Evolution: the Facts.

[Dinwar]

You guys can google it for yourselves, but there are lots of human instincts, sexual attraction and creativity.

Few things to point out.

1) The presence or absence of instincts is irrelevant to this discussion, as you've presented it. You said humans are animals, therefore we have instincts; however, as instincts are NOT a trait universal in that clade, your argument fails on taxonomic levels--EVEN IF humans have many instincts.

2) Humans aren't truly creative. Check out Steve Dutch's discussion on the topic sometime--as a species we're remarkably set in our ways.

3) Good luck proving sexual attraction is instinctive.

but if you aren't willing to look up the many arguments and analyses surrounding human instincts, why should I do it for you?

This has nothing to do with it. You've yet to demonstrate that instincts matter in evolutionary theory, one way or another. You have no argument, other than "Some people say humans don't have instincts".

 

[Dancing David]

I think most folks here tend to disagree with him on that point. He tends to use outdated, and very strict notions of what instincts are.

A lot more about human behavior can understood through more flexible models of innate human traits. Since many of them tend develop along with the brain, it creates the illusion that some insticts are "lost" and other behaviors have to be "learned".

No, I am not, you just differ from me, and some of the things that you claim as 'accepted' are not generally accepted in the ethology and animal behaviors field. I am using a technical definition, if people want to describe other things they are free to do so.

The fact that something can learn and modify behaviors in response to stimuli such as hunger does not mean there is an instinct to eat.

And if you recall I have discussed with you that some behaviors are quickly learned to to inate ability comparable to instinct such as fast walking by ungulates.

But if you wish to discuss the unfounded assertions of Pinker and others we can do so in another thread. If you want to pretend that wallabies have an innate fear of snakes please do so, I will wait until better evidence is available.

When you show that infants do not learn a fear of heights then I will accept it, until then there is a lot of unwarranted speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

Who says humans don't have instincts?!

The need to eat food does not go away after six weeks.

The urge to procreate doesn't even start until many, many years after that!

And other than speculation and poorly designed studies what evidence do you have of these behaviors not being learned? There are elements of developmental biology in many things, such as sexual attraction and windows of bonding as possibilities. But that does not mean the fornication is a hard wired instinct.

If you had children you would realize they learn how to eat and they learn almost everything through repetition.This us very different from a deer running 20 minutes after it is born.

There may be some biological basis for language acquisition, but that is a subject for another thread.

As I recall jeff Corey called the consensus as somewhere between us.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5209487&postcount=88

To sum up, biological and psychological scientists do not use the term "instinct" any more because of the baggage it carried. Unlearned behaviors are called reflexes or modal action patterns, no matter how much it annoys people too lazy to learn the difference,

 

[Dancing David]

Who says that?

I said that humans under the strict defintion have three intincts, the rest is mostly learned, with some very strong biology influencing things.

But there is no instinct to drink, there is a reflex to swallow, but you have to learn to get water, drink it from a stream or a cup.

It is not a hard wired thing.

 

[Wowbagger]

I am using a technical definition, if people want to describe other things they are free to do so.

Your "technical definition" is almost useless for modeling real world human behavior and physiology. Perhaps it only makes sense in an older understanding of the field, that you seem to be trapped in.

Pinker's ideas are not "unfounded". He cites studies where innate characteristics are isolated and measured. They offer more insights into what we can expect from human behavior, than the older models you are referring to. His book, The Blank Slate, goes into many great details as to why.

 

[ehcks]

What's the difference between instinct and reflex?

EDIT: More specifically, what makes the mammalian dive reflex not an instinct?

 

[Wowbagger]

What's the difference between instinct and reflex?

EDIT: More specifically, what makes the mammalian dive reflex not an instinct?

While we can expect there to be a lot of gray areas between the two: Instincts usually involve more processing, and more use of higher-order parts of the brain (usually the newer parts, evolutionarily speaking). Reflexes use little to practically no processing, and only the more basic and primitive parts of the brain.

In the case of mammalian dive reflex, there seems to be an automatic reaction to the face hitting water, that does not require much in the realm of complex processing. So, it is probably more like a reflex.

ETA: Some of our instincts emerge out of our reflexes. For example: The fear of heights (contrary to what some folks in this thread might say) really doesn't have to be "learned". There is a reflexive reaction to being placed in a precarious position, such as at a great height, and to a certain degree, there could be a reflexive sensation of disorientation and dizziness as well. These, and other factors, lead to an innate fear of heights, that can be called instinctual, as the body processes what is going on, and reacts to the situation.

 

[catsmate]

I have... questions ...about the History we are taught as fact, and I believe
evidence, common sense and logic suggests they are valid ones.
Earths Forbidden Secrets explores those questions.

