Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Instinct - evolved or better answer?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 73 (266211)
12-06-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Carico
12-06-2005 6:19 PM


It is simply impossible for one species to produce offspring of a different species with whom it cannot breed.
Well, we observe speciation, and the commensurate loss of interfertility, all the time. It's very common.
This is an elementary principle of biology that evolutionists either do not understand or blatantly lie about.
Well, since we make observations of what you say is impossible, it's you who is either mistaken or lying. Which is it, I wonder? You wouldn't be the first so-called Christian to show up here and lie for Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Carico, posted 12-06-2005 6:19 PM Carico has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNWR, posted 12-06-2005 9:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 73 (266213)
12-06-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
12-06-2005 9:14 PM


Please follow the forum rules.
Glad to have you back, crashfrog. But please follow the rules. We would prefer not to find another reason to suspend you.
Argue the issues, without comments on the character of others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 9:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 9:22 PM AdminNWR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 73 (266214)
12-06-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by AdminNWR
12-06-2005 9:21 PM


Re: Please follow the forum rules.
Well, I'll trust that you'll hold her to the same standard. Or do attacks against "evolutionists" simply not constitute personal attacks, while attacks against "Christians" do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AdminNWR, posted 12-06-2005 9:21 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AdminNWR, posted 12-06-2005 9:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 73 (266219)
12-06-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
12-06-2005 9:22 PM


Re: Please follow the forum rules.
This is Carico's first day as a member. She is under watch, and is likely to be receiving some warnings if she does not learn to tone down her comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 9:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2005 9:36 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 73 (266221)
12-06-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AdminNWR
12-06-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Please follow the forum rules.
It's cool. I'll keep the snark to a minimum, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AdminNWR, posted 12-06-2005 9:33 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 36 of 73 (266366)
12-07-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Carico
12-06-2005 6:19 PM


Answers, please
Carico, I'm still waiting for answers to the specific questions I asked you in this thread.
I see you have repeated your beliefs in other messages since stating them in this one, but you have not responded to any replies.
Discussion is a two-way street.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Carico, posted 12-06-2005 6:19 PM Carico has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 37 of 73 (267099)
12-09-2005 4:45 AM


Gate Crasher
I got back to look at this pretty damn interesting thread today, eager to relive my evolutionary psychology days, struggling with the idea of behavioural evolution.
And what do I find? Some creo troll banging on about creation in a science forum.
Back OT:
"What if some degree of variation/experimentation is included in the "wiring"? I've met people with a wide range of "lateral thinking" ability, from those that can only follow a standard linear process to those that are always devising alternate processes to the standard, sometimes better, often not. I've often wondered if there was a genetic basis for these differences in lateral thinking, or if it was more a matter of nurture differences..." - Pink Sasquatch
I used to work with young adults with Asperger's Syndrome. They displayed the exact opposite of lateral thinking: one guy I worked with learnt to cach a bus to school. We were well pleased. Then the bus company changed and so did the colour of the buses. This foxed him because he had learnt to cach a green bus not a yellow one.
This makes me think that learning does indead set down neural connections that can be altered in time (look at how repetition helps memory and praxia) but that some organisms have a greater ability to modify these (on the fly). Two different examples of this are the tereotypical "egg catch" of the Greylag Goose and tool use in some corvids. One is functionally inflexible and one looks like it's very flexible.
Of course this could be two examples of the same thing, but we see tool use as more "like us" and so less "stereotypical."
My head hurts now.
This message has been edited by Larni, 12-09-2005 04:55 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cal, posted 12-09-2005 11:49 AM Larni has not replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 73 (267177)
12-09-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Larni
12-09-2005 4:45 AM


