Instinct - evolved or better answer?

Reading on parasites it occurs me how developed sometimes very complicated chain of instincts or innate behaviour in them? I have just read this thread and here is nothing about explanation how instincts evolved (or wired as somebody call it here). I didn't find
much on inet too.It seems to me that learning could not be the source of instincts because it would mean to wire experience into DNA - some kind of theory darwinists dismissed long ago.Origin of a congenital instinct (congenital behaviour) must be only random mutation according darwinism, am I right?Explanation of the phenomenon that some kind of worms having parasites start to eat poisonous leaves (they do not eat it normally) to get rid of them (Carl Zimmerarasite Rex) could not be explained by chance of eating this leaves and learning and transmitting experience into descendants I suppose. Such innante instinct - according darwinism - evolved independetly of any experience. Random mutation in DNA caused that worms having such mutation and being infected start to seek and eat the given kind of plants. Am I right?

So question stands like this: have learning some significance in evolution of instincts? If yes - how learning became "wired" into DNA?Is it possible that darwinists are unable to address problem of evolution of instincts?

I see. You don't know. But never mind, darwinists don't have answer generally I suppose. If I would ask how aerodynamic shapes of some plant seeds evolved there will be 10 ready darwinistic answers here by an hour (there will be no language barriers somehow to underestand what I mean).With instincts the problem seem to be more complicated. If the instincts are innate it will presume they are somehow coded in DNA.According (neo)darwinism all proteins and subsequently all shapes and colors of animals arose via random mutation and were "picked up" by natural selection (I do not consider sexual selection and genetic drift etc for the moment).So the same should be valid for instincts I suppose. Instincts would have arisen by random mutation picked up by NS. Anyway that innate behaviour arose via random mutation of DNA is an idea that probably even hard-core darwinists are perplexed by. So they pretend the problem does not exist.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

I have quoted an interesting example from Carl Zimmer book "Parasite Rex" that some kind of worms being infected by parasites eating out their inwards start to eat some poisonous leaves to get rid of the parasites. The process is evidently innate.You have given simple example - instinct to heat/cold. I am not sure example I have given could be reduced to such triviality.For evolution of such instinct via random mutation there should occurs via random mutations not binary reactions (light/dark) but let say as many reactions as there are plants where worm lives. Only one of them proved to be favourable. Maybe infected worms react to some smell of the plants. Yet they eat the leaves only in cace of emergency. So the reaction is combined with infection.Btw. same instincts - or in this case is also learning connected I dont know - were found amongst chimpanzee - having intestines parasites they scrape the bark from the special kind of tree and eat the the cork or wood under them. I cant imagine how they found out which kind of trees are benign by random mutation...(btw its Michael Behe idea that darwinism is more about imagination).The same for animals eating mushrooms. They must have evolved instincts which mushrooms are edible and which poisonous. Looking on animal poisoned by eating mushroom or poisoning itself and survive would not help - experience could not be transferred by DNA to next generations. As you know there are many kind of mushrooms not only binary (warm/cold) with different coloration and different type of poisons. Random mutation have to catch all of them.So I repeat I am not sure that above mentioned examples could be reduced to some simple example as reaction to light/dark.Anyway if you or other darwinists here have some interesting neodarwinian link to evolution of more complicated insticts (especially in multicellular organisms with nerves) I would appreciate it very.

Maybe you were dreaming. Otherwise you would have given name of that Oxford professor - or better link where the pundit states that the study of evolution of instincts was finished and there are no outstanding problems left, hehehe.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

I have given already an example of worms eating poisonous leaves after they are infected with parasites.I also wrote about instincts of wild mammals to avoid poisonous mushrooms and to eat only edible ones.Do you mean that such behaviour is caused by "random mutation" which provide an idea to the animal which plants/fungi are detrimental and only those with such ideas survived subsequently NS?Would it mean that mammals/worms possesed map (images) of all poisonous fungis/plants of the environment they live in? Of course if such instinct is innate such map could not have been created by learning. Because learning experience cannot be written into DNA of the next generation.So random mutation is responsible for creating ideas what mushrooms are edible to mammals and what plants have healing effects on worms. Only on such innate ideas NS could act upon.(Maybe some Darwinist could instead random mutation/natural selection nonsense apply Dawkins conception about memes - only those memes of smell of poisonous leaves/fungi survived. But these memes in animals arouse via random mutation of their DNA and are transerred vertically.)

I don't know if "slightly" in this case is correct. To eat such leaves they have to had the gene or not - tertium not datur. The leaves are poisonous - they do not feed them normaly.I see what you mean by refined instict anyway. On the other hand the case is probably the same as some cases of mimicry. There are butterfly mimics with "refined" resemblance to model. Yet the same species have sometimes polymorphic females - some refined mimics and some conspicuous. Both thrive well. The same for worms - only some of them have these instincts. Other do not have and thrive as well. Why should NS act so strongly only on these kind of worms? Maybe scientists should make an experiment to rear some group without older individuals. I would say if no learning and experience from older individuals occurs there must be an innate instinct which kind of tree has these healing effects. I consider it not normal to experiment eating cork under the bark - there must be at least some tendency to do it if intestine parasites are present. There are - I suppose - many kind of trees in forests where chimps live. Yet you consider one quality (or two, old Greek philosophical dispute ) - warm/cold. The examples I have given I am not sure we can reduce thet way. Reality of poisonous/edible or healing/detrimental cannot be probably reduced into one-two qualities. Poisoning (healing) are caused by many chemical compounds and I am not sure that some generalization of chemicals can be done - poisonous/not poisonous. I have read that red Amanita with white dots have toxical effects and are eaten and looked for by deers to have some kind of drunkeness. On the other hand most poisonous Amanita have green (cryptic?) cap. There is no connection between toxicity and poisonous character of mushrooms - I quoted scientific research on this elsewhere. I suppose the toxicity of mushrooms cannot be reduced to some simple quality of coloration or smell. Yet I suppose the mammals oriented predominantly by smell. What you probably propose there is some simple "rule of thumb" how to tell apart poisonous mushrooms from edible ones by smell. Maybe it is so simple and maybe not. The problem of instincts is interesting one because it has more to do with nerves, "psyche", so to say with spirit. In the time being it is question of belief if instincts can be explained via RM/NS only or something else play its role. My unscientifical guess is that there were once forces present that enabled learning to be "wired" into DNA. Evolution was once much more creative than nowadays. Now everything is so to say "frozen". I share opinion of Pierre Grasee and John Davison that creative driving forces of evolution do not take effect anymore.John Davison often propagate an idea that phylogeny is like ontogeny. Chance play no role in any of them. Both processes are predetermined, prescribed.

