Evolution: the Facts.

[Dancing David]

Really? No flight instinct? No instinct to love and protect their children? This is all learned behaviour?

How can you say that Humans have no instincts after 6 weeks of age?

Kumar, instincts are defined as stereotypic behaviors that are invaiant for all members of tehs pecies and are hard wired into the neurology of the system.

Steenkh: Yes, that is what I am saying.

 

[Dancing David]

This is a sufficiently broad statement to require evidence. Is retracting your arm from an electric fence or a hot plate entirely and exclusively a learned behaviour? What about throwing up bad food? Rebalancing yourself by shifting your weight?

I believe the distinction is that those are reflexes (at least teh barfing) , but no you do not automatically retract your hand froma hot plate, that is a conditioned behavior.

You sure won't retract your arm in you touch it palm facing wrist down, your arm will extend, you should only brish fences you think are electric with the back of your hand, you might smack yourself, but you won't fry as long.

ETA: there is a common use of the term instinct that is more general.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't understand how anyone can say humans have no instincts after 6 weeks of age.

Um, what do you think is not a learned behavior?

 

[Dancing David]

It's a learned behaviour.

 

[Wowbagger]

Kumar, instincts are defined as stereotypic behaviors that are invaiant for all members of tehs pecies and are hard wired into the neurology of the system.

This is not a very good definition of instinct.

Instincts can vary. What makes it instinct is that the behavior would happen, by default, unless otherwise learned away-from. Or unless interfered with by outside parties.

Fear of heights would happen automatically, for most people. With few exceptions, most of us have to train not be afraid of heights. And, even those with no natural fear would become more fearful if they sense their position became more precarious.

Protection of one's children would happen automatically, for most people. Some people join cults and are brainwashed to abandon their child. A few have psychological disorders that inhibit their protection instincts. But, one does NOT, generally, need to learn that they need to protect their own children.

 

[BowlOfRed]

Um, what do you think is not a learned behavior?

Going to a cool place when it's hot out.
Finding something to eat when hungry.
Looking for a mate after puberty.

I would suppose that some of the mechanisms for accomplishing these behaviors are learned (stream is over here, water is in the fridge, this is a good pick-up line), but I don't see that the actual behavior is learned. ("Hmm, when Jimmy turned 14, he started paying attention to girls. I guess I should, too"). Are these "desires" characterized in some other way?

 

[Dinwar]

This is not a very good definition of instinct.

Nevertheless, this is the best we have. The problem is, an instinct is an inherent part of the organism. I'm not sure if it's in the DNA or not (not clear on how they form), but the organism will, unless damaged, ALWAYS do the action. You state that the test is to see if the individual needs to be trained away from the behavior, but in truth a better test is "Will the organism, if isolated from all others of its kind from birth, do the action the same way as the other organisms?"

This brings up the other problem with your examples: They are not behaviors, as such. Fear of heights may LEAD to behaviors, but fear is an emotional state, not a behavior. Protecting children is evern worse--look at the numerous ways that various cultures (and subcultures, and siblings within the same culture) protect their children. For an anecdotal example, I have friends who prevent their children from ever coming in contact with something that may hurt them, and I have other friends who go out of their way to expose their children to as many things, in controlled settings, as possible. Both are protecting their children. The first is protecting them right now, ensuring that nothing happens to hurt them today. The latter is protecting their children in the future, ensuring that their children can handle a wide variety of situations. And while we can debate which is better, the simple fact is that both ARE protecting their children. Compare that with a spider, which will always, unless it is damaged in some way, produce webs roughly the same. Crocs will always defend young making certain noises (they may eat them afterwards, but that's another issue). Ants know their job without training.

Are these "desires" characterized in some other way?

Yes: Desires, rather than behaviors. It's not instinctive to move to a cold place in the heat--it's a DESIRE. An instict would be "When the temperature reaches X, scuttle to the nearest shade". And while humans notice others due to chemicals we have little control over, our mating behavior is certainly not instinctive, not in the way that the mating behavior of, say, some birds is. And as far as finding something to eat when hungry, there are many who argue that we don't even know when we're hungry to begin with (thirst and hunger get wrapped up in one another). There's also the issues of WHAT food, WHEN to eat it, HOW to eat it, how to PREPARE it, etc., all of which would be covered by a truly instinctive behavior. A spider doesn't learn to eat the insects in its web (and most won't survive long enough to make the distinction between what is and what isn't good to eat [ie, what's food and what's predator] a learned behavior, because if they make a mistake there they'll probably die for their error).

 

[Dancing David]

This is not a very good definition of instinct.

Instincts can vary. What makes it instinct is that the behavior would happen, by default, unless otherwise learned away-from. Or unless interfered with by outside parties.

Fear of heights would happen automatically, for most people. With few exceptions, most of us have to train not be afraid of heights. And, even those with no natural fear would become more fearful if they sense their position became more precarious.

As discussed before fear of heights is learned and associated with the amount of movement a baby/toddler has engaged in.

Protection of one's children would happen automatically, for most people.

And is conditioned.

Some people join cults and are brainwashed to abandon their child. A few have psychological disorders that inhibit their protection instincts. But, one does NOT, generally, need to learn that they need to protect their own children.

people do all sorts of terrible thing to their children all the time, except for mental illness, also learned behavior.

