Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[__ Science __ ] Instinct, by design or developed coincidence

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Whenever a behavior is inherently preformed without being based on teaching, modelling, or past experience (trial and error) we call it “instinctual”. Recently however scientists are concluding that it is more likely that these propensities and abilities are somehow already written in the genetic code or are pre-coded into what becomes their developed brain. In the former such actions would occur on a purely biological basis but if the latter is more correct (still being based in genetic transmission) then it could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply that important survival based memory is itself inherited.

Most likely in the end we will discover it is both the pre-planned program of the DNA but also the knowledge/experience being somewhat passed on (thus not nature or nurture or nature versus nurture but nature plus nurture).

Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch, or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast, or why fish are born already knowing how to swim properly, or why newly hatched turtles automatically migrate toward the water.
These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species. It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.

Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.

One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions, yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in. They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.

Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.

From what we can tell, this species specific and survival essential programming directed the first of each of these species as assuredly as it has its offspring all the way down to present times. There is nothing to suggest the first (however many) fish offspring did not automatically know how to swim properly and know how to seek and obtain food and distinguish the good from the not good or that the earliest turtles did not migrate toward the water immediately following the hatching process, and so on.

Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?
 
Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.

The interesting thing is, a lot of our problems seem to come about from the fact that we aren't designed from scratch, but were modified from pre-existing models. Our brains aren't brand-new, but are old models, with new attachements. So all that instinctive stuff is still there, albeit normally suppressed by higher-level structures. Turns out that the balance between two fairly small brain structures is highly predictive of whether one sees new things as interesting or threatening, and can even accurately predict political inclination. We aren't all that liberated from instinct.

One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions,

Everything that happens in the brain is the result of "mere chemical reactions." The mind is not merely the functioning of the brain, but that is one of the things it is.

yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in.

The old structures are still there, buried under the cerebrum. They still work. The problem is, neurology that was adaptive and favored by natural selection millions of years ago, may not be so adaptive today. We struggle with those ghosts of the past constantly

They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.

"Software" would be learning. "Firmware" would be changes in function for older neuroanatomy. "Hardware" would be the neurons functioning as they always have.
 
The interesting thing is, a lot of our problems seem to come about from the fact that we aren't designed from scratch, but were modified from pre-existing models. Our brains aren't brand-new, but are old models, with new attachements. So all that instinctive stuff is still there, albeit normally suppressed by higher-level structures. Turns out that the balance between two fairly small brain structures is highly predictive of whether one sees new things as interesting or threatening, and can even accurately predict political inclination. We aren't all that liberated from instinct.



Everything that happens in the brain is the result of "mere chemical reactions." The mind is not merely the functioning of the brain, but that is one of the things it is.



The old structures are still there, buried under the cerebrum. They still work. The problem is, neurology that was adaptive and favored by natural selection millions of years ago, may not be so adaptive today. We struggle with those ghosts of the past constantly



"Software" would be learning. "Firmware" would be changes in function for older neuroanatomy. "Hardware" would be the neurons functioning as they always have.

Great perpsective, thanks...
 
Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?
I think very few species would have developed (if any) if instincts had to be "encoded" over multiple generations of trial and error. The archetypes would have died off before they could reproduce.

just me....

iakov the fool
 
Whenever a behavior is inherently preformed without being based on teaching, modelling, or past experience (trial and error) we call it “instinctual”. Recently however scientists are concluding that it is more likely that these propensities and abilities are somehow already written in the genetic code or are pre-coded into what becomes their developed brain. In the former such actions would occur on a purely biological basis but if the latter is more correct (still being based in genetic transmission) then it could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply that important survival based memory is itself inherited.

Most likely in the end we will discover it is both the pre-planned program of the DNA but also the knowledge/experience being somewhat passed on (thus not nature or nurture or nature versus nurture but nature plus nurture).

Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch, or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast, or why fish are born already knowing how to swim properly, or why newly hatched turtles automatically migrate toward the water.
These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species. It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.

Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.

One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions, yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in. They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.

Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.

