active application of logic and ration to their actions. Furthermore, as I already pointed out in regard to male humans in an earlier post, there is a "genetically inherent valuation of certain physical characteristics by men in regard to women" in the sexual selection process. This is significant as A.) not all those traits were there from the start, 2 were there from the start and 2 developed after the fact via natural selection process after the species became "wary" of the finite nature of female fertility. The valuation of these traits which facilitate male-to-female physical attraction currently transcend active comprehension of *why* these same traits are valued, yet (thousands and thousands of year before the "mass media outlets" were ever even created) these exact same traits were still consistently valued by humans in every area of the world. Accordingly, if a hyper-intelligent species such as a human can still consistently be inclined (ie; meaning they still technically have autonomy over actions, but are inherently driven to behave in certain manners when presented with certain external stimuli/find themselves in certain situations through their genetically inherent traits) while at the same time also transcending their active cognition/understanding as to *why* they are being driven to behave in such a manner. In turn, please tell me why then a trout, who is comparatively far, far less intelligent and much more dependent on survival via pure instinct/behavioral genetics than a human is, (due to their much more limited cognitive capacity), would then also not be at least equally (if not even more) driven to behave in certain manners in certain situations that also transcend that species application of logic/ration and understanding as to *why* and instead is driven/facilitated by their genetically inherent behavioral traits. Especially when there is already plenty of evidence (as listed above with the Chilean trout, steelhead, salmon, cats, dogs, humans etc..) which correspond with exactly that being the case and directly align with the assertion I make that *not all* behavioral traits that a species of animal possesses, including some relative to feeding, are the product of "indivdual, population based learned/subjective experiences within their environment", but in some cases are actually clearly genetically inherent. That is both what and why I think what I think Silver so please make a case for the opposite should you beleive otherwise rather than citing "academic accolades" which I have absolutely no value for, nor interest in on my own end.

[Silver Creek]

Does anyone really understand what he said and how it correlates to his question? It seems to me he has "his" answers in his own head already.

Couple Questions. Limiting my box this year to the following:

Dries:
Adams CDC Comparadun 16-22
Griffith's Gnat 14,18, 22, 26
Serendipity, Tan 16, 20 (fished as a dry so i'll probably need flotant in order to do so effectively)

Streamer:
Black Weighted Zonker Size 8

Question 1: I fish my Adams CDC Comparadun for all mayfly hatches regardless of color (BWO, Sulfer, Cahills, etc..). I like the fly specifically because it works effectively for both an Emerger (body rides low in the film) and Spinner (close enough wing imprint by well packed CDC). I am considering having them tied on scud hooks this season and believe it would slightly improve my catch rate during emerger stage and wouldn't likely reduce my catch rate during spinner stage (since the body on regular hook rides low in film on spinner falls already anyway and wing imprint from the CDC is still the same). I also believe a "half sunk" spinner would actually look closer to a CDC comparadun tied on a scud hook as opposed to a straight hook anyway. Do you think this is true or would the "straight body in the film" be the better spinner imitator as opposed to "scud hook" version? Secondly, since the body rides low in the film either way with the CDC comparadun does it even matter using a scud hook vs. straight hook body in regard to the emergers to begin with?

Question 2: I have not used a CDC Comparadun to imitate caddis hatches of the same size but logically I don't really see why this wouldn't work well enough to where I would not need a separate caddis emerger pattern (ie; Serendipity) from my mayfly emerger pattern (ie; CDC Comparadun). Do you believe this is necessary or will they both work about the same? The CDC Comparadun will also get a consistently better drift vs. the Serendipity and looks almost identical in overall body shape if tied on a scud hook so do you think the CDC Comparadun would effectively imitate a caddis emerger well enough as well or do I need a separate caddis emerger pattern?