"Earth's Forbidden Secrets"

It is my hope that people will not simply take what is said in this book as the truth, but will research and find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

He came. He spammed. He was unpersoned.

 

[catsmate]

Not going to waste time here. You guys can google it for yourselves, but there are lots of human instincts, sexual attraction and creativity. Some argue persuasively that language is an instinct, not the particular language but the drive towards communicating via language. There are others, but if you aren't willing to look up the many arguments and analyses surrounding human instincts, why should I do it for you?

So yet again you cannot produce any evidence for your opinions? And expect others to do the research to support your argument?

 

[Dancing David]

Your "technical definition" is almost useless for modeling real world human behavior and physiology. Perhaps it only makes sense in an older understanding of the field, that you seem to be trapped in.

Pinker's ideas are not "unfounded". He cites studies where innate characteristics are isolated and measured. They offer more insights into what we can expect from human behavior, than the older models you are referring to. His book, The Blank Slate, goes into many great details as to why.

You are still incorrect, my usage of the term as explained this thread is. You want to use a term other than MAP go ahead, it is fraught with baggae and too vauge. You jeep waqnting to sue such an unscientific term be my guest,

Other threads exist if you wish to defend Pinker,

 

[Dancing David]

While we can expect there to be a lot of gray areas between the two: Instincts usually involve more processing, and more use of higher-order parts of the brain (usually the newer parts, evolutionarily speaking). Reflexes use little to practically no processing, and only the more basic and primitive parts of the brain.

In the case of mammalian dive reflex, there seems to be an automatic reaction to the face hitting water, that does not require much in the realm of complex processing. So, it is probably more like a reflex.

ETA: Some of our instincts emerge out of our reflexes. For example: The fear of heights (contrary to what some folks in this thread might say) really doesn't have to be "learned". There is a reflexive reaction to being placed in a precarious position, such as at a great height, and to a certain degree, there could be a reflexive sensation of disorientation and dizziness as well. These, and other factors, lead to an innate fear of heights, that can be called instinctual, as the body processes what is going on, and reacts to the situation.

Except the data are more ambiguous and just asserting that it is shown is not correct, saying that it is possible and not eliminated would be most accurate.

To say that it is likely or founds are very incorrect. assertions without evidence are still assertions. When that idea is demonstrated and shown then it will be widely accepted, you assert a minority POV as though it is demonstrated.

When it is then I will agree, at this point , possible but undemonstrative.

And you still insist on asserting what is not really well demonstrated and a small minority view.

 

[Wowbagger]

And you still insist on asserting what is not really well demonstrated and a small minority view.

That "small minority" is growing as the evidence grows. In fact, I don't think it's even so "small" anymore. But, the size of the group doesn't matter as much as the quality of the framework they are promoting.

Modern psychology is using evolutionary concepts more often in their fundamental work. And, part of that involves innate human abilities, and the pathways that lead to them. The older models of "instict" and such were a little to simple to account for everything we know, today.

I still encourage you to read Pinker's The Blank Slate. He writes about this stuff much more elegantly than I do. And, he cites his sources.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You must read: Earth's Forbidden Secrets' by Max Igan @ The Crowhouse dot com

Really? I don't get that impression at all.

 

[godless dave]

If you had children you would realize they learn how to eat and they learn almost everything through repetition.This us very different from a deer running 20 minutes after it is born.

But the fact that if you pick up in infant, its legs will move in a walking pattern even though they can't support the infant's weight yet, is quite a lot like a deer running 20 minutes after it's born.

 

[Dinwar]

But the fact that if you pick up in infant, its legs will move in a walking pattern even though they can't support the infant's weight yet, is quite a lot like a deer running 20 minutes after it's born.

I'd be careful there--if your definition of "instict" is so broad that it includes even motions which are dictated and necessitated by physiology, your definition is so broad it's essentially meaningless. Legs only work in certain ways, and unless you are deformed those ways will look an aweful lot like walking.

 

[pakeha]

It's kind of humorous to hear people say humans have no instincts and yet believe humans are evolved animals like all the rest.

Of course, human beings have instincts. Doesn't mean they don't learn a lot as they have greater intellectual capacity, much greater, but to pretend all instinct is gone is silly and unscientific.

Hi randman.
I'd be interested in knowing what those instincts are.
Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

But the fact that if you pick up in infant, its legs will move in a walking pattern even though they can't support the infant's weight yet, is quite a lot like a deer running 20 minutes after it's born.

Yes but that also explain why the term 'instinct' is too vague to be useful. When do they start to do that? Is it really that coordinated, I think you will find that first they go to the hands and mouth.

yes there are neurological pathways being laid down along the enzyme gradients, all the time in neurological development. But an ungulate can walk in 20 minutes, a human infant in nine months, so if there is a similar process, it is very dilute. Humans may have reflexes to promote fuzzy learning of walking but not to the same order, much less degree.

