Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of Behavior
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 39 (183638)
02-07-2005 5:28 AM


Baby horses must be able to get and run as soon as they are born. This is a behaviour, and it must be inherent to the physical biology.
quote:
If this true then why is there a choice to do good and do bad? If behavior is biological and not free will, then there would be no choice for our actions. They would simply be natural processes
It is natural for a pack-hunting animal to concern itself with the wellbing of and its relationship with its packmates.
If we really had free will, how would we know what was good and bad?
quote:
So murder can be right for you but not for me?!?!?! I can see how evolution would support this fact and it leaves me with an undeniable sense of relief that I believe in a social system where right is right and wrong is wrong.
So how do you feel anout American troops murdering Iraqis? Or, about Israeli troops murdering Palestinians?
Thats exactly how murder can be right and wrong simultaneously - it can depend which side you are on. And that FACT tells that morality is in large part socially controlled.
quote:
Al Quaida terrorists are extremists. They believe that crashing a plan e into the World Trade Center was a religious crusade and they would be eternally glorified for that action. If moral absolutes are not held then we as the victims can just say "Well, if its they think that's the right thing to do then we can't interfere." No, behavior has to have a moral structure (right and wrong).
Isn't it fortunate for them then that were striking a blow against the greatest purveyor of tyranny and terrorism on the planet, so what they did was undeniably right and good?
quote:
If this is true then carnivores such as lions, sharks, etc. are the same as murderers. Except that carnivores kill so they can live....Why do humans kill other humans? Does it benefit our existence? Carnivores kill because they have to and its instinct but humans function on a level of right and wrong. You don't have to be a scientists to see it.
Except that for nearly the entirety of recorded human history, we have existed in a state of perpetual war. So no, you don't have to be a scientist to see that unviversal brotherly love is a fiction.

  
Psychopathologist
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 39 (183648)
02-07-2005 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by caligola2
02-06-2005 6:58 AM


Re: Behaviors.
It has been demonstarted that there is a significant genetic component to some of our behaviours. That strongly suggests that evolution would act on behaviours.
do you have a link to a research on the field which supports this assertion?
Allthough I don’t have links to the research papers themselves, I hope the following information is what you are looking for. As Nosyned correctly points out, there is a significant genetic component to at least some of our behaviors. Actually, I would go as far as saying that many if not most of our behaviors have a genetic component.
For example, there is compelling evidence that heredity plays a mayor role in causing behavioral symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Such symptoms include behaviors like: frequently shifting from one uncompleted activity to another, acting before thinking, having difficulty taking turns or waiting in line. In these studies the average heritability is a stunning 0.80. Some studies even finding a heritability component of 0.91.
See also: Levy, F., Hay, D. A., Mc-stephen, M., Wood, C., & Waldman, I. (1997). Attention-deficet hyperactivity disorder: A category or a continuum? Genetic analyses of a large-scale twin study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 737-744)
Another example is antisocial behaviour. Allthough there is evidence for both environmental and genetic explanations, Ge and colleagues (1996) find that antisocial behavior in biological parents is significantly related to the aggressiveness of children adopted out of home. Which suggests there is a genetic component involved.
See also: Ge, X., Conger, R. D., Cadoret, R. J., NedierHiser, J. M., Yates, W., Troughton, E., & Stewart, M. A. (1996). The developmental interface between nature and nurture: A mutual influence of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574-589.
Yet another example are depression related behaviors and mood disorders in general. Genetic influences are found to play an important role here. Although certainly not conclusive evidence for there being a genetic component involved, it is intriguing that parental depression is the single best predictor of child depression. More conclusive evidence comes from twin and adoption studies where, for example, it is found that the concordance rates for major depression in monozygotic twins is about 50 percent. In dizygotic twins these rates are only about 15 percent.
See also: Wenar, C., Kerig., P. (2000). Developmental Psychopathology: From Infancy through Adolescence —4th ed. McGraw-Hill Book co. ISBN 0-07-116641-6
The list of examples is endless. One last example that I find quite interesting and would like to share, is the (ab)use of cocaine. There is not a single mammal known in the world that will not self administrate cocaine if it gets the chance. Even preferring cocaine over food. Not surprisingly there is no one successful treatment for people abusing cocaine.
Maybe this last example is only partly related to the question you ask but it demonstrates quite clearly that at least certain behaviors are thoroughly ingrained.
Hope this was of help,
Psychopathologist
(ABE: fixed typo)
This message has been edited by Psychopathologist, 02-07-2005 07:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caligola2, posted 02-06-2005 6:58 AM caligola2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by caligola2, posted 02-07-2005 11:12 PM Psychopathologist has not replied
 Message 25 by Cal, posted 09-10-2005 1:07 PM Psychopathologist has not replied