Question 3: I'm also almost inclined this season to just have every other size tied (ie; only 16, 20, 24) as opposed to carrying all sizes (ie; 16, 18, 20, 22, 24) since if trout are on "size 16 sulfers" and 10 people are fishing "size 16 sulfer parachutes" while the hook size for each of them is identical there is still both varience on the amount of material on the hook so that isn't a constant yet the pattern is still is efficient. i'm looking at my 18 vs 20 griffith's gnat and the difference in the amount of material on the hook (which is what actually imitates the fly, not the hook size itself) between the two material-wise is basically no different to where it's almost like to the amount of varience in material from the 10 different people fishing a "size 16" fly. I also have seen it stated numerous times that while one size larger almost never works, one size smaller very often does in my own experience, Rosenbauer states "same size or one size smaller for matching the hatch", and also many professional guides "swear" by using one size smaller as opposed to the actual size of the bug hatching. Question here being is it necessary to carry for 14-24 mayflys the same pattern in each of size 14-24 or can I get away just about as well with using 16 (for size 14 and 16 mayflys), 20 (for size 18 and 20 mayflys), and 24 (for size 22 and 24 mayflys) to cover that same 14-24 mayfly range? I absolutely agree fly size is extremely important, but more so in the context that the fly you're using can't be larger than the natural on the water, same size is obviously the general rule of thumb, but does one size smaller work just about as well (or even more effective as mentioned with some professional guides swearing by the tactic)? In my experience it has but I, when using such a limited # of flies to begin with, do at least consistently stick with the "correct" sizes at least however I am starting to doubt, based on what I mentioned above, if I couldn't just fish every other size and do just about as well. What do you think?

Question 4: if I carry sizes 16-24 for my fly patterns I can fish all those on 6x leaders and then I only need to buy 6x and 7x tippet which I like as 8x is too thin anyway and I break off far too many fish on the hookset to where it's pretty much worthless to fish it with the 9ft 5 weight I use everywhere. Question here however is i'm starting to think fishing a 12ft leader for the dries should be standard as opposed to the more common 9ft as often people will fish a 9ft 5x leader without success and then drop 2 or 3 feet of 6x off it and then al of a sudden "be successful". Obviously the 6x has lower capacity to impart drag on the fly so I have no doubts with that, but based on my experiences on the Farmington fishing Tricos last August. I used both 7x and 8x 9ft leaders was considerably less productive than when I fished a 12ft 7x leader. Makes me wonder if the extra 3 feet of leader is actually what helps people be more productive majority of the time as opposed to dropping down from 7x to 8x in the same situation. What do you think about this? In other words over the span of a season just for argument sake what would be more productive for dries if you could only fish one of the two set-ups: a "12ft 6x leader" or a "9ft 7x leader"? Essentially, is the 12ft vs. 9ft aspect of a leader likely of greater significance to the 6x vs. 7x aspect of that same leader when fishing dry?

Question 5: Lastly, when I fish streamers (namely my Black weighted zonker size 8) could I just get away with buying 8lb flourocarbon fishing line this year, cut-off 7 1/2 feet of line, tie a perfection loop to the end of it, and then have that be an efficient enough leader for throwing my streamers? or do I need to actually stock up on 2x leaders as well?

Thanks,

-Mike

[Duck-butt Chucker]

Firstly, pretty sure I asked the "original question" on *April 22nd*, it is now *May 19th* which is a month after the fact, where as you didn't even first reply to the question until *May 13th*. Is it not possible after the 21 days which have elapsed between when I first asked the question and when you first replied to the question that maybe, at this point, I have thought about and come up with an answer to something I asked about a month ago? Does that defy all legitmate logic and ration as well?

Secondly, did you not write to me:

"DBC,
I asked you a simple yes/no question and a followup question. Specifically, I wrote:

"So to get back to the original premise. I have two questions?

1. Do you think feeding is genetically based?

2. If it is, are you then saying that because feeding is genetically based, that all fish must behave the same when feeding with no variance in what or how they feed. Hence, they will always take emergers, for example."

