|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Instinctual Behavior Vs Intelligent Decisions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The urge to figure stuff out is itself instinctual. The act of making decisions using parts of the brain associated with intelligence comes naturally to us, it is instinctual. Nobody has to learn to use intelligence - they just have to learn the relevant information and the skills to analyse that information well. So are you suggesting, according to current theory, that all these innumerate "instinctive" behaviors man shows with their innumerate grades and combinations, are inherited, coused by random mutations in specific DNA areas?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Yes, we inherit our intelligence. Much of this is caused by the genome we inherit - along with the environment of our development. This genome has mutated since it first came into being. The current theory would predict that the first life was not intelligent. So intelligence has arisen through the mechanisms described by the present theory of evolution. There may be further mechanisms that are as yet unknown. "along with the environment of our development. " Could you be more specific please? Is it learninig included? Could these "further mechanisms" be learning as well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But sure, learning is an important part of human brain development, but I'm talking about the unlearned stuff specifically.
How cam we be sure that leant behaviour ,repeated over many generations, is not finally ingrained to genetical structures so to be inherited and instinctive at the end? I know this thought is forbidden by Darwinism and current theory, but what is the evidence agajnst?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I'm not sure. In fact I'm persuaded that it does in fact happen. I can't remember the name of the effect, but the idea that organisms that learn ideas quickly have greater success - the faster the better- and this continues until it is no longer even required for the behaviour to be learned at all.
If i understood it well , it seems that you believe that instincts in first place had been learned and so are not the result of mutations .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What you have described is by no means 'forbidden' by Darwinism, it is essentially an example of what Waddington called canalisation, the repeated behaviour forms the suitable environment to select for variations which promote that behaviour. Waddington further called the situation where an organism chooses its own environment to a degree or modifies that environment to its own ends 'The Exploitive System'.
This repeated behaviour, which obviously predates any instinct formation,is carried out mainly through leerning process by neural system. This type of behaviour may or may not form any suitable environment. The gee dance in order to inform other gees does not have any impact on environment.In any case Environment change is trivial to instinct formation.Before the time learnt behavior could affect environment, many generations must have past.But in this case how the behaviour could be transferred to next generatios?
Waddington identified 4 systems involved in evolution, the exploitive system, the epigenetic system, the natural selective system and the genetic system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Some instincts may have originally been learned behaviour, but certainly not all instincts. And even those that are originally learned and later became instinctual did so as a result of mutations.
So lets take the example of a crow, who had learnt to choose and use a special long leaf rugged in apropriate direction, so to take out insects from inside their nests. She uses the method In her life span.How this knowledge is transferred to next generations if not a relative mutation does not happen on this specific crow? But surely the propabilities are that it will not happen.All the effort will go in vain! I dont think crows are so stupid to let it happen! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Your arguments are logical but so stretched up.Why not accept the simple and obviouw fact that learnt behaviour CAN be inherited. What is the evidence against it? We have only a dogmatic deny by Darwinists, which day by loses its impetus (see epigenetics studies). After all Darwin himself did not reject in some cases Lamarck's ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Wow, whenever a creationist/IDist brings up epigentics nowadays it is like a homeopathy proponent bringing up quantum mechanics, its just a word they use, they clearly have no idea what it means and they assume no one else does either but feel it adds a lovely patina of sciencyness to their nonsense. Please provide a link to some research showing epigenetics mediating the inheritance of learned behaviour. If you can't then please stop pretending it exists. I am not a Creationist. The phenomenon of learnt behaviour affecting DNA, if it happens, takes place gradually over many generations , so it can't be shown or proved easily, maybe in future.And it is not necessary these changes to happen on DNA nucleus. Any way there are plenty of hints about it in wikipedia.
Sure it can, by social transmission and potentially in the longer term by the sort of canalisation/genetic assimilation I described.
Not in this way.I mean by direct effect on genome and epigenome areas. What is the evidence against it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Whether this should really be considered a case of a learned behaviour, non-averse behaviour in the averse population, becoming an instictual one is debatable since there was clearly already some non-averse behaviour present in the variability of the original wild-type population.
At least there is doupt about final explanation and i hope there are also doupts about the main issue of learnt behaviour being ingrained in general genome structures.Mind you the experiment gave us these interesting results after about 10 generations. What would had happened after,say, 1000 generations? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Could somebody please answer me the following questions?
1.Is animal intelligene inherited? 2.How Is it acquired? 3.when does it start appearing in animal scale? 4.Does it affect evolution? 5.Is it instinctual or learnt? 6.Does it differ from that of man except quantitavely? 7. Is "correcting mechanism"inside cells a sign of primeval intelligence? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The authors explain this as a results of canalisation interacting with the strong selection for aversion applied to the population. This is perhaps a necessary conclusion since in the case of the unselected lines being raised on the peppermint food there seems to be no effect on their aversion! Whether this should really be considered a case of a learned behaviour, non-averse behaviour in the averse population, becoming an instictual one is debatable since there was clearly already some non-averse behaviour present in the variability of the original wild-type population. As far as i could understand, we have here an examble of learnt and inherited behaviour possibly becoming instinctual, even at the short span of 7 generations !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Through the genes.
Had ever been found a specific gene related to a specific instinct or part of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Thank you W.K.
As a start the definition Baker gives is quite near to what my theory says (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com). Iquote my self: Thinking neural system is a functional extension of genome, intervening in evolution process in a decisive way. .....
I would love to have your exambpes. In multi-cellular level, due to increased complexity and the greater distances, information has to travel from environment to genome. Here I think we are ultimately obliged to put in the picture the neural system (together with the adrenal one), as it’s known properties, as a transfer mechanism, makes it the best choice among other tissues. On the other hand the somatic/germline division in metazoa calls for a mechanism that connects these two.Neural system’s new role....... Information staff, after it had entered inside neural system is not just being transferred by it; information is being coded, valuated, emotionally colored and memorized e.c.t. There is choosing between information that is useful to survival and that it is not, understanding of possible dangers, threats, learning from mistakes or successes. Inside neural tissue tendencies are created, special actions of response are chosen, solutions to problems are found, plans are made etc. Also neural system decides what to transfer from the load of incoming information to genome of each organism, or, through empathy, to other members of the species and so to wide population genome. ...... Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3650 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But I would say that I think studies in mice and other similar animals have shown that instinctive traits such as 'aggression' have a genetic component, but I don't know the details. I guess you could look them up with a bit of searching around if you are genuinely interested. Of course behaviour has a genetical component. B ut it needs a wide intervention by neural system. That implies an equally wide intervention of learning process. That means that instinct formation is not a so clear cut genetical process.The relative work is: Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. Lyudmila Trut.* I also refer to Message 79 by W.K. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024