[_ Old Earth _] How Does Instinct Evolve?

[Asyncritus]

How does instinct evolve?

This is Biology's greatest unanswered question. It is also the one most fatal to evolution theory.

No matter where we turn in Biology, we are confronted by the phenomenon known as instinct.

Roughly speaking, it is unlearned behaviour which is transmitted from generation to generation.

Notice first, that it is 'unlearned' behaviour. If it is unlearned, then since it undoubtedly exists, then it must have come from elsewhere other than the natural world, and not by natural means.

We will see several monumental examples of this.

Second, if it is transmitted from generation to generation, then it must either be in the genome somewhere (even though it has not been shown to be there), or there is an external source of information which is available to any given species, but not to others.

The question which evolution has to answer, is in 2 parts:

1 How did the instinct arise?

2 And how did it enter the genome?

There are many examples given in my new book, which is here:

www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com

The book shows some of the most titanic examples of instinct in action that it is possible to conceive of, and yet which occur everywhere, and in all animals and plants.

Here is one such example, taken from the webpage above:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]

A Herring Gull Chick Taps the Red Spot on Its Mother’s Beak.​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The Mother Then Regurgitates Fish She Has Caught – So the Chick Can Eat and Survive.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Source: Herring Gull[/FONT]​

( A BBC video showing this happening is here: BBC - BBC Two Programmes - Springwatch, 2009, Episode 9, Tapping the parents)​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]​

They don't know it, but they've just asked ​

Biology's Biggest unanswered question...​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]How Does the Chick Know about Tapping Her Mother's Beak? [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]And How Does the Mother Know About Regurgitating Food for Her Chick? [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]If the chick doesn’t tap, it starves. If the mother doesn’t regurgitate, the chick starves. BOTH BEHAVIOURS had to appear at exactly the same time. How did it happen?[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]​

INSTINCT, yes! But...​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The New Book[/FONT]​

how does instinct evolve ?​

Answers the question.​

[/FONT]

 

[Alabaster]

Instinct is built in by the hand of our AWESOME Creator. It has never evolved.

 

[Asyncritus]

Instinct is built in by the hand of our AWESOME Creator. It has never evolved.

Good words!

 

[jasoncran]

ok,while i agree.i first thought this was a question on what the toe states on that.

 

[Scandinavian27]

Instinct evolving is impossible. It had to be something that was always there, or else living organisms would have made no progression in the first place.

 

[jasoncran]

i am waiting for the contra-argument as this is now a intellegent design thread.

 

[warhorse]

Instinct is built in by the hand of our AWESOME Creator. It has never evolved.

Agreed!!! creation by design.

 

[Asyncritus]

ok,while i agree.i first thought this was a question on what the toe states on that.

It's interesting to note that ToE says absolutely nothing about the matter.

 

[Asyncritus]

This is Biology’s greatest unanswered question (apart from the origin of life itself).

I would like to ask you people who have confrontations with evolutionists, to press home this fatal point.

Do not get yourself involved with the big word/technicalities syndrome. Assume that the feature has arisen and then go from there.

For example: don’t bother arguing whether a reptile could have evolved into a bird. Assume that it did! Then ask the question, which will invariably bring a loud silence, How did the first bird obtain the flight instincts which power the behaviour?

Don’t bother arguing whether amphibians evolved from fish. Assume that they did! Then ask, how did a fish obtain the instincts necessary to walk on land, breathe in air with lungs, and use the legs which must have appeared at some time. More silence.

WITHOUT THE POWERING INSTINCTS, EVERY ORGAN IS USELESS. That is the sum of the Law of Asynctropy which I state in the book.

But instincts are immaterial, and therefore not subject to the usual evolutionary processes. They could not, therefore, have ‘evolved’.

From whence, then, did they arise?

There is no argument against evolution which so powerfully demonstrates its utter uselessness and, dare I say it, its sheer stupidity.

Take people like Babinski for instance, who is one of the main protagonists of the origin of whales. I wonder how he sleeps at night.

The idea is that whales evolved from a land mammal, something like a fox (Pakicetus), and evolved into the monstrous deep-sea diving whales which go about a mile or more down into the oceans.

Whales, along with bats, dolphins, cave swallows and some other animals, use an extremely advanced system of echo-location. We won’t bother to argue the technicalities that can swamp non-technical people.