From what we can tell, this species specific and survival essential programming directed the first of each of these species as assuredly as it has its offspring all the way down to present times. There is nothing to suggest the first (however many) fish offspring did not automatically know how to swim properly and know how to seek and obtain food and distinguish the good from the not good or that the earliest turtles did not migrate toward the water immediately following the hatching process, and so on.

Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?
That's deep...
I'm flirting with the idea that we are a computer construction
 
I think very few species would have developed (if any) if instincts had to be "encoded" over multiple generations of trial and error. The archetypes would have died off before they could reproduce.

just me....

iakov the fool

Me thinks you are right on there Mr. Iakov
 
I think very few species would have developed (if any) if instincts had to be "encoded" over multiple generations of trial and error. The archetypes would have died off before they could reproduce.

Humans, for example are innately afraid of three things:
1. Falling
2. Loud noises
3. Snakes

All of these have strong selective values. So any ancestor that had a heightened arousal to those stimuli, would have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce.

And that's all that's necessary.
 
Humans, for example are innately afraid of three things:
1. Falling
2. Loud noises
3. Snakes

All of these have strong selective values. So any ancestor that had a heightened arousal to those stimuli, would have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce.

And that's all that's necessary.

That is most likely true, though I suspect the "snakes" category was larger and maybe even varied by geological location (fear of any killer creatures relative to the population). Also these could have been learned early on in the generations and reinforced epigenetically...

The autonomic response system (fight and flight mechanisms) were undoubtedly in place and functional right in the first couples (these differ relative to each species needs). These were also a predetermined form/function that even when we were cellularly undifferentiated embryos was already in place to eventually unfold.

More basic to it is a survival instinct and the associated pleasure/pain principle. All that populations experienced as pleasurable/life enhancing or having positive effect in dealing with the environmental milieu were sought and repeated and passed on and all that caused pain/death and exposure was avoiuded and taught to be avoided (some built in some taught or modeled).

But having said that, that some is inherently predetermined by the genetic code is now obvious and even at that overall most primative level those instructions are already in place. The plan for them (biochemically) was extremely complex and specific and essential to their earliest ancestral survival as a species.
 
Last edited:
That is most likely true, though I suspect the "snakes" category was larger and maybe even varied by geological location (fear of any killer creatures relative to the population).

Those three are found in all populations of humans.

Also these could have been learned early on in the generations and reinforced epigenetically...

Unlikely. Epigenetic changes seem to last for two or three generations at most. While such adaptations can evolve for various things, they don't cause permanent changes in the genome.

Apparently, other hominoids have the same basic wired-in fears, so the indication is that it's older than H. sapiens.
 
Whenever a behavior is inherently preformed without being based on teaching, modelling, or past experience (trial and error) we call it “instinctual”. Recently however scientists are concluding that it is more likely that these propensities and abilities are somehow already written in the genetic code or are pre-coded into what becomes their developed brain. In the former such actions would occur on a purely biological basis but if the latter is more correct (still being based in genetic transmission) then it could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply that important survival based memory is itself inherited.

Most likely in the end we will discover it is both the pre-planned program of the DNA but also the knowledge/experience being somewhat passed on (thus not nature or nurture or nature versus nurture but nature plus nurture).

Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch, or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast, or why fish are born already knowing how to swim properly, or why newly hatched turtles automatically migrate toward the water.
These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species. It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.

Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.

One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions, yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in. They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.

Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.

From what we can tell, this species specific and survival essential programming directed the first of each of these species as assuredly as it has its offspring all the way down to present times. There is nothing to suggest the first (however many) fish offspring did not automatically know how to swim properly and know how to seek and obtain food and distinguish the good from the not good or that the earliest turtles did not migrate toward the water immediately following the hatching process, and so on.

Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?

I think that there are no coincidences on this planet. Our (instinct) is pre-programmed into our DNA. Our DNA holds the entire record of our entire ancestry's line of experience up until the moment we were conceived.

I hear it coming Lol. What about Adam & Eve? I'm glad you asked, it's simple. They had God DNA. A teeny bit of course because God wanted us to learn.

Then when they fell, their DNA was changed, methinks. I also think our DNA strand gets longer with each successive generation.

I think the mark of the beast will be a thing which somehow changes mans DNA . That's why those people will be non-redeemable.

