Evolution of behaviour: Requires a "pioneer"?

Dr Lou Natic

Unnecessary Surgeon
Registered Senior Member
I've been watching one of the coolest documentary series I've ever seen called "wierd nature" that shows the aspects of nature that are stranger than fiction.
This has always been my favourite subject.

Anyway, in the last episode I saw, about reproduction, they showed the african bullfrog. The female african bullfrog lays eggs in shallow pools and then the male stays in that pool and guards the eggs and he continues guarding them when they hatch into tadpoles. But gradually the shallow pool dries up and the tadpoles become in danger of ending up high and dry. Here is the wierd part, the father goes and finds deeper water, the tadpoles start to chirp which urges their father to save them. He does this by actually digging a channel between the shallow pool and a deeper pool which allows the tadpoles to swim into the larger body of water.

Ok, the mechanics behind physical evolution are kind of obvious, preffered deformities arise which are more successful than others etc, but with behaviour or instincts doesn't one individual have to dream it up in the first place or something?
I mean with this african bullfrog, wouldn't one ancient frog have needed to figure out that he could save his young by digging a channel to give them water?

This is just one case in a million, the evolution of behaviour in general is perplexing for me. It seems for the so called hard wired instincts of a species to change it would require freethinking individuals to pop-up and be successful. Does anyone see what I mean?
 
Maybe digging of some sort was a natural behaviour of this frog's ancestor in the first place. What then need to happen was to link digging to distress of its offspring caused by lack of water...

not quite sure how that could have happened though...
 
And I suppose those who dug were more likely to have their offspring survive, but some things like this seem amazing to me. Neat.
 
Back
Top