Evolution: the Facts.

There seems to be an issue here;- The above definition in other language, can be called as inherant sense of right & wrong or natural sense. Here we have to take it, either inharent since many previous generations OR inherant from parents?

What basis have you got for belief that a sense of right and wrong is inherent and passed on? I reckon it would be more likely learnt and cultural. I am basing that on the diversity in opinion on what is right and wrong appearing along cultural lines and not genetic lines.
 
What basis have you got for belief that a sense of right and wrong is inherent and passed on? I reckon it would be more likely learnt and cultural. I am basing that on the diversity in opinion on what is right and wrong appearing along cultural lines and not genetic lines.

"Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.
The simplest example of an instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern, in which a short sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. However, instinctive behaviors can also be variable and responsive to the environment. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning. from wiki"

Let us first clear that whether instinct is genetic lines(somewhat genotype) or cultural lines(somewhat phenotype) because inherent can cover both?
 
"Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.
The simplest example of an instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern, in which a short sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. However, instinctive behaviors can also be variable and responsive to the environment. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning. from wiki"

Let us first clear that whether instinct is genetic lines(somewhat genotype) or cultural lines(somewhat phenotype) because inherent can cover both?

A "sense of right or wrong" or our ideas of morals clearly are not of this type and are learnt not innate.
 
Again I have seen most dogs engage in the shake and toss behavior. But I do not know if dogs raised in isolation from other dogs will engage it in, thats ort of thing helps to define an instinct. That it is expressed by most members of a species and that it expresses itself without training or conditioning.
What about the game of throwing and fetching that every dog seems to love? I believe I have known dogs who have not had a chance to learn this behaviour from other dogs, and they react to fetch a stick the first time you ever try it. No coercion is needed.
 
What about the game of throwing and fetching that every dog seems to love? I believe I have known dogs who have not had a chance to learn this behaviour from other dogs, and they react to fetch a stick the first time you ever try it. No coercion is needed.

I really don't see how someone can not think a great deal of all behavior is due to instinctual responses. I'd think they have issues with free will or something to be so opposed to the idea that a great deal of not only animal behavior but human behavior is in fact instinct and emergent in isolated conditions.

A multitude of animal behaviors in zoos in isolated specimens can be observed that correlate with wild examples. I don't know where to begin.
I can see how someone could have trouble with making distinctions between subtle learned behavior and instinctual behavior, but to deny instinct all together is something I think is just wrong. I'm not prepared to argue the case however, but I'd love to see the distinction explored in another thread.
 
Is there any relation of genotype & phynotype(genotype+environment) to instinct?

Its either that or divinely placed and given the bee example I gave before, I am going with it being in the genes.

Feelings of right and wrong (a sense of morality) are not instincts as defined earlier in this thread.
 
Its either that or divinely placed and given the bee example I gave before, I am going with it being in the genes.

Feelings of right and wrong (a sense of morality) are not instincts as defined earlier in this thread.

Can't learned behaviour be placed in genes--eq genetic predispositions?
 
Can't learned behaviour be placed in genes--eq genetic predispositions?
No. By the time you have learned the behaviour, all the genes have already been expressed. There is no way to influence genes through learning. Genes can be influenced in other ways, such as environment, or stress. But these gene changes will only rarely be beneficial, and certainly not in a way that can be predicted.
 
No. By the time you have learned the behaviour, all the genes have already been expressed. There is no way to influence genes through learning. Genes can be influenced in other ways, such as environment, or stress. But these gene changes will only rarely be beneficial, and certainly not in a way that can be predicted.

Does it suggest that instinct in all humans--husband & wife is same?
 
Again I have seen most dogs engage in the shake and toss behavior. But I do not know if dogs raised in isolation from other dogs will engage it in, thats ort of thing helps to define an instinct. That it is expressed by most members of a species and that it expresses itself without training or conditioning.

If most dogs do it, and it is a learned behavior, then what we're talking about is culture. This would also apply to such behaviors as kicking up grass after urinating and turning around three times before lying down, something we've all seen dogs do.

I find it hard to believe that dogs have a universal culture that is the same all over the world, while humans do not.
 
Can't learned behaviour be placed in genes--eq genetic predispositions?

I think certain species will TEND to engage in certain behaviors, and these behaviors will TEND to convey a survival advantage.

The tendency is carried in genes and is reinforced by application of the behavior.

Using the example of dogs again--the shake and toss behavior has not been put there so the dog can kill; rather, the dog can kill because he is predisposed to the shake and toss behavior.

In practice, it is usually a mode of play and is not actually used to kill anything. However, if a dog does kill something and finds that it is good to eat, then he has applied the tendency to a concrete action that will help his survival.
 
I think certain species will TEND to engage in certain behaviors, and these behaviors will TEND to convey a survival advantage.

The tendency is carried in genes and is reinforced by application of the behavior.

Using the example of dogs again--the shake and toss behavior has not been put there so the dog can kill; rather, the dog can kill because he is predisposed to the shake and toss behavior.

In practice, it is usually a mode of play and is not actually used to kill anything. However, if a dog does kill something and finds that it is good to eat, then he has applied the tendency to a concrete action that will help his survival.

I think, this only mean--survival of fittest & natural selection.
 
Does it suggest that instinct in all humans--husband & wife is same?
If humans have instincts (and I think they do), these will be stored in our genes, or another data medium that is replicated along with them, so yes all humans will have the same instincts - with variations, just like we do not all look the same.

I think, this only mean--survival of fittest & natural selection.
And I think not. The tossing and killing is not necessarily beneficial for dog survival in a human world. Natural selection, in this case selection pressure from humans, will probably weed out dogs that tend to do too much killing.
 
And I think not. The tossing and killing is not necessarily beneficial for dog survival in a human world. Natural selection, in this case selection pressure from humans, will probably weed out dogs that tend to do too much killing.

From personal experience, one of my dogs beats himself senseless trying to shake a soccer ball attached to a short tether. Time will tell whether this is a survival disadvantage.
 
What about the game of throwing and fetching that every dog seems to love? I believe I have known dogs who have not had a chance to learn this behaviour from other dogs, and they react to fetch a stick the first time you ever try it. No coercion is needed.

And there is a way to control for conditioning, how?

ETA: Learned means a lot of different things, like aquired behaviors.
 
And I think not. The tossing and killing is not necessarily beneficial for dog survival in a human world. Natural selection, in this case selection pressure from humans, will probably weed out dogs that tend to do too much killing.

Not unless they actively kill dogs with the trait.
 
If most dogs do it, and it is a learned behavior, then what we're talking about is culture. This would also apply to such behaviors as kicking up grass after urinating and turning around three times before lying down, something we've all seen dogs do.

I find it hard to believe that dogs have a universal culture that is the same all over the world, while humans do not.

The turning thing is not really investigated, but a possible modal behavior. Kicking grass is another, but again it is not really investigated.

learned behavior does not always mean modeling, if something causes you pain you will usually learn avoidance behaviors to the pain.
 

Back
Top Bottom