I think that everything that we ever do, think or speak makes changes in our DNA. (It would have to since it us a record. )

On the flip side, being born again affects our DNA...and partaking of communion!
 
Interesting Barbarian! You said "Unlikely. Epigenetic changes seem to last for two or three generations at most. While such adaptations can evolve for various things, they don't cause permanent changes in the genome."

And yes that is how epigenetics seems to work (the sins of the fathers unto the third or fourth generation) so long as the habit or behavior is not mimicked. If mimicked (and it usually is) it continues on. The reinforcement of generation after generation continues the effect. It is like a curse in which the repetition of subsequent generations at some point must be broken long enough to allow the effect to fade out.

Id the propensity reinforced for example is alcoholism eventually a generation (or individual) must make a choice to not indulge and raise their children not to indulge and hopefully after three or four generations of non-indulgence the effect fades.
 
I think that there are no coincidences on this planet. Our (instinct) is pre-programmed into our DNA. Our DNA holds the entire record of our entire ancestry's line of experience up until the moment we were conceived.

I hear it coming Lol. What about Adam & Eve? I'm glad you asked, it's simple. They had God DNA. A teeny bit of course because God wanted us to learn.

Then when they fell, their DNA was changed, methinks. I also think our DNA strand gets longer with each successive generation.

I think the mark of the beast will be a thing which somehow changes mans DNA . That's why those people will be non-redeemable.

I think that everything that we ever do, think or speak makes changes in our DNA. (It would have to since it us a record. )

On the flip side, being born again affects our DNA...and partaking of communion!

Great post! Gives one things to ponder. Without a doubt DNA is constantly adding subtracting repairing and changing (though as Barbarian pointed out most are not permanently effectual). But it would be interesting to see the genome of pagans like I was and how that has changed since the Spirit came to live in me, There is no doubt His presence changed my thinking and behavior over the past 30 years but can we see changes in my genome? Hmmm?

Example: I broke the cycle of alcoholism in my family (by choice because of the Spirit in me) and three of my four children are not partaking (maybe on an occasion here or there)...one line (my youngest daughter) is continuing the problem and she has a drinking husband as well,,,and sadly, as we know, children learn more from what they live than what they are taught. Her oldest child (a boy) is adamant about never becoming and alcohol freak because of how he saw the effect on his household (he sought to be baptized and accepted Christ at 13) as for the younger daughter I can only pray and hope and council.
 
. But it would be interesting to see the genome of pagans like I was and how that has changed since the Spirit came to live in me, There is no doubt His presence changed my thinking and behavior over the past 30 years but can we see changes in my genome? Hmmm?

I can't see the changes in my genome either, but I can feel them! I am NOT like I used to be. It's ever so slowly of a process for believers to be sanctified & purified. It is my speculation that the Lord can only work on us inside, to effect these changes...when we are in His presence. That our participation is required in that we must feed our spirit His word, and come into His presence in prayer.

I've also come to realize that fasting (from things of the world), and communion, are both necessary and more helpful than we ever been taught...
 
I can't see the changes in my genome either, but I can feel them! I am NOT like I used to be. It's ever so slowly of a process for believers to be sanctified & purified. It is my speculation that the Lord can only work on us inside, to effect these changes...when we are in His presence. That our participation is required in that we must feed our spirit His word, and come into His presence in prayer.

I've also come to realize that fasting (from things of the world), and communion, are both necessary and more helpful than we ever been taught...
WOW!
Excellent post.

iakov the fool
 
Great post! Gives one things to ponder. Without a doubt DNA is constantly adding subtracting repairing and changing (though as Barbarian pointed out most are not permanently effectual). But it would be interesting to see the genome of pagans like I was and how that has changed since the Spirit came to live in me,

Our behavior is mostly not in our genes, but in our learning.

Genomes don't change, although gene expression is often mediated by environment. For example, many enzymes have regulators that keep the gene for the enzyme turned off unless the specific substrate is actually present.
 
There are so many instances of specific behaviors that simply can't be explained the way academia wishes to hand-wave God away. "Instinct" simply means seeing God, revealing Himself in the natural world.

When our species figures out HOW God did it, then it becomes valid science.
 
Back
Top