And how do you demonstrate that it is an innate behavior?

 

[Dancing David]

Going to a cool place when it's hot out.
Finding something to eat when hungry.
Looking for a mate after puberty.

I would suppose that some of the mechanisms for accomplishing these behaviors are learned (stream is over here, water is in the fridge, this is a good pick-up line), but I don't see that the actual behavior is learned. ("Hmm, when Jimmy turned 14, he started paying attention to girls. I guess I should, too"). Are these "desires" characterized in some other way?

Yes, internal sensation.
You sense heat, you learn to not burn yourself.
You feel discomfort you learn to eat.

Attraction is about teh most complex there is, some is learned, some we don't know.

So were you born able to walk?

 

[aggle-rithm]

people do all sorts of terrible thing to their children all the time, except for mental illness, also learned behavior.

And how do you demonstrate that it is an innate behavior?

Simple...raise a kid in a box. See how he treats HIS kids.

For instance, does he raise them in a box?

 

[Dancing David]

Fear of heigths is learned, and wombats do not have an instinct to fear snakes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Dogs instinctively kill but they must learn that the stuff they kill is edible.

ETA: More accurately, they instinctively engage in behaviors that lead to the death of small animals.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't really want to risk derailing this thread, it is learned. Not all dogs kills small animals.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't really want to risk derailing this thread, it is learned. Not all dogs kills small animals.

I've never known a dog that didn't vigorously shake dog toys or other floppy things back and forth in their jaws. That's the kill instinct working.

Granted, it only actually works when the floppy thing is a live animal.

 

[Dancing David]

And they learned that, although the grap and shake might be. I have known dogs that did not kill hamsters and cats.

 

[Wowbagger]

As discussed before fear of heights is learned and associated with the amount of movement a baby/toddler has engaged in.

No it's not. Place someone who never had much "movement" as a baby or toddler, stick them up on some very high perch, and there is a greater chance they will be nervous up there, than not.

Fear of heights comes out of the desire to stay away from precarious situations. And, one does not need to "learn" what constitutes a precarious situation. The cognition of such things develops over time, in the brain, on its own.

It makes more sense, evolutionarily, for such behaviors to develop on their own; than for them to be required to be learned.

And is conditioned.

Lacking condition, humans will behave in a default manner. That default manner includes caring for one's own children, and not being perched on high places. (unless their brain is malformed.)

people do all sorts of terrible thing to their children all the time, except for mental illness, also learned behavior.

Right. But, barring illness and learned behaviour, do you really think humans would arbitrarily NOT try to care for their own children?!

And how do you demonstrate that it is an innate behavior?

In places where there are no laws (or at least enforcement of laws) for protection of children, most people in society still strive to care for their children as much as possible, any way. Often making great sacrifices to do so.

 

[Dancing David]

No it's not. Place someone who never had much "movement" as a baby or toddler, stick them up on some very high perch, and there is a greater chance they will be nervous up there, than not.

Maybe we should discuss this else where. the expression of traits of fear of heigths does not start until around the age of walking, as we discussded in the past.
Infants do not show a response to visual cliffs.

Fear of heights comes out of the desire to stay away from precarious situations. And, one does not need to "learn" what constitutes a precarious situation. The cognition of such things develops over time, in the brain, on its own.

Unsupported assertion

It makes more sense, evolutionarily, for such behaviors to develop on their own; than for them to be required to be learned.

that is a nice philosophical idea, but still undemonstrated and harder to demonstrate. It also makes sense that there is a god.

Lacking condition, humans will behave in a default manner.

lacking conditioning, show me that critter Wowbagger.

That default manner includes caring for one's own children, and not being perched on high places. (unless their brain is malformed.)

More stuff you haven't demonstrated.

Right. But, barring illness and learned behaviour, do you really think humans would arbitrarily NOT try to care for their own children?!

Can you demonstrate what happens to animals like gorillas and chimps who do not see nuturing behavior when they become parents?

tell me why peopel who aren't mentally ill beat the crap out of their children every day?

In places where there are no laws (or at least enforcement of laws) for protection of children, most people in society still strive to care for their children as much as possible, any way. Often making great sacrifices to do so.

That doesn't mean it isn't learned, many people go off to war for all sorts of stupid reasons, that does not mean it is an instinct.

If you wish we can start another thread.

 

[ThunderChunky]

And they learned that, although the grap and shake might be. I have known dogs that did not kill hamsters and cats.

Probably depends on the breed...clearly some breeds retain the instinct to hunt. Cats are probably a better example, they all love to hunt.

 

[Dancing David]

Probably depends on the breed...clearly some breeds retain the instinct to hunt. Cats are probably a better example, they all love to hunt.

Again cats may or may not have an instinct to hunt, they certainly like to play with things. And theer may be an attention to movement.

The dog I am thinking of was a terrier, he would chew on wooden cabinets as a puppy but not chase cats or hamsters.

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.

ETA:L Humping is a great possible modal action pattern as I have seen female dogs do it as well, but it could be a learned dominance behavior as well.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, instincts are defined as stereotypic behaviors that are invaiant for all members of tehs pecies and are hard wired into the neurology of the system.

Steenkh: Yes, that is what I am saying.

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?