We merely inquire : how did the non-echolocating Pakicetus or its descendants ever acquire the necessary instincts?

Let’s grant that somehow, the usual suspects (like mutation, natural selection etc) finally did manage to produce the necessary echo-locating equipment. OK. Now what?

A sonar operator is never born with the ability to operate his echo-locating equipment.

It takes an awful lot of very sophisticated training to get him there. After all, no submarine commander wants an idiot operating the most important piece of apparatus on board when he is submerged.

So where did the whales’ ancestors get the necessary training even if they had the equipment?

And what did they do while they didn’t know how to operate it? They got killed, because they couldn’t tell an enemy was coming up fast on their starboard quarter – or they starved, because they couldn’t catch the food that was bumping on their noses.

The bats broke their fool necks jumping off cliffs. The cave swallows, flying at the relative speeds of F14 Phantoms in dark caves crashed and broke their bodies into little pieces, because they couldn't see where they were going.

So they all shouldn’t be here, really – but they still are!

Where did they get the necessary instincts? And most deadly of all, how did those instincts enter the genomes?

That is the substance of the book, and an even more fatal argument is presented in its pages, about the evolution of the living functions.

If this ever gets into the universities, it will destroy the theory, and along with it, the reputations of very many people who had not the wit and perspicacity to recognise the force or even the existence of the argument.

It is up to you readers, especially those of you who are in the Biology Departments, to make sure that it gets there.

http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com/

 

[jasoncran]

asynchritus, heres a more honest book for your reading by athiest and they agree with that learned behavior on evolution.

Amazon.com: What Darwin Got Wrong (9780374288792): Jerry Fodor, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: Books

i dont buy from amazon but i have read some of that book and its alot to ingest for me a laymen. so i havent finishe it. but what i have read would appear they that have a problem with instincts being just elvolved and the same with learned behavior.

 

[Asyncritus]

asynchritus, heres a more honest book for your reading by athiest and they agree with that learned behavior on evolution.

Amazon.com: What Darwin Got Wrong (9780374288792): Jerry Fodor, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: Books

i dont buy from amazon but i have read some of that book and its alot to ingest for me a laymen. so i havent finishe it. but what i have read would appear they that have a problem with instincts being just elvolved and the same with learned behavior.

Jason

I'd like your permission to put this material on the open forum, as it only has a very restricted audience here.

I believe there are many other people who at school or university or on other forums come across the subject every day.

If they aren't in the science forum group, then they'll never see it, and it is of far too great importance to restrict the numbers.

Thanks

Async

 

[Pard]

Yes, instincts evolved.

Here's how.

First God had this idea: "Instincts... yeah"

And then the idea evolved into actuality.

Since this topic seems oh-so stagnant:

Did instincts exist before the fall? Think about it. Pre-fall no animal needed to fear death and instincts are almost entirely for the purpose of protecting against an untimely death (be it from a predator, like deer, or from starvation, like wolves).

 

[Deavonreye]

So, . . . . your creator gave animals their instinct, . . . instincts that cause them to eat each other in a painful life and death dance.

"They weren't designed that way. That was the result of sin entering into the world." There, I stated that weak answer for you. Instinct causes a lot of death and suffering, . . . even extinction.

Anyway, I don't have the answer as to how instinct evolved. I'm sure there are papers that could be read for those who are truly interested in finding out what is believed rather than looking for some sort of "it couldn't have happened, thus evolution is wrong" smack down on what is not understood.

 

[Asyncritus]

So, . . . . your creator gave animals their instinct, . . . instincts that cause them to eat each other in a painful life and death dance.

"They weren't designed that way. That was the result of sin entering into the world." There, I stated that weak answer for you. Instinct causes a lot of death and suffering, . . . even extinction.

Anyway, I don't have the answer as to how instinct evolved. I'm sure there are papers that could be read for those who are truly interested in finding out what is believed rather than looking for some sort of "it couldn't have happened, thus evolution is wrong" smack down on what is not understood.

I take that as an 'I don't know, and nobody else does either'.

That's right, isn't it?

Asyncritus

 

[jasoncran]

Jason

I'd like your permission to put this material on the open forum, as it only has a very restricted audience here.

I believe there are many other people who at school or university or on other forums come across the subject every day.

If they aren't in the science forum group, then they'll never see it, and it is of far too great importance to restrict the numbers.