  
caligola2
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 39 (183835)
02-07-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Psychopathologist
02-07-2005 7:15 AM


Re: Behaviors.
I am familiar with ADHD, but i didn't knew the example about anti-social personality, Thanks.
Welcome to EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Psychopathologist, posted 02-07-2005 7:15 AM Psychopathologist has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 19 of 39 (183862)
02-08-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by daaaaaBEAR
02-06-2005 1:36 AM


Re: Behaviors.
The following is basically a pure guess. After guessing, I state what "should" be. In other words, I'm spouting unsupported opinions. Enjoy!
Whether people exercise a "conscious choice" (i.e. free will) or if they are determined to do something (your simplified "genetic behavior"), people are responsible for themselves. People who "involuntarily" do things are still held accountable. They're punished less harshly, usually considered "patients" rather than "criminals." This is due to our ideas of "normal" and "free will."
In other words, if you kill somebody "by choice" or "by being driven to do it," both behaviors are not allowed by our society. And this is how it should be. An organism needs to be responsible for itself, if we are to maintain a useful definition of 'self' in the face of reductionism. (so I say)
--
This fits in with the question of "genetic behavior." Behavior is an interaction of "environment" with "organism." Part of the "organism" is "genetics". The interaction between the two determines behavior.
Some behaviors may be 'more heavily' genetic (i.e. current conditions in the environment / body system trigger gene transcription under 'normal' conditions, which then changes the environment / body system. This change can lead to behavior. These 'conditions can be 'common' or 'uncommon' (and I think this is a major way slightly-more-lay-than-me people often think about if a behavior is 'genetic')
Then there are behaviors that probably don't depend on current genetic transcription at all. However, since the current state of the body depended on previous genetic transcription (for example, long-term potentiation / memory in the brain), I don't see it's "different."
So, to summarize... I don't think it's a question of "genetic behavior" or not. All behavior is intertwined with genetic transcription. The question is simply, in what way. This is a simple piece of reductionism. Organisms need to be responsible for their actions, not their 'thoughts' or 'intentions.'
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-06-2005 1:36 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 20 of 39 (186392)
02-17-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by daaaaaBEAR
02-05-2005 1:41 AM


yes it is!
The behaviour of an organism, like any other characteristic such as morphology, is indeed a product of natural selection. This doesn't, however, mean that behaviour is somehow "coded in the genes", or that behaviour having a genetic basis is "determined".
There are some simple behaviours which do seem to have a straightforward genetic basis (for example song pitch in crickets) but at least in the kind of animals that commit rape and murder, biologists often consider evolution to have acted on the capacity to behave rather than on complex social behaviours themselves. So few biologists would claim that there is "a gene for" murder, or that there is "a gene for" rape, or that there is "a gene for" preferring Bach to Mozart. But there are a whole load of genes which, working together, endow us with complex brains and nervous systems, which are capable of a wide variety of behaviours that were not "selected for" by evolution - like arguing about creationism over the internet. for example.
So the answer is a resounding yes: our behaviour is a product of natural selection. But this has no bearing at all on whether rape is justified, "good for the species", or anything like that.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-05-2005 1:41 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 21 of 39 (205332)
05-05-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
02-06-2005 4:06 PM