My main issue is that there really are hardwired behaviors in many other animals that really are controlling these set behaviors of most members of the population, MAPs. male cats will almost always tend to express certain patterns of behavior, even if they are cut and have less testosterone.

But in humans there are none that we can see, the brain undergoes such explosive growth and has so many connections and patterns made through association, that there just isn't good evidence for hardwiring of specific behaviors. Most of the ‘programming’ seems to be associative and learned over time, now there is some heavy front loading in things like visual processing.

Now as I said I believe that biology is important, as someone who lives with major depression and OCD, I know how very important. But I think that humans have more general traits focused on general skills as opposed to hardwired traits based upon specific behaviors.

I believe very strongly that there is a biological component in language acquisition, as a general trait, when they show deep syntax in the brain, I will believe that. Right now I don't. And almost all children can learn to play a musical instrument if they are taught at the same time that language acquisition occurs, almost all of them. But I don't believe musical instrument behavior is a trait that was selected for.

I believe especially that there are specific windows of bonding when it comes to sexual attraction, but I do not believe that humans have mating behaviors like the tippy toe walk of male cats.

I am open to changing my beliefs, but so far most of the research on things like 'fear of snakes' is poorly controlled. Phobias are a whole other area of investigation the main phobia that people have is 'social anxiety disorder' and I do not see how that would be a beneficial 'fear' traits.

I am open to the ideas, I would just like better demonstration, so far most of them could be accounted for by a more general trait than a specific trait.

 

[MaxMurx]

Question from an uneducated near-chimp:

Sorry for being penetrant:

The question about the "stepwise" and not "dynamic" concept of evolution: Assumed that the species homo sapiens developped from primitive protozoa past more "organised" cell assemblies to vertebrae , then hominidae, homo erectus to homo sapiens (some stages left out). As it is probably correctly assumed; only minimal genetic mutations over very long periods of time lead to a higher developed phenotype/genotype/species (?). That must necessarily mean that there are individuals even between different species which must be very similar. Take humans: the lowest developped human should be quite comparable to the highest developped chimp. The remarkable difference with your friendly permission is a "step" in my view. I am aware of the theory that "intermediates" have been disappeared by back coupling effects, explaining the gaps. My understanding of that effect is that "homo neanderthalensis" is such an intermediate, but the present "homo sapiens" is more suited for survival and reproduction, so the neanderthalers "disappeared", or "homo sapiens" sprawled. What I do not understand in the logic of that concept:stage of evolution: chimp< neanderthaler< homo sapiens. Its the chimp which has to disappear as the lowest stage. However protozoa, molluscs, saurians and chimps survived and anyone of those has a higher developped stage of evolution which didn't, producing those "gaps". That is simply not logic to me, some piece of explanation could be missing and I will continue to ask questions even if my horizon is low and I am labeled "evolution denier". I don't talk about "creation" because this theory to me is absurd. However the alternative must remain open for questions and even "revisions", as any science.

 

[Dinwar]

Its the chimp which has to disappear as the lowest stage. However protozoa, molluscs, saurians and chimps survived and anyone of those has a higher developped stage of evolution which didn't, producing those "gaps".

Here's your flaw. Well, flaws.

1) There is no directionality in evolution (well, not in general--directional selection is entirely plausable in individual circumstances, but is not the primary driving force). Evolution is much more chaotic than that. So there is no such thing as a "higher" or "lower" species--the bacteria attacking your teeth right now are just as highly evolved as you are.

2) Whole taxa don't convert into whole new taxa. What happens is that a subpopulation of one species will drift away (genetic drift, different selection pressures, or some other reason) from the main population. Over time they stop being able to interbreed, and we call it a new species. The parant species still exists--the main population is still there, just like it always was. So the evolution of a new species does not mean that the old was wiped out. Or even that the old is less fit--often speciation happens within subpopulations at the very edge of the possible range for the parent species, where the species is JUST barely able to survive (and where selection pressure is highest). The daughter species may not be able to survive within the environment the parent species considers ideal.

The remarkable difference with your friendly permission is a "step" in my view.

Only because of temporal chovanism. No insult here--we're all guilty of it. If you lived, oh, 250,000 years ago you'd see very little difference between humans and chimps. 5 million years ago and there'd be no difference at all. So there was no step, just gradual transition. Or, more accurately, the steps are discrete mutations, it's just that our resolution in the fossil record is such that it appears to be continuous (think about looking at a circle on a screen--you're actually looking at discrete pixels, but your eyes cant' see that finely so it looks like a circle).

 

[pakeha]

A great post, Dinwar.