Hi Percy.
I think I've said this before to you, that falsifying any aspect of evolution would require that many observational facts are simply wrong. I can't imagine that happening. In principle it is possible, I suppose, but not on any practical level.
My specific question was how originally the instinct part of evolution would have been a hypothesis. I suppose a hypothesis has to be based on observable facts, however I dont see forinstance the mention of a primordial pool to be observable, even testable, but I'll leave that for now.
More specific to the observable facts...
But the fact of the matter is that this experiment has been performed many times. If you've read widely enough from the writings of naturalists, especially those of the era of exploration, then you'll remember how often they note their surprise at the lack of fear of the local birds in a newly discovered land, that they would fly right up and land on a finger. Later they note that the birds had "learned" to fear man. Of course, they didn't learn at all. Within a few years of man's arrival into a new area, those birds with a tendency to avoid contact would produce more offspring than those that did not, and they would pass this tendency on to their offspring, and it would become stronger in each generation as long as man remained present.
I think the entire concept (excuse me if I'm mistaken) is that instinct in specifically not a learnt trait. In other words a spider needs not be taught to spin a web from its parent.
Your birds example to me is an example of natural selection, not instinct. And I know what you're talking about as most wild animals that come into contact with humans for the first time, are not shy of them and yes animals that are genetically programmed to be 'more cautious' will pass on their genes, however I dont see instinct involved in this.
I dont associate instinct with aggression or emotions. Yes , we can breed angry dogs and passive dogs, if being angry is a benefit to surviving to reproductive age, then yes, that organisms offspring would have an advantage, same goes for certain organisms preferring to flee in danger. I'm more curious about instincts such as bees knowing exactly what to do without being told what to do. Same with spiders. These are all genetically programmed then surely ?
Darwin used instinct as part of his hypothesis, but then my question is that how WAS this a testable AND falsifyable hypothesis. Is it not any of these because of the 'observable' facts ?
cheers
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-27-2003]
™ Version 4.2