OK. Mutation of some gene slightly predisposed worms towards eating certain species of plants with leaves. There are many kind of leaves and smells anyway. Random mutation somehow predisposed worm to be susceptible (only when infected) to some chemical compound emanated from the given plant. There are many smells in forest from plants, animals, resin, mushrooms, pheromones etc... Probability that random mutation catch predisposition towards one smell in forest is negligible I would say. So if they have got them they survive but if they haven't got them they survive as well. The same for polymorphic mimic females of Papilio dardanus.
Obviously Natural selection is very benevolent in some cases. I suppose that inheritance of acquired traits is lamarckism, not darwinism. At least I have had on my mind such explanation.

Of course. Here is Zimmer's article he put into his book:

quote:

---

Sometimes parasitized animals change their diet. Some woolly bear caterpillars, for example, normally eat lupines. If attacked by parasitic flies that lay eggs in their bodies, they switch to a diet of poisonous hemlocks. The fly larvae still emerge from the caterpillar, but some chemical in the hemlocks helps the woolly bears stay alive, grow to adulthood, and ultimately metamorphose into Isabella moths. The caterpillars, in other words, have evolved a simple kind of medicine. Chimpanzees also, when infected with flukes and other kinds of worms, seek out plants with medicinal value, swallowing certain kinds of leaves whole and stripping the bark off other plants to get at the bitter pith inside. When studying these plants in the laboratory, scientists have discovered that they contain substances that are harmful to many parasites.

---

http://findarticles.com/...i_m1134/is_7_109/ai_65132195/pg_2 I have already mentioned John Davison's Manifesto or Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis which I consider as a very valuable antidarwinian source of thoughts.

It would mean that that parasites possess some magic spell - call it proteins - with which they force catepillar to eat hemlocks (btw. wouldn't have been Socrates poisoned by hemlock?). In medieval period some scientists believed - Giordano Bruno as most prominent example - that by some magic you can influence stars and planets. Now we laugh at such ideas. Yet an idea that complex of proteins that influence behaviour of caterpillars arose via random mutation of DNA parasites seems to be somehow perfect scientific explanation nowadays.

Yet other species of worms are sometimes infected too. They do not eat poisonous leaves to get rid of the parasites but neverthenless they thrive as well. Natural selection seems to be very fond of the other worm species. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

What do you mean by "different things happen to them"? Please let us know what "different things happen" to larvae of Pheosia tremula, Drymonia ruficornis, Panaxia dominula, Nymphalis polychloros, Nymphalis antiopia? What different things happen to butterflies of them that they have different coloration and patterns of wings?Or better: If you want I can find you examples of different larvae eating the same plants and having not only different "look" but also different wing patterns of adult stage as butterflies.You only suppose that behind each behaviour (like eating poisonous leaves) is random mutation and natural selection as source of it.I suspect you that you even in blue spots on the wings margin of butterflies Nymphalis antiopa sees "natural selection". Calm down. Just some examples from the Nature where obviously darwinian mantras of "random mutation" and "natural selection" as source of the phenomena is funny enough to everyone.

You have to think so - tertium non datur. In case of butterflies and mushrooms there is no sexual selection responsible for coloration (in the second case it is obvious - in the first case: butterflies do not have generally good vision). So if a darwinist cannot obscure the problem with "sexual selection" I can tell pretty well what a darwinian explanation is, ass. It matters. You obviously don't want to see examples that contradict you darwinian explanation. The problem is this one: if natural selection is so strong that it modifies behaviour/coloring of a species how is it possible that on the same area and at the same time coexist many similar species (larvae or butterfiles) with different behaviour and different color patterns and yet obviously with the same set of predators?One species of larvae eat poisonous leaves to get rid of parasites and many others kind of larvae do not eat such leaves, do have parasites, died and yet thrive as well.Go to meadow and see butterflies - there are some colorfull with eye spots on wings, some species are blue and other species are white. They fly and seat on the same places. Some species even mimic wasps or bees. Yet all these species coexist and thrive. Do you see there any "natural selection" in action? I can assure you that it is funny to some experts too, or at least weird - I quoted them elsewhere. Random mutation has nothing to do with evolution. All mutations we observe destroy genetic information. All genetic human diseases are good examples. That sequence of "benign" random mutation can ad hoc create new phenotype is a darwinian fancy never observed and never proved experimantally. Yeah, irrelevant stuff... No darwinian explanation: consequently stuff is irrelevant.

I wasted a lot of time with marxism many years ago. They also pointed out that all the others had misunderstood marxism. You know they have the omnipotent law of the unity of opposites and the struggle between them. Darwinists have random mutation and natural selection as the core of mechanism of evolution from a common ancestor. They refined the hypothesis with mendelism, sexual selection, neutral drift, neutral draft, mutation bias, molecular drive, with evolutionary constraints and now people like you think that they possess some kind of esoteric teaching.