You don't directly answer either question. You talk about humans and their food preference and other totally unrelated stuff. So that there is no misunderstanding and no equivocation, I ask again:

1. Do you think trout feeding is genetically based?

2. If it is, are you then saying that because feeding is genetically based, that all trout must behave the same when feeding with no variance in what or how they feed. Hence, they will always take emergers, for example."

...Did you not ask me to answer that for you, did I not answer what I think about trout feeding behavior in my reply along with why I think they are at least very heavily genetically predisposed to consistently respond certain ways in some circumstances, and did you not mischaracterize what I actually think about trout feeding behavior in your posts with your follow up statements attempting to insinuate that i'm an idiot, pumping your tires, and make assertions like:

"You say ALL trout behavior is genetic"

or

"That is why I asked you for proof when you said fear of overhead predators was totally genetic. You can cite no reference or offer no proof that it is genetic. And yet, one would think that it would be easier to prove than feeding behavior is totally genetic. If you cannot prove the easier proposition of fear, how can there be proof the more difficult proposition that feeding behavior is genetic?"

or

"I am honestly unable to tell what you are saying above, nor am I able to tell the logical progression of your argument. I am plainly befuddled.

Now lets take another statement in the same post. You said, "2.) How they behave despite possessing the ability to inherently recognize and prefer states of increased vulnerability in minnows/mayflies would be relative to the environment they live in terms based on how rich it was in food relative to their dietary requirements and also relative to the fish itself in terms of their size, quality of holding/feeding lies they manage to stake for themselves, etc."

That is another run on sentence that seems to simply say "fish behave according to their environment." If that is what you mean, why not just say that without all the stuff that really does nothing except to confuse matters?"
When that's actually not what I mean, environmental factors have some influence because they animals are not robots and as a result they have some autonomy over their actions, however they are also not intelligent and function predomnantly based on genetic predisposition/instinct regardless of the specific environemtn they are located.

In my post, I did not clarify what I think about anything you asked me or clarify any mischaracterizations of how you "interpreted" what I said, I did not provide any logical argument whatsoever as to why I think what I think, nor provide any evidence whatsoever to support my argument for why I believe what I believe in regard to certain behavioral traits being genetically heritable in animals from their ancestors. I also did not highlight what the *relevance* (you guys mock me for) is between the "genetically inherent behavioral traits of a highly intelligent species of animal like humans" showcasing that even in such an intelligent species and even though they possess significant autonomy over their actions they still, in certain situations, have their actions consistently transcend their active cognition/understanding of *why* they are driven to function in a certain manner in certain situations, and just behave as genetically driven to anyway? Then I also don't use that point to then highlight how a "comparatively far less intelligent animal" such as a trout, due to their far lower cognitive ability, would actually be much *more inclined* not to use logic/ration in regard some of their behaviors and instead be driven at least very heavily in certain circumstances by certain genetic behavioral traits? Whatever you say guy.

Everyone on here is actually 100% correct. I was born in a cave, I don't read books and therfore anyone who doesn't read books must obviously be an idiot since no one has any critical or independenting thinking ability of their own and cannot obtain objective fact about anything, even in the internet age no less, through any source other than a book. There is absolutely no logic or ration ever, behind what I say about anything, I must be "right" about everything because "my self-worth" is directly derived from intelligence as I must value myself for that reason and obviously couldn't possibly possess any other worthwhile trait in regard to anything else on my own end, I attack people for absolutely no reason, my posts are laden with expletives which ruin the quality of the site, etc... etc. Whatever you guys say.

I'm done wasting my time on here as all that occurs when I make a statement about anything fly fishing or non-fly fishing related is ultimately just "hurt other peoples feelings" for me not thinking in certain cases exactly like they do and then providing my case as to why. No big deal on my end and good luck in life to the rest of the people on the forum. Take it easy.

-Mike