Behavior can have heritability without determinism
I detect some familiar ambiguities in this thread.
Those who prefer a 'nuture-driven' view of behavior often seem unwilling to accept that behavior can have a heritable component WITHOUT any loss of 'free will' on the part of an organism to express the behavior or not. What they really object to is 'behavioral determinism', not its heritability. And behavioral determinism is just plain wrong.
Nor is it essential to identify a particular gene for a particular behavior in order to demonstrate some level of heritability for the behavior. The underlying genetics is really of little consequence unless you happen to be interested in it. It is enough to demonstrate that one can select for an increased frequency of expression of a behavior in a population to show that it has heritability.
For example.
Say I want to breed houseflies that will be more attracted to vinegar than to sugar water. As flies emerge from pupae I put them in a cage as naive individuals with two bowls, one with each solution. Every time I get a fly that orients first to the vinegar, ignoring the water, I put it aside and breed it with another that responded the same way.
Maybe this will be < 5% of flies in the initial population, but
I can almost guarantee that, given enough generations, I can breed a population in which a significantly higher proportion of flies respond to the vinegar than did in the initial population. This would demonstrate some degree of heritability for the behavior - how much heritability there really is will determine how many generations are required to get a significantly different proportion responding.
The point is, some genetic configurations will make some individuals more likely to behave in one way than another, but there is no determinism of behavior at the level of the individual. You will always have lots of variation in behavior even among cloned or otherwise genetically identical individuals.
Genetics can only influence the *potential* for expression of a behavior in an individual - not its *actual* expression.
Individual behavior patterns are properties of a particular phenotype, and are not strictly dictated by the underlying genotype.
So yes, behaviors are subject to natural selection and they do evolve.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-05-2005 03:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 02-06-2005 4:06 PM jar has not replied

  
wnope
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 39 (209210)
05-17-2005 11:15 PM


Dawkins approach
I personally tend to side with Dawkins view on this.
While Genes can influence behavior to a certain extent, there is very little Genetic determinism, especially in humans. Humanity is interesting because we can actually rebel against what might be considered beneficial actions (every time we use a condom, we're rebelling against the impulse to procreate).
An example of how Genes influence is that genetics can alter how influential parents are at different stages. Certain birds are able to learn to mimic the call of their mother from a very early age. This is known as learned behavior. The actual call is not imprinted in the birds genetics, but the ability to learn the call is.
Similiar instances occur with imprinted behavior, behavior learned at a very young age that is usually irreversible. For instance, some newborn ducks immediately equate the first organism they see as their mother. Because this occurs at birth, it must be genetic.

  
CreationWise
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 39 (241999)
09-09-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
02-05-2005 1:13 PM


I've been studying your talk and when you say whats good or bad depends on the society and moral system that means , like ya'll were saying, the Iraqi's can do whatever they want because their moral system let's them murder. But, why did their moral system get like that? The reason is this, almost the whole middle east came from Ishmael. Ishmael was kicked out of his home and sent into the desert. So, the Iraqis and the palestineins kill every one because their parents and their grandparents and their great grandparents and everyone up the line told them to hate God and to hate people. So that is the reason their moral system is evil. its because they've held a grudge against the human race for years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-05-2005 1:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 09-09-2005 9:08 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 39 (242002)
09-09-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CreationWise
09-09-2005 9:01 PM


Way, way off topic.
I'm sorry but we are on the science side. Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CreationWise, posted 09-09-2005 9:01 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 39 (242085)
09-10-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Psychopathologist
02-07-2005 7:15 AM