Thanks

Async

pm vic or nick on this as this will spark a science debate in the other forums.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey, where are all these pro-evolutionists then?

 

[jasoncran]

So, . . . . your creator gave animals their instinct, . . . instincts that cause them to eat each other in a painful life and death dance.

"They weren't designed that way. That was the result of sin entering into the world." There, I stated that weak answer for you. Instinct causes a lot of death and suffering, . . . even extinction.

Anyway, I don't have the answer as to how instinct evolved. I'm sure there are papers that could be read for those who are truly interested in finding out what is believed rather than looking for some sort of "it couldn't have happened, thus evolution is wrong" smack down on what is not understood.

sigh i will oblidge. hmm lets see here. what species to use.ah the great white shark

Instinct and Learning in the White Shark

 

[jasoncran]

The traditional view of shark intelligence is that they have none to speak of. It was taken for granted that a given stimulus would generate in any shark a specific, un-learned response. This response would be performed the same way, time-after-time, independent of context or probable survival value. In short: sharks were deemed to be little more than mindless automatons.

It had long been assumed that, like other sharks, the Great White operates largely on the basis of instinct. Instinct may be defined as a highly stereotyped (performed the same way each time) behavior, usually directed toward objects in the environment, that is more complex than simple reflexes. Certain instinctive behaviors may be modified through learning, but most tend toward a narrow, predictable response. Examples of instinctive behaviors in the White Shark include rolling the eye tailward when the snout touches an object and body language elicited in social contexts. Observations of baited White Sharks reveal that most individuals quickly learn that the bait, nearby boat and shark cages do not represent a threat to its eyes. In response, the eye-rolling behavior is greatly reduced and may discontinue altogether for as long as an individual shark is feeding in that now-familiar situation. This is an example of habituation. If, however, a human boldly — and ill-advisedly — reaches out to pat an inured White Shark on the head, the eye rolling behavior is likely to re-appear. Similarly, White Shark display behavior (body language) tends to be highly stereotyped. Yet this response, like the eye rolling behavior, is often muted with frequent exposure to the same context, as in areas where organized shark feedings are regularly choreographed for the benefit of tourists. It seems very likely that, when such intimate behaviors become better documented and understood, White Shark precopulatory rituals are also highly stereotyped.
As opportunistic predators that must perennially be willing to exploit new food resources, sharks often display overt curiosity toward novel objects in their environment. Porbeagles (Lamna nasus) off the Cornish coast seem to be utterly fascinated by the balloons that sport anglers use to hold their baited hooks a set distance below the surface. A fascinating 1996 paper by Wesley Strong demonstrated that, given a choice between a floating seal-shaped decoy and a floating plyboard square of comparable surface area, 9 to 31% of White Sharks tested off South Australia preferentially approached and visually inspected the square. There are numerous reports from South Australia and the Farallon Islands, California, of White Sharks slowly gliding past and even languidly circling professional abalone divers before peacefully swimming away. At no time did these sharks show any sign of aggression toward the divers; they merely gave the distinct impression of swimming by for a closer look at the unfamiliar phenomenon of a clumsy, bubbling biped. In a provocative 1996 paper, shark researchers Ralph Collier, Mark Marks, and Ronald Warner examined cases of White Shark attacks on inanimate objects along the Pacific coast of North America. Collier and his colleagues found that a wide variety of floating objects had been bumped and/or nipped by White Sharks and they noted that it seemed to make little difference what color, shape, size, or kind of movement (minimal, constant, or erratic) the objects had when struck. The only factor that seemed consistent among all cases was that the object was at the surface when struck, although this could represent observer bias — as surface-bound creatures, we have virtually no idea how often Great Whites or other sharks strike inanimate objects underwater. What is intriguing about these cases, however, is the fact that relatively little damage was inflicted against the objects struck by White Sharks — suggesting that the animals were examining rather than attempting to eat them. This, and other behavioral evidence, strongly suggests that the Great White experiences curiosity.
