Thread: Electroreception In Animals - Why it has not been proved?

I guess this can be debated.


But in my mind there seems to be one thing that scientist seem to be overlooking and that is the fact that animals are more intelligent than human beings give them credit.

Why has it been impossible to double-blinded replicate findings independently.


The simple answer is that........

animals, birds do what they want to do because they are individuals, like telling a 2 year old human baby to stay still why you try to poke and prod them with test instrument their going to do what they want and crawl around.


Unless they can be trained to respond to low frequency electromagnetic fields 0.5Hz - 20Hz and get a reward or treat out of it they have no incentive to do what we humans want them to do.

The other problem is their other biological instincts that tell the animal such as to flee etc.... this is going to over ride every thing else.


I welcome input on this.....


Thanks

EMR15

Since electroreception in animals is very well established I have no idea why you are asking the question. Will you explain?

The platypus, small mammal or two, birds navigation, reptiles yes.

This about the extent that we humans seem to be aware of well in the UK anyway.

It has yet to be proved in cows, foxes and further animal species etc that show promising results.

Please elaborate if you are aware of other published results and finding of other larger mammals that have electroreception?

Originally Posted by EMR15

The platypus, small mammal or two, birds navigation, reptiles yes.

This about the extent that we humans seem to be aware of well in the UK anyway.

It has yet to be proved in cows, foxes and further animal species etc that show promising results.

Please elaborate if you are aware of other published results and finding of other larger mammals that have electroreception?

Electroreception is a ancestral trait that almost all known fish have to some degree., and that has been lost and regained by several terrestrial vertebratae groups. See the ampullae of lorenzini found in sharks. Electroreception is also seen in Apidae.

Originally Posted by EMR15

The platypus, small mammal or two, birds navigation, reptiles yes.

This about the extent that we humans seem to be aware of well in the UK anyway.

It has yet to be proved in cows, foxes and further animal species etc that show promising results.

Please elaborate if you are aware of other published results and finding of other larger mammals that have electroreception?

Your thread title was seriously misleading. What you are actually asking is whether or not there is evidence for electroreception in a very broad range of animals. Or more specifically you seem to think its apparent absence from many species is because our experimental techniques to investigate it are flawed.

Is that what you actually wanted to ask?

Thanks but you just told me everything I already know, if not falling short by a long shot.

I specifically said ''animals''()

{ It has yet to be proved in cows, foxes and further animal species etc.. that show promising results.

Please elaborate if you are aware of other published results and finding of other larger mammals that have electroreception? }

Thanks for the reply's anyway.

Originally Posted by EMR15

Thanks but you just told me everything I already know, if not falling short by a long shot.

I specifically said ''animals''()

{ It has yet to be proved in cows, foxes and further animal species etc.. that show promising results.

Please elaborate if you are aware of other published results and finding of other larger mammals that have electroreception? }

Thanks for the reply's anyway.

Yes, you specifically said animals. You also specifically asked why has electroreception not been proved in animals.

We seem to be agreed that it has been specifically proven in animals, ranging from fish to mammals. Agreed is has not been proven in all animals (including cows). So, is that what you were asking - why has it not been proven in all animals? Or, why has it not been proven in large mammals? The latter question being newly introduced and quite different from your OP.

I am trying to answer your question, but it is still not clear what your question actually is.

Originally Posted by EMR15

I specifically said ''animals''()

When did someone mention anything not an animal?

So far people have mentioned sharks, bees and fish.
These are all animals.

Large to medium sized mammals.

Cow's, foxes, other etc...

Thanks

EMR15

Not dolphins etc, please...........

Land based mammals & animals (medium - large).

So, just to be clear, you never meant animals in your OP, but large, terrestrial mammals? Do I have it correct now? I'm about to invest time to find what I can to answer your question and I do not want that time to be wasted because you move the goalposts again.

Originally Posted by EMR15

Large to medium sized mammals.
Cow's, foxes, other etc...

Would a cat be too small?
It's only a little smaller than a fox.

Technically, nothing gets proved, we leave proofs to mathematics :P

No, a cat is good a leopard is better etc... thanks Redpanda.

Yeah true enough for the better part being proved by math.


By the way john you know exactly what I meant from the beginning your either being real stupid or the more likely one is that your intentionally being a prick, don't reply to my thread again.

Originally Posted by EMR15

By the way john you know exactly what I meant from the beginning your either being real stupid or the more likely one is that your intentionally being a prick, don't reply to my thread again.

Read the pm I have sent you.

Originally Posted by EMR15

By the way john you know exactly what I meant from the beginning your either being real stupid or the more likely one is that your intentionally being a prick, don't reply to my thread again.

Er, no. You are the one in the wrong. You did not phrase your original question clearly, and then you changed from animals to mammals. This is a SCIENCE forum, not twitter, so you need to be a lot more precise when writing questions or answers. If you have been confusing, and somebody points this out, there is NO reason for personal abuse. Mr Galt asked you to clarify your question and you called him a prick. Mr Galt is a moderator, and I should imagine that your remaining time on this forum is now limited.

By the way; I know that normally moderators do not like people correcting written language, but just to let you know: the convention is to use a capital letter for the first letter of people's names.

Also the correct use of your and you're:
your = your post.
you're = you are in the wrong.

OB

Thank you One beer for confirming my suspicion that I am not a prick.

Originally Posted by One beer

Mr Galt is a moderator, and I should imagine that your remaining time on this forum is now limited.

I try very hard to separate myself as a member of the forum, from myself as a moderator. I believe I have been reasonably successful in this. If EMR's time is limited on the forum it will be because (s)he continues to post vague questions, then tries to blame other people when they are misunderstood, not because (s)he has been rude to me.

From a mod point of view correcting grammar as a way of taking a dig at people is frowned on. My personal view is that if the poor grammar is a reflection of persistent carelessness and ultimately disrespect for other members then it is appropriate to point it out. I feel that is what you have done here.

The sad thing here is that a potentially interesting thread has been sidetracked through the inability of the OP to properly phrase a question, even when provided guidance. Ah, well.