Re: Behaviors.
quote:
All behavior is intertwined with genetic transcription. The question is simply, in what way.
A masterpiece of understatement. I think that's a little like saying that global climate has something to do with physics, but it isn't quite clear what.
Part of the problem seems to be with defining 'behavior' crisply enough to allow us to even begin a serious investigation of the matter. Informal discussions like this one tend to take a rather high-level approach, and this fact tends to be somewhat transparent. We speak about a thing such as: "using birth control" as if it could actually be meaningfully reduced to a 'behavior'. The "as if" in that sentence does not render such an approach fundamentally flawed, it's just that when we do that, we are dealing with working approximations rather than with exacting precision.
Our first-hand familiarity with the nuanced complexities of human behavior develops gradually, a product of trial-and-error experiments with people who do not always say what they mean, mean what they say, say what they want, want what they say they want, say what they're going to do, or do what they say they're going to do. There is an evolutionary advantage in the ability to understand and predict the actions of others (or, for that matter, ourselves) and the key to that is making good guesses about their thoughts and intentions. In negotiating this terrain, we employ a strictly seat-of-the-pants approach. Not all of us are psychologists, but all of us are intuitive psychologists; our view of this landscape is not the high-resolution infrared scan of the scientist, but the poetic image of the impressionist painter.
If we attempt to identify the cognitive black boxes which produce our intuitive approximations regarding human behavior -- to deconstruct them in the hope of learning more about the complexities they manage for us, so mysteriously and so automatically -- we run the risk of becoming hopelessly lost. We may find that the efficiency of these routines involves the skipping of logical steps we would regard as vital if we were constructing them ourselves.
If, as an alternative, we decide to do this latter -- to rebuild, from the ground up, an approach to the complexities of human behavior which is logically defensible at every step -- we should be careful to avoid borrowing conclusions from the intuitive black boxes we are implicitly purporting to have abandoned. I see this as an ever-present temptation, by the way, because looking at the details means opening a Pandora's box of overwhelming complexity. To begin with, it's worth noting that the results of the recently completed human genome project indicate that there are not nearly enough genes in the human genome to account for everything a biologist (let alone a psychologist) would like to refer to as a 'behavior'.
This area of scientific investigation appears likely to be a producer of grist for the sensationalist media mill for a long, long time to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Psychopathologist, posted 02-07-2005 7:15 AM Psychopathologist has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 26 of 39 (242618)
09-12-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by daaaaaBEAR
02-05-2005 1:41 AM


daaaaaBEAR writes:
I'm bringing up this topic because I realized that evolution, with the advancement of our physical bodies, would also develop the way we act if my logic is right. If this is true then how is murder, rape, cannibalism, etc. justified?
Intra-societal behaviors differ from inter-societal behaviors; ie, "Us" is treated differently than "Them."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-05-2005 1:41 AM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 39 (243131)
09-13-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
02-05-2005 1:13 PM


I realize this is very far from this post I am repling to but you say evolution is a history of what has happened and is netiher bad or good. How can you say this when the basic definition of evolution is,"the process from a lower life form to a higher one." How is a higher life form any thing but good? About these morals, you also said the Bible said that. What you failed to mention is the Bible says God created us wih free will. It has nothing to do with society. If it did then society would follow all laws and we would not be having this discussion. A father gets drunk and shoots his kid. Where is society there? The beer commercials? No, that man DECIDED of his own free will to get drunk and suffer the consequences. A man commits rape, that is because he felt the urge. Not once did society show itself there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-05-2005 1:13 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:28 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 32 by nator, posted 09-14-2005 12:19 AM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 39 (243136)
09-13-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by igor_the_hero
09-13-2005 9:14 PM


the basic definition of evolution is,"the process from a lower life form to a higher one."
That isn't the definition. Rather, it is usually defined as common descent, and change over time. There is no a priori definition of "higher" and no specified direction for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 9:14 PM igor_the_hero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 PM nwr has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 39 (243140)
09-13-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
09-13-2005 9:28 PM


I am sorry. It appears that my information was flawed. That is merely the definition Darwin used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:28 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 10:27 PM igor_the_hero has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 39 (243156)
09-13-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by igor_the_hero
09-13-2005 9:39 PM


That is merely the definition Darwin used.
No, it's not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 PM igor_the_hero has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by igor_the_hero, posted 09-13-2005 10:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024