Sharks were long presumed to be too primitive and stupid to be capable of learning. In a pivotal 1963 paper, ichthyologist Eugenie Clark demonstrated that captive Lemon (Negaprion brevirostris) and Nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum) Sharks could learn and remember as well as some mammals. In as few as 10 trials, some of the Lemon Sharks learned to press their snouts against a submerged plyboard target and wait for an underwater bell before returning to a specific part of the pool to receive a 'reward' of food. This association of an action and a sound with the imminent arrival of food is an example of conditioning. By the end of the first week, all the sharks of both species learned to perform this task. When the water cooled in winter, the sharks lost interest in feeding and the experiment was temporarily suspended. But when the waters warmed in the spring — some 10 weeks later — the sharks were once again presented with the underwater target. To everyone's astonishment, the sharks performed perfectly, as though they had not lost a single day's practice.
Of course, pressing targets and ringing bells have little or no relation to feeding in the lives of wild sharks. Zoologists Robert Jackson and R. Stimson Wilcox have demonstrated that — despite their tiny, simple brains — jumping spiders of the genus Portia can learn to hunt other spiders using trial and error. Surely sharks — with their much larger and more complex brains — can also draw on experience to learn how to become more effective predators. One of the best-documented examples of this comes from the shallow waters off Hawaii. Each year, from June to August, the Line Islands are invaded by some 14 million seabirds of 15 species that migrate to these isolated sand cays to nest and rear their young. Among the squawking, flapping, guano-excreting hoard are hundreds of thousands of pairs of the Black-Footed Albatross (Diomedea nigripes). Black-Footed Albatross chicks grow rapidly on a diet of regurgitated fish and, by about mid-June, most are preparing to leave the nest. Each morning, when the wind rises off the surrounding sea, these fledglings test their developing flying muscles. Some flap impotently, others rise vertically a few feet off the ground for a few seconds at a time, and still others glide a short distance to set down in the shallow waters surrounding the place of their birth. Just offshore, in water only a few feet deep, aggregations of Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) wait for them. Tiger Sharks are only seen here for the two weeks or so that the albatrosses fledge. Initially, the Tiger Sharks have little success capturing the hapless albatross fledglings that plunk into the shallows — the light-weight chicks are pushed away from the surface-rushing sharks like corks bobbing on a bow-wave. The sharks are out of practice, as many of them have not tried to catch albatross chicks since the same season a year before. After a few days' of trial and error, however, the Tiger Sharks learn — or re-learn — the tricks essential to successful capture of the albatross chicks. The sharks learn that to ensure catching on of the bobbing birds, they must rise high out of the water. The sharks also learn that, if they miss a given chick, they are most likely to re-acquire it a short distance upwind — for that is where the panicked but weak bird will probably land. As we shall see in the next chapter, the White Shark also learns how to maximize its chances for predatory success.
Sharks earn their predatory living gliding through a complex, four-dimensional and dynamically changing liquid universe. Like its less infamous kin, the White Shark navigates from place to place in a visually concealing realm punctuated by acoustic, chemical, vibratory, and electrical signposts we do not yet know how to read. Until relatively recently, the comings and goings of the Great White and most other sharks were mysterious and completely unpredictable. But, thanks to the tireless efforts of hundreds of marine researchers, our near-total ignorance of shark movement patterns is slowly being replaced by the beginnings of an understanding.