Re: Gate Crasher
And what do I find? Some creo troll banging on about creation in a science forum.
In a 'science forum' with a title like "Evolution versus Creation", that's going to happen.
I've often pondered alternatives to the woefully inadequate way our (U.S.) educational system is structured. One such daydream features a return to the old one-room school house -- but with a twist: much emphasis would be placed on having more advanced students assume responsibility for teaching less advanced ones. If you really wanted to see some sweat on them, split them up into groups, and make it a competition for the highest group score.
I tend to think of a forum like this as sort of a virtual one-room schoolhouse. One thing that's interesting though, is that (unlike schoolchildren) those with the most to learn often seem to be both the least able to learn, and the most eager to teach.
While it's rather easy to address this as a defect of character, it may be that this tendency is a feature of the architecture of the brain. After all, when it comes time to dole out reproductive success, what matters most is not how much knowledge one has, but how much knowledge others think one has. Assessing that is largely an intuitive process, and points are awarded for confidence. I have known several schizophrenics in my time, the most memorable of which had a view of the world which he could describe in such rich detail, and with such complete confidence, that I occasionally found myself considering the possibility that my view was the delusional one. Under the right circumstances, an individual like that might gain a following, and go on to enjoy the increased mating opportunities that accompany that.
In other words, beyond a certain point, neural plasticity (or we could call it "teachability") might cease to confer an advantage -- beyond a certain point, the most favorable strategy might be to further reinforce whatever connections are associated with the most consistent winner of competition between cognitive sub-modules...
...and then go out there and sell it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 12-09-2005 4:45 AM Larni has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 39 of 73 (400781)
05-16-2007 5:01 PM


Origin of instincts
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2007 4:22 PM MartinV has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 40 of 73 (401376)
05-19-2007 2:10 PM


Darwinists have no answer?
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2007 11:56 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2007 5:26 AM MartinV has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 73 (401442)
05-19-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by MartinV
05-19-2007 2:10 PM


Re: Darwinists have no answer?
Is it possible that darwinists are unable to address problem of evolution of instincts?
I don't think anyone has any idea what you're talking about - and I doubt few people are interested in debating with you, when you have all these convinient language barriers that emerge the instant someone has a legitimate rebuttal to your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by MartinV, posted 05-19-2007 2:10 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MartinV, posted 05-20-2007 4:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 42 of 73 (401464)
05-20-2007 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
05-19-2007 11:56 PM


Re: Darwinists have no answer?
I don't think anyone has any idea what you're talking about - and I doubt few people are interested in debating with you, when you have all these convinient language barriers that emerge the instant someone has a legitimate rebuttal to your arguments.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2007 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2007 5:09 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2007 12:29 PM MartinV has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 73 (401470)
05-20-2007 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by MartinV
05-20-2007 4:18 AM


Do Some Research For Pity's Sake
There is an extensive body of science dealing with the evolution of instincts. It's called "behavioral ecology". I recently read some Oxford professor quoted as saying that the field was "finished", in that there were no outstanding problems left to work on.
You would know this if you were actually interested in the answer to the question you're raising.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MartinV, posted 05-20-2007 4:18 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by MartinV, posted 05-20-2007 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 73 (401471)
05-20-2007 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by MartinV
05-19-2007 2:10 PM


Goddists have no answer?
Is it possible that darwinists are unable to address problem of evolution of instincts?
Let us assume that darwinists are unable to address the problem of the evolution of instincts (Dawkins might be slightly perturbed at such an assumption given he has written several books which focuses on this phenomenon).
Let us look at the three different answers that are possible.
Nature did it.
God did it.
Some other entity (a murky cloudy being called a Designer) did it.
The only difference between the three is that 'Darwinists' are not looking for evidence that nature did it, they are looking for evidence on how nature did it. The other two camps "Goddists" and "Designists" are still trying to convince us that their entity did it, and have no evidence for how EntityX did it.
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.
DNA is a stockpile of experience. It is a recipe for what has basically worked in the past. It is put together by trial and error. If one gene predisposes one organism to travel towards heat, and its allele to travel away from heat - the alllele which replicates itself more often as the result of this 'instinct' will become more frequent and will as such become the predominant instinct in the population.
If yes - how learning became "wired" into DNA?
Learning isn't wired into the DNA, the lessons are wired into the DNA - the learning part is called natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by MartinV, posted 05-19-2007 2:10 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by MartinV, posted 05-20-2007 7:26 AM Modulous has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 45 of 73 (401480)
05-20-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Modulous
05-20-2007 5:26 AM


Re: Goddists have no answer?
If one gene predisposes one organism to travel towards heat, and its allele to travel away from heat - the alllele which replicates itself more often as the result of this 'instinct' will become more frequent and will as such become the predominant instinct in the population.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2007 5:26 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2007 7:59 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2007 12:35 PM MartinV 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