 

[jasoncran]

Accumulated returns from shark tagging programs conducted since the mid-20th Century off the shores of many maritime countries have begun revealing basic patterns of seasonal migration in many species. More recently, sonic telemetry (the underwater equivalent of radio tagging) has elucidated the day-to-day movements of numerous species of sharks. These studies have revealed surprisingly well-defined and predictable patterns of movement for some shark species at certain locations. For example, off northern California and South Australia, sonic telemetry studies have shown that White Sharks move about in fairly regular and predictable patterns. Each autumn, from about August to November, White Sharks appear off the craggy and isolated Farallon Islands, California, apparently to prey upon the seals and sea lions that breed there. White Sharks in Spencer Gulf, South Australia patrol around and among the rocky islands in patterns that suggest the sharks form a resident population, each member with a discrete home range. At Rangiroa Atoll, French Polynesia, shark behaviorists Donald Nelson and Richard Johnson have found that sonically tagged Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) are astonishingly regular in their day-to-day movements. Johnson and Nelson found that these sharks' movements are so regular that they could predict, down to a matter of minutes, when and in what direction an individual shark would pass by a given point along its established route.
How do sharks manage to keep such well maintained schedules of time and space? The seasonal and daily movement patterns of the Port Jackson Shark (Heterodontus portusjacksoni) have for decades been studied by Australian zoologist A. Ken O'Gower. O'Gower found that these chubby, bottom-dwelling sharks repeatedly visit specific resting sites on rocky reefs at South Bondi, New South Wales, and — when disturbed — move directly from one site to another. In addition, he found that Port Jackson Sharks also use specific resting sites in Sydney Harbor and — when transferred by boat to different localities within the Harbor, up to 1.9 miles (3 kilometres) away — returned to their original resting sites. This is no mean feat, as Port Jackson Sharks average only about 2 feet (60 centimetres) in length. Working with his long-time colleague, fellow Aussie zoologist Allan Nash, O'Gower had previously used tagging to demonstrate that Port Jackson Sharks migrate from as far south as Tasmania to Sydney Harbour to lay their auger-shaped eggs at specific, traditional sites. Based on these studies of precision navigation in the Port Jackson Shark, O'Gower proposed in a bold 1995 paper that this species must have a highly developed spatial memory.
Many species of sharks utilize specific bays or other sheltered areas for egg-laying or pupping and still others for mating. It is likely that the White Shark, too, seeks out specific locations for giving birth and mating, but these remain to be discovered. As a prelude to mating, many shark species perform complex — and sometimes violent — precopulatory rituals, often resulting in females of the species receiving nasty-looking but not life-threatening scars on their nape, back, flanks or fins. These sexual rituals are absolutely vital to securing the mutual understanding and cooperation that intromission demands.
As well-armed creatures capable of seriously injuring one another, sharks have evolved many other complex and subtle social rituals. We are only just beginning to understand how to read shark body language. Many of the most overt signals occur in competitive contexts, such as during feeding on highly localized bait or in approach-withdrawal conflict situations. In the course of my own field research, I have discovered that shark threat displays are most often elicited when a shark's idiosphere (personal space) is persistently violated. I have also discovered that these so-called 'agonistic displays' vary from species to species, yet some common features of these displays are becoming clear. Observations of social interactions among White Sharks indicates that this species, too, has a complex and dynamic social life that is — for the most part — remarkably peaceful. White Shark social hierarchies are apparently relatively stable and peaceable: each member of a given population seems to understand its rank relative to the others, recalling which individuals are dominant over itself and which are submissive. When disputes over possession of a prey item or invasion of idiosphere occur, they are usually resolved non-violently through agonistic displays.
All of the foregoing strongly suggests that the mental universe of the White Shark is quite complex. Given its remarkable sensory talents, ability to examine, learn and remember, the strategic demands of predation and reproduction, the dynamic complexity of its social structure, and basic communicative ability, it is easy to appreciate why the Great White has evolved such a large, complex brain. What the White Shark does guided by that large, complex brain is a topic of much interest and debate. Much of that interest and debate has centered around the question of why the Great White sometimes bites, kills, or eats people (there's no interest like self-interest). We feel confident that if only we understood why White Sharks attack people, we might be better able to protect ourselves. But to understand why the Great White occasionally attacks humans, we need to explore how this creature thinks — especially how it perceives, learns about, and reacts to human beings in its environment. Understanding this holds important implications for humans who find themselves in the company of this very powerful and well-armed shark.

 

[Asyncritus]

Given its remarkable sensory talents, ability to examine, learn and remember, the strategic demands of predation and reproduction, the dynamic complexity of its social structure, and basic communicative ability, it is easy to appreciate why the Great White has evolved such a large, complex brain.

You know, the sheer stupidity of some of these comments defies belief.

Just the faintest bit of common sense would prevent volumes of evolutionary nonsense being written, and save an awful lot of trees from dying uselessly.

Why is that quoted statement so stupid?

Simple, really.

Did it evolve the 'large complex brain' BEFORE or AFTER these behaviours?

Did it evolve the 'large complex brain' IN ORDER TO have these behaviours? In which case there is that big bogey word coming into play: TELEOLOGY!

Or did it develop these behaviours AFTER it had the 'large complex brain'?
In which case the other big bogey word swings into play: LAMARCKISM!

Which?

But you notice, evolutionary theory only makes nonsense of what seems to be a good piece pf research. It was all good sense up to that point, and saying that particular piece of nonsense didn't add anything to the research, but makes the writer/s look unnecessarily foolish.

My doctrine of INSTINCT, the Law of Asynctropy says: Without the necessary, powering instinct, no organ or system, however perfect, is of any use whatsoever.

The shark's 'large complex brain' is useless unless the instincts which power its use are ALREADY BUILT IN